Talk:War in Somalia (2006–2009)/Archive 2
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2|
- 1 Martial Law
- 2 Incorrect Source in Historical Background?
- 3 Withdrawal
- 4 Article splitting
- 5 What happens next?
- 6 United States as a combatant.
- 7 Insurgency
- 8 Reconciliation conference?
- 9 War Over?
- 10 Removed US weapons from table
- 11 Legitimacy
- 12 Casualities
- 13 Up to date info?
- 14 Galmudug? Puntland?
- 15 2008 needs updating
- 16 Where are the 2,000 Eritrean troops? Please remove it ASAP, it is false...no Eritrean troops where in Somalia
- 17 POV Problems
- 18 Rebels Advance
- 19 New Map
- 20 new name needed
- 21 How in the World?
- 22 Insurgency or Dialogue?
- 23 Discuss current STATUS
- 24 ICU side
- 25 US Involvement and Tacit/Explicit Backing of Ethiopia
- 26 Districts with Unknown Status
- 27 Merge
- 28 New Name: Ethiopian War in Somalia (2006–2009)
I dont know if this would go on this page or another but I was wondering if someone was going to put up information about the martial law and press closures. --Merhawie 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I already added the section about press closures on the page for Propaganda in the War in Somalia. There already was a note about martial law. See the second paragraph of Ethiopian military presence. Feel free to add more if you wish it to be more prominent. Note that there was the day that Ghedi announced his intention to declare it, and the day that the Parliament voted to approve it. Those are two separate events. --Petercorless 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect Source in Historical Background?
The Historical Background sub-category claims as an example of Somali-Ethiopian conflict: "1998–2000 Cross-border warfare during the chaotic warlord-led era." But the source for this claim talks solely of conflict between the militaries of Ethiopia and Eritrea, not Somalia. This claim needs to be removed unless there is another source for it. -- TexasDawg 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, this site may have changed or perhaps was always wrong. Regardless, I have found an alternative source for Ethiopia's incursions into and occupation of Gedo in 1999. --Ingoman 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ethiopian forces have started withdrawing from Somalia. TFG has assured the Somalians that it can secure law and order in the country and that in two weeks time African peace keepers will be entering Somalia.
Source: http://www.aigaforum.com/ (government-run)
- Done --Petercorless 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So. As the article grew enormous, I decided to split the events part. So, we have the 2006 and ongoing-2007 timelines. The parts in this article, however, need to keep a overview of the events in 2006 and 2007 (not yet done). I call on editors to continue their work on Timeline of the War in Somalia: 2007. The template has also been upgraded to feature that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Sounds fair. Yes. It was getting rather long and huge. --Petercorless 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- also, an admin should archive this talk page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please respect the changed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and move this article back to the name with the en-dash replaced through normal hyphens. The bug is reported as MediaZilla:8660. --18.104.22.168 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What happens next?
- Everything is in a state of flux at the moment. Sharif Sheikh Ahmed may or may not join the government, the insurgency may gain ground and topple the government or it may fade away, the Ethiopians may leave or they may be forced to stay, the AU may send peacekeepers or they might not. --Ingoman 16:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
United States as a combatant.
On the information box, USA is marked as a combatant. USA didin't actively participate in the war(landing forces, missile strikes) and chose only to attack Al Qaida instead of Islamic Courts Union. I believe we should categorise USA as supporter of Ethiopia and Transitional Government of Somalia or put it in as limited participant. 22.214.171.124 11:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The United States considers the ICU itself to be part of 'al-Qaeda', so the distinction isn't very accurate. For instance the US recently offered airlift for AU peacekeepers so the ICU, whom Jenyadi Frazer referred to as "those terrorists", don't just step into the power vacuum. --Ingoman 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The US has now conducted two airstrikes, is part of the multinational task force providing a sea cordon, and also has advisors on the ground. They are far involved in a supporting role with a few airstrikes to boot. --Petercorless 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In a few weeks, it seems: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070130.wsomalia0130/BNStory/International/home —Nightstallion (?) 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
i agree, why does the article mention as an "ongoing" war? the war has been over almost 6 weeks ago in january 3. if insurgency is called "war" then technically all wars in world history should be called "ongoing" too because there is a lot of insurgency in every tense spot aorund the world. So someone please explain below, because the war has been over a long long time ago.
