Strictly Hypothetical Question

[michael_ital]

[quote="Grant"]Would the outcome of the 1977 war with Ethiopia have been different if the Barre regime had stopped at the borders of the Ogaden and not gone up the pass?[/quote]

The deciding factor was the CCCP's abandonment of Somalia, and instead throwing it's weight behind Ethiopia, with the aid of the Cubans. That was the bacbreaker for Barre.

[Grant]

Mike,

That is also my understanding.

What made me ask the question is that I suspect there would have been considerable international sympathy for the Somali Government holding the Ogaden, but little to none for the invasion of Ethiopia.

At what point did the Cuban's and CCCP enter the fray? Is there anything to indicate the Carter Administration would have been more supportive of Barre had he stopped at the Ogaden?

[michael_ital]

Well, Ogaden was preety much Ethiopian territory, though ethnically it was Somali. But Russia found itself supporting both sides of the conflict, and when Siad appeared reluctant to negotiate peace, the CCCP halted all aid, flew in advisors, (and 15 000 Cubanos) and effectively ended it. As for Carter per se, I can't really answer that. But the US DID back Somalia, as they had interest in it's entrance to the Red Sea. They effectively backed the Barre regime till 1989.

[AbdiWahab252]

Grant,


Jimmy Carter never supported Somalia's position. He was a Baptist who according to some said that he would never allow the invasion of a Christian nation by a Muslim one.

If Nixon had been relected, then Somalia's borders would have included the Ogaden.

Barre's best bet was not to invade the Ogaden but to continue his policy of supporting the Western Somali Liberation insurrection and pulling closer to the Soviet Regime.

If Barre had invaded in 1974 with the pretext of supporting the Soviet backed Mengistu communist forces against the Haile Selaisse regime, he would have had more support from the USSR.

[Gedo_Boy]

yeah but he would have been at odds w/ Mengistu himself b/c Mengistu would not approve of Somali military intervention.

I don't think Mengistu nor Haile Selassie would negotiate on Somalian sovereignty over Somali Ogaden.


Granted though, from what I've heard we should have been content w/ clearly defined borders not wild exaggerations of virtually annexing everything but Addis.

A clearly demarcated point would have been good to negotiate from.

[*Arabman]

"In order to win Barre over, the Carter administration cut off all its aid to Ethiopia and encouraged Barre to invade the Ogaden region – that land of a million Somalis that had been handed by the British to the Ethiopians"

http://www.metamute.org/en/node/8064

"SOMALIA: US GREEN LIGHT TO BARRE
TO INVADE OGADEN

In June 1977, Carter relayed a secret message to Barre, reportedly telling him that whatever he did in the Ogaden was his own business, but if he dropped his claims to Kenya and Djibouti, Washington would sympathetically consider his "legitimate" defensive needs. A few days later, Carter told the Somali ambassador that although the United States couldn't at that time provide military aid, Washington would encourage its allies to help Somalia maintain its defensive strength. The next month, Carter approved in principle a decision to cooperate with other countries in arming Somalia, and on July 25 the Somali ambassador was notified that the United States would provide weapons.<4> Not surprisingly, Barre took this as a green light to proceed with his invasion of the Ogaden.
(Full text)"

http://mprofaca.cro.net/greenlight.html#somalia

[Unclebin-]

Once A single Somali army past dira dawa it was Somalia against the Communist regimes (for the most part, I hear Romania was reluctantly supporting somalia).

Even Communist Yemen (can't remember if it was south or north yemen) was aiding the Habeshi.

[Grant]

Arabman,

I thank you for the links, which I did check out. I do understand now better where you come from, although I still cannot agree with many of your, or the author's, conclusions.

The website you quote talks about "wink, wink, nod, nod" kinds of communication, and diplomacy by indirection. The "forwarded secret message" from Carter to Barre is not quoted, and the most likely interpretation I can come up with is that it was misinterpreted.