- There are daily or near-daily attacks, much as there are in the War in Iraq. Remember the declaration of "Mission Accomplished?" Let's not be rash to close the book on this war until there is some sort of official declaration citable in media, such as a declaration by leaders of a settlement. Also, the Ethiopian troops stationed in Somalia have not yet been withdrawn. --Petercorless 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
See these three conflicts:
Note the first, quick invasion phase and prolonged insurgency afterwards. Now, in Somalia, the insurgent attacks seem pretty heavy.  I think whether the Ethiopians leave or not, AU soldiers would also be targeted and it is giong to continue --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed US weapons from table
The US Fifth Fleet did not fly the AC-130s that struck in Somalia. The other weapons cited did not take part in the war per se, though they may have flown interdict missions over the Indian Ocean. Let's not overstate the US role in the war. --Petercorless 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand by what legitimacy the Islamists are called insurgents. There is no political process that has ever legitimized the various proto-government forces in Somalia. Somalia is a very tricky case to talk about NPOV because we haven't had other good examples of failed states living in anarchy for many years. No warlord is capable of controlling enough to become defacto ruler of Somalia, no state has enough power or will to create effective government. There is no legitimate government now nor are the proto-government forces from Ethiopia legitimate. eRipley 05:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- hmm interesting it says 8,000 Islamic casualties and that's more than the men they had at all. I've added the Ethiopian KIA. Let's keep the 1,300 (Ethiopian claimed) ICU KIA as it becomes more clearer --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Up to date info?
There hasn't been much western coverage on the political and military developments in Somalia aside from reports of the Islamists in Mogadishu - what's going on with the status of Puntland, Galmudug, and Somaliland? --NEMT 15:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Galmudug seem non-existent! Puntland is control of that region and puntland still claims areas Galmudug seems to claim. --Samantar Abdirisaq 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What's going on with these self proclaimed states? --NEMT 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
2008 needs updating
The insurgency has gained strength and have shifted tactics from fighting in Mogadishu to taking over Southern Somalia bit by bit to cut off the Ethiopian and Somali forces in Beledweyne,Baidoa and Mogadishu. Kismayo is now funding the Insurgents and the President of the TFG has finally agreed on talks just has the situation is becoming dire for the TFG. Sounds like an act of desperation to me but thats pov. Whats not POV is that the Insurgents have gained strength. The Ethiopians are changing their tactics. This year needs to be updated because it looks set to be the most important. Anybody want to help me? Furious Stormrage (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it's been a week since I wrote that and I haven't much since then. That's because I started a new job and I needed to go to training and then take exams. I only finished the first part of three training sessions. I was busy but my little sister took the opportunity to go and mess around with the computer which meant that I lost everything I had on the computer. I'm going to have to search for them again. Furious Stormrage (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Where are the 2,000 Eritrean troops? Please remove it ASAP, it is false...no Eritrean troops where in Somalia
The article points out Ethiopian HR violations and does a good job documenting them. It is silent on ICU HR violations. There is a bias here and it needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- yes, the 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia has been updated --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
They weren't neutral. They were allied with Islamic Cours Union (Asmara) member Indahadde. They just "switched" sides during the invasiong and "switched" back when in actual fact they didn't really change. Al-Shabab got rid of them because they were effectively warlords.Furious Stormrage (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
new name needed
Now, when the Ethiopian forces are out of Somalia the page should be renamed to War in Somalia (2006-2009) and a new section (in Somalia Civil War)/new article should be formed for the current events from 2009 onwards, after the Ethiopian withdraw. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
How in the World?
- I think that only the color is the same, but the groups in control of these regions are different than TFG. Maybe the map legend-of-colors is wrong. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Which ahl Sunna wal Jammah are you talking about? The real one which is non-violent wasn't never that political and kept on urging Yusuf and Nur Adde to get over their problems. The warlords in Central Somalia pretending to be Islamists are only there for themselves. They might join for clan loyalties though all though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Stormrage (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I actually interviewed a few ASWJ guys a few days ago, it's backed by ARS-Djibouti, and headquartered in Mogadishu, and is the moderate answer to al-Shabaab. Most of their ranks are made up of veterans of the Mogadishu and Shabelle Valley war with Ethiopia, which was the main theatre of war, and they actually have rather more firepower and manpower than al-Shabaab. If they go to war, it will be over rather quickly. --Ingoman (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Which guys did you talk to? The clan group or the religous one? My family had dealings with the religious group and it stands contrary to what they've said and done. Especially showing the dead pictures of Shabab fighters on the internet. I personally don't doubt if ARS supports them. Al-Shabab is a huge obstacle to them and they are willing to work with the TFG with all of the warlords in it what is more group going to do? Furious Stormrage (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Insurgency or Dialogue?
The introduction makes it seem like that the Ethiopians withdrew because of dialouge and not because of Insurgency. I wouldn't put to much stock on what the Ethiopian government say since they declared to have fatally weakened Al-Shabab who were a threat to Ethiopia... the day when Al-Shabab took the seat of the parliment and scattered what little was left of the TFG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Stormrage (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Discuss current STATUS
I believe there is a dispute about the status of the war in Somalia. Somalia has been in civil war for many years and the different battles can be confused for wars or vice versa. I support the idea of dividing them in phases inside one article. The rise of Sheikh Aweys led Islamic Courts Union (ICU) came due to their victory over the CIA funded Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, whose leaders also made up some of the Somalia Transitional Federal Parliament (TFG). Ethiopia, under US support, intervened to help the TFG for the most part. There were, i believe, peace talks before the battle began and it involved between TFG and the moderate parts of the ICU led by Sheikh Sharif Ahmed. The talks failed and after the TFG and Ethiopian troops defeated the military wing of ICU, al shabab, and took over Mogadishu and stationed African Union (AU) troops, a new phase began. This new phase was an insurgency. We can argue that we should have started a new article page here. Anyway, after a long and devastating unconventional battle, the power sharing deal signed in Djibouti has certainly allowed a more inclusive TFG that brought in the moderate islamists into the TFG. While al shabaab has taken over some towns, pro-TFG moderate islamist militia like Ahlu Sunnah Waljama'ah (which many claim is supported and armed by Ethiopia) also have captured several towns from the al shabab. Obviously, the conflict will continue. I am sure Ethiopia was not planning on colonizing Somalia forever so i do not see Ethiopia's withdrawal (following a power sharing deal in Djibouti that strengthened TFG base by including oppositions and rival clans like Hawiye) as something that awarded al shabab permenant victory. Even more so since the Ethiopia backed TFG is still in the capital city and the Ethiopia backed and Pro-TFG moderate islamist militias are fighting (in some cases winning against) the hardline al Shabab. In general, this is an "ongoing" war until a central government that has full control of all parts of Somalia establishes itself. The alternative, which i don't support due to its complexity, is to divide each small parts of the battles and phases into different articles. Jack248 13:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ridiculous, it's not one giant conflict, in fact this article should properly only start in 2007, as the insurgency is a seperate conflict from the UIC-TFG war of 2006. You have a very narrow and one-dimensional view of Somali politics. --Ingoman (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not one giant conflict that is very true but the focus of the article is on a specific conflict. For example White Eyed is seen on the same side has Al-Shabab despite the fact that Al-Shabab hates him for being a warlord and he doesn't like them for kicking him out of his former area. Either way the current phase of the war is still on. The TFG still existences and Al-Shabab,the ARS-Asmara Wing and other affiliated groups won't stop until they are gone and the AU forces leave. The recent merger doesn't change the opinion of many people except from people of the Hawiye clan (my clan) who support