Note that your quote talks only about "legitimate defensive needs". I have no idea what Carter actually had in mind for the Ogaden, but all subsequent actions mentioned in your article indicate he opposed changing the colonial boundaries, and I cannot imagine that "legitimate defensive needs" would have indicated support for an invasion of Ethiopia.

Carter ended support for Ethiopia because Mengistu and the Derg came to power, not because of some plot to become Barre's friend. The US flip-flopped because the CCCP did. It was one of those uncomfortable "enemy of my enemy" deals.

[Basra-]

Could Grant also be Madmadoobe? Also Mikey? Which scream Yuhud old dwarf??

[Madmadoobe]

Loool@ above crazy biitch.

[Grant]

BIG B,

I liked Padishah's response to you in the other thread. Go start your own topic on major personal dilemmas or interesting deaths among famous people, something you actually know about and can respond to.

[Basra-]

LOOL@maddyy loool u know i lof u-- just teasing ya

[*Arabman]

The bottom line, Westerners are the source of all (almost) evil (wars, civil wars, massacre, genocide, holocaust, conflicts, famine, fitnah, etc). Jimmy Carter isn't a man of peace.

[Grant]

[quote="*Arabman"]The bottom line, Westerners are the source of all (almost) evil (wars, civil wars, massacre, genocide, holocaust, conflicts, famine, fitnah, etc). Jimmy Carter isn't a man of peace.[/quote]

That would explain his book on the Palestinian issue.

[Grant]

http://www.forward.com/articles/carter- ... 80%99-tag/


Carter Book Slaps Israel With ‘Apartheid’ Tag, Provides Ammo to GOP


Jennifer Siegel | Tue. Oct 17, 2006
As Republicans step up their efforts to paint Democrats as increasingly hostile toward Israel, former President Jimmy Carter is releasing a book on the Middle East, titled “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”


Judging from an advance review manuscript of the new work, published by Simon & Schuster and set for release November 14, Carter places the bulk of the blame on Israel for its continuing conflict with the Palestinians. But critics of the former president probably will be most offended by his use of the word “apartheid” in the book’s title and text.

Israel’s current policy in the territories, Carter writes in the book’s summary, is “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” In a separate passage in the advance draft, the former president stated that “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”

In addition, Carter takes what is being interpreted by some critics as a swipe at the pro-Israel lobby. “Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned,” the former president writes.

Carter’s book comes as the Republican Jewish Coalition is already waging a nationwide media campaign to convince Jewish voters that the Democratic Party no longer can be counted on to provide unflinching support for Israel. (See story on Page A6.) One of the recent RJC ads features a large image of Carter and quotes the former president as saying, “I don’t think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”

Simon & Schuster spokeswoman Elizabeth Hayes confirmed the substance of the quotes from Carter’s book, but said that the wording could change in the final edition.

With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. At the same time, however, the Democratic National Committee included him in a list of past pro-Israel presidents in an advertisement this week that was aimed at shoring up support among Jewish voters. The ad features a 1977 quote from Carter describing the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and saying that “it’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.”

The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters.

“We certainly have not shied away from shining a light on some of his misguided and outrageous comments about Israel in the past, so we certainly have to see what this book holds,” Brooks said. “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”

The book was originally slated to be released November 1 — six days prior to this year’s congressional elections — but now it will be available in stores November 14, according to Hayes, the Simon & Schuster spokeswoman.

Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date. But, according to Hayes, the date was pushed back to allow Carter time to work in more material from last summer’s conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors. “The reason for the Palestinian plight is the Palestinians. Their leadership has no regard for the quality of life for their people and no capability of providing security or enforcing peace, and they have no one to blame but themselves.”

Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”

“Democrats who support Jimmy Carter’s views on Israel? Now that’s a convention you could hold in a phone booth,” wrote Ira Forman, executive director of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in an e-mail to the Forward. “Jimmy Carter is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party when it comes to his views on Israel.” Aaron Miller, a former State Department official who has consistently advocated a greater American role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, said