the fact that one of them is a President while Somalilanders and people from other clans are wary. The exact situation except with Abdullahi Yusuf. Furious Stormrage (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are people who now oppose the TFG that did not before. Puntland and all of Harti have gone from steadfast support to open hostility for instance. The UIC, ASWJ, the Hawiye establishment and the entire population of Hiraan, Middle Shabelle and Banaadir have delcared their support for Sharif Sheikh Ahmad. NONE of those groups supported the TFG before the election, except ASWJ who indirectly supported the TFG by opposing al-Shabab. The Mujahideen Youth Movement has just split after the election into al-Shabab (Bay, Lower Shabelle and Bakool) and Hizbul Islaami (Hassan Turki's Ras Kambooni as well as the Kismayo and Middle Juba admins). In point of fact, the only people to have been attacked in the last 4 days was Uganda's AMISOM forces. This is a whole different conflict, if there IS even a conflict after this, it will be either between the TFG and Puntland, or the TFG and al-Shabaab, or both. That is a completely different conflict, contradictory in fact to the previous one. There has been a COMPLETE re-alignment in the south. --Ingoman (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ingoman, this article is on the conflict between Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian troops and their TFG allies. Check the Afghan civil war article, it is also broken down into four different articles, just like the Sri Lankan civil war article is also. This particular conflict, like the Rise of the ICU in the period of 2006, is over and has ended with an Islamist victory. Ethiopian troops withdrew, they can claim all they want that they established a situation for a TFG government, but the TFG government they left behind doesn't exist anymore. This new Transitional government that has been formed is made up mostly of moderate Islamist insurgents who are not radicals like Al-Shabaab. Also, the fighting has died down mostly in the country since the insurgents took Baidoa, the only fighting still going on is between Al-Shabaab and the peackeepers and Al-Shabaab and remnents of the TFG that are represented by a Sufi militia. This phase of the civil war has ended. Start another article, if there is any need actualy for one, because if Al-Shabaab decides in the coming months to join with the ICU elements that form the current government then this overall civil war is probably at an end, it will be only a localised insurgency after this at best by rouge TFG militias. But if there is a war between the moderate and the radical Islamists then there you have your next article for the next phase of the war.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the Afghan civil war pages which has already set a precedent. The conflict is split even though only one actor left. By the way Ingoman I'm going to have to disagree about the Hawiye support of the TFG. There was a mild support indeed portions of their security forces came from clans in the South Mogadishu. It was mainly for tribal reasons. You could see this in the conflict. The Insurgents had effective control of the North because ICU clan links. They mostly sided with the TFG since it was seen has a Puntland/Darood organization which even Gedi couldn't counteract after the Insurgents started to become popular. Now their is another sudden change which I knew was going to happen. My people are depressingly predictable. Puntland is against the TFG because a Darood isn't leading it and the Hawiye are for it because a Hawiye is leading it. Just look at the places celebrating Jowhar,Beledweyne,Mogadishu all places with significant Hawiye populations. Like the typical clanists (not sure if this is a proper english word but I do know English speaking Somalis use it a lot) will talk about unity and Islam in public and then about the clan in private. Same thing happened in 2006,2007,2008 with Abdullahi Yusuf Furious Stormrage (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This war was the war between the Ethiopian Army and TFG on the one side and the Islamic insurgency on the other. That war is over, the next phase of the overall civil war is between ARS-TFG, Sufi militia (former members of TFG) & al-Shabaab. The old TFG and the Ethiopians no longer exist as participants in the war. Start a new article.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Sufis weren't so much pro-TFG as they were anti-Alshabaab, and the only government that have explicitly backed was Sharif Ahmed's. I'm not even sure they were pro-TFG when Abdullahi Yusuf was in charge. --Ingoman (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that the war has ended at all. I just added the latest grim news today (Saturday Feb 7) in which the radical islamists have attacked TFG President Ahmed and the al shabaab accusing the new TFG president of accepting secular TFG principles and working with Ethiopia and UN. It seems like President Ahmed going to Addis Ababa and pledging to work with regional IGAD countries has angered the radical islamists. Anyway, the most vital aspect of this war is actually the original purpose of Western/Ethiopian/AU/UN intervention. Here are 2 sides (motives) of the battle.
1- The extremist islamists wanted to install a radical islamist government, rejected the TFG and a top ICU official even claimed jihad on Ethiopia and a plan to get back somali populated regions in Ethiopia and Kenya. (i believe these are Ogadeen of Ethiopia and NFD of Kenya)
2- Meanwhile, the Western/Ethiopian/AU intervention appeared to have a goal of installing the secular TFG government that is inclusive enough to bring peace by including moderates and creating a government that does not wage war on Ethiopia (and somali region of Kenya) to recover somali populated territories.
I don't think the West/Ethiopia/AU have achieved their goals. And from what i have seen so far, none of the goals of the al shabab have materalized. In fact, they are calling the new president a 'traitor" and pledged to continue the war. So the article will have to be tagged as an "Ongoing" conflict. Even if we disregard the TFG and moderate islamists of President Ahmed as well as the AU force, it is hard to ignore the Ethiopia-armed pro-TFG Ahlu Sunnah Waljama'ah militias which have mostly defeated al shabaab in most of Galgaduud. Jack248 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not the same war anymore, the previous one was between Ethiopia (primarily) and the TFG on the one side and on the other side were al-Shabaab and the moderate ICU. That war ended with the withdrawal of Ethiopia, after they retreated out of the country the TFG as we knew it stoped to exist. Only the TFG's hardline fighters in the Ahlu Sunnah Waljama'ah militias continued to fight the Islamists. What was left of the TFG's forces and their so-called government was assimilated by the moderate Islamists, in essence the ICU now calling themselves ARS. All of the territories under the current ARS-TFG government is in fact under the control of the moderate wing of the Islamist insurgency. Again, the moderate wing of the insurgency made a deal with what was left of the TFG to stop the fighting between them and form a coalition government, but the ARS (formerly ICU) is the one running the show. You said the main original purpose of this phase of the civil war was the Western/Ethiopian/AU/UN intervention. Well that no longer exists. The Western TFG is gone, the Ethiopians are gone, and the way things are now the AU force will be catching the first ride out of the country if they know what's good for them. This is a tottaly new phase of the overall civil war. This is a war between Islamist factions now. The moderates and the radicals. Al-Shabaab on the one side and the ARS and the pro-Ethiopian Suffi militia on the other. So, please listen to me. The main causes of this particular phase of the war are gone, finitto, caput, etc. So, in a few days I will start a new article that would cover the new phase of the civil war. I will call it something like 2009 Somali Islamist inter-factional war. And I will add a link to that article in the results section of this one. OK? Cheers!BobaFett85 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
[From the same poster as above] I think the article should be called the 'ethiopian invasion' and kept the same way. The fact that the broders have stopped moving and only a handfull of attacks seems to me that the war is over. Besides the ICU have switch sides and it would be confusing to have them on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- See above post about name change. I think that there should be a new article about "2009-present civil war" (the new TFG+ICU vs. other insurgents), but the current article should be kept as "2006-2009 conflict" previous-TFG vs. insurgents (ICU and others). As it seems in the Somali Civil War there are multiple phases (pre-government fall of Siad Barre 1986-1991, after fall of Siad Barre 1991-1992, UN intervention 1992-1995, after UN intervention 1995-2004, TFG initiative 2004-2006, rise of ICU 2006, Ethiopia intervention 2006-2009, new TFG+ICU initiative 2009-present) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
US Involvement and Tacit/Explicit Backing of Ethiopia
While it might be a prickly issue for many, I believe this article needs to also fold in mentions of the United States' involvement in the region. The accusations of the UIC/SICC is that Ethiopia, a mainly-Christian nation, is seen as a US-proxy in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The US further heightens that perception when the US State Department says that al Qaeda cells are in control of the UIC. However, broader discussion probably belongs on a GWOT-oriented page primarily. Yet this adds a new layer to the onion, as it were, thus bore mentioning in this topic. -- Petercorless 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I noted someone tried to tag the page as part of the "War on Terrorism" at the bottom, and TheFEARgod removed it. This will be one of the POV arguments which will develop over time, as US sympathies seem to lie with Ethiopia. The US government has asserted Al Qaeda involvement on the part of the ICU. The ICU openly calls for jihad. Osama bin Laden has directed mujahideen to go to Somalia. Many comparisons of the ICU to the Taliban of Afghanistan are being written and published around the Internet. It will mean that, eventually, this war may be asserted to be part of the Global War on Terrorism regardless of the more local or regional reasons for the conflict. I for one am not against putting it in the category, but feel this should be put to discussion of the observers and participants of these pages. We might also wait to see how the conflict plays out to be conservative. Yet I know the topic has been brought up in at least a few editorials and analyses on the Internet. --Petercorless 17:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would point out (especially concerning the first poster) that Ethiopia is not really a "Christian nation" and the CIA lists the population as around 50% Muslim. Furthermore, the Somali Transitional Government (which is being backed by Ethiopia) is all Muslim, to my knowledge. I wouldn't be so quick to label this as "Christian vs. Muslim" fighting. It's more like Christians, Muslims, and secularists vs. jihadi. Especially since the ICU is supported by al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and the ICU leaders have declared jihad against Ethiopia and actively recruited foreign Islamists to fight the moderate Transitional Government. Roland Deschain 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of GWOT and such, I think this article needs to be clearer on what the US and UK are actually doing in the region. Passing mention of some-or-other Somali warlord's involvement seems reasonable, but only mentioning in passing air raids and what not by a country quarter-way around the world seems like someone is trying to tone down what's going on. "Move along people, nothing here to see!"... It feels very very NPOV to me. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Districts with Unknown Status
I have no information as to the status of:
- Afmadow (or Almadow)
- Cadale (or Adale)
- Aadan (or Adan)
- Ceel Buur (or El Bur)
- Ceel Dheer (or El Dhere)
The following statement is too simplistic, even with the "present times" qualifier: "Ethiopian involvement in Somalia in present times began with the collapse of the central government in Somalia in 1991." The Somalia-Ethiopia tangle goes back well in to the Cold War--Haile Selassie's government was a US-client-state and the minute he was overthrown the US became a friend of the Somalis and the Soviets switched their horse at the same time. Fascinating coincidence! In fact the collapse of Somali central government was in direct reaction to the US misreading the Cold War endgame on the Horn of Africa. See also Osama bin Laden. Four tildes email@example.com
- Agreed, or possibly into the Somalia Civil War article. Further, the article is highly POV in that so far only the ICU has claimed to have had direct contact with Ethiopian troops. The BBC states, "If the Ethiopian involvement is confirmed, it would be the first time that Islamist and Ethiopian troops have come into direct contact." Thus, I think it may not only be premature, but POV to state that an "Ethopian war in Somalia" has begun. —Aiden 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Probably best to wait a few weeks to see how things develope. Should this be just another skirmish, it can safely be merged inn, if it becomes a full scale war the other article can focus on the events leading up to the war while this provides fuller coverage of the war itself. Fornadan (t) 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes please merge with Ethiopian involvement in Somalia or Somali Civil War. From what little I know this one is a new article, created as Ethiopian war in Somalia 22:00 8 December. Then it was linked from "Somali Civil War" on the Main Page. A few people were kind enough to redirect it to a new title "Ethiopian involvement in the Somali Civil War" the next day. And someone kindly rewrote the Current Events headline. This article's first sentence was "The Ethiopian war in Somalia began on 8 December 2006", and that later was sourced to Al Jazeera on 8 December. But Al Jazeera even the following day 9 December reported fears and great concern that war will break out, not that a new war started. I apologize in advance for my lack of understanding. Susanlesch 09:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC) with minor edits at :39.
- I'm for seeing how this event plays out before moving or merging this article. The current events could well be the start of a major conflict in the area (especially if Eritrea gets involved). On the other hand if it doesn't flare up into a major conflict this article can be safely incorporated into Ethiopian involvement in Somalia and/or Somali Civil War. Feer 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is the first day of what is reported as direct conflict between the ICU and Ethiopian troops. It would be highly POV to dub this as the "Ethiopian war in Somalia". As of now, it is merely intervention on the part of one party within the overall context of the ongoing Somali Civil War. Further, the name is highly POV as no 3rd party has yet to confirm direct Ethiopian involvement. As Fornadan said above, it is best to wait and see how things develop. —Aiden 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree that the name should be changed if all the matters you addressed are confirmed? Btw. I put the previous name with the Soviet war in Afghanistan with a similar context in mind --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- If this proves to escalate into a full-scale war between the ICU and Ethiopian troops, of course the title of the article should reflect that. But like I said, let's not jump the gun. As of now this is merely being reported as direct Ethiopian involvement in what has been a long-running civil war in Somalia. This does not constitute a separate war (at this point, at least). —Aiden 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand the US involvement is treated seperately. I suggest we keep this as a seperate article as long as the issue doesn't settle down. Once it isn't a current event we can merge it. Wandalstouring 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have added mention of the Ethiopian reinforcements moving to the fighting in Iidale. There are reports of artillery, mortars and rockets being fired. I'd say that's heavy fighting. The question is whether it will continue past two days. --Petercorless 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand the reason for all of the announcements of support for the House of People's Representatives "against the jihadists", which have appeared at the Walta Information Center website. (One example that stands out is this demonstration in the Somali Region.) Not sure if a list of these announcements adds much value to this article -- even if it can be proved that they show actual popular support. -- llywrch 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Be careful with such reports. The allegiance of Ogaden isn't so clear. Wandalstouring 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- As always it falls along clan lines. Some clans are pro-ICU in the Somali region, some have supported the Meles Zenawi government and the vast majority have taken a "wait and see" approach. Most of the "wait and see" crowd probably want to see if the ICU can defeat Ethiopia before throwing their support behind them. --Ingoman 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse my cynicism, but I distrust these reports more on the fact that in many parts of the world, the local government can organize a local group to pass a resolution supporting or condemning a given point. (Heck, you could do this in North America or Europe simply by offering free booze to any or everyone, then convincing them to sign "this little piece of paper" that endorses the resolution.) Now, even if we assuming these resolutions do represent grass-root support for Ethiopia's actions in Somalia, the question remains whether any of these groups are willing to volunteer manpower or donate money to this cause -- that would be more meaningful. -- llywrch 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the situation in Somalia currently is extraordinary. the involvement openly in Somalia is the first major change in Somalia geoplotically and this Article about TFG/Ethiopia war versus The Islamists should be kept seperate because it looks to be an extraordinary event. --Samantar Abdirisaq 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
New Name: Ethiopian War in Somalia (2006–2009)
I propose that we rename this page to "Ethiopian War in Somalia (2006–2009)" instead of the current "War in Somalia (2006–2009)", as there might be some confusion with the newly renamed War in Somalia (2009–). Also this stage in the conflict seems to be most prominently marked by Ethiopia's invasion and subsequent withdrawal. -- Wiz9999 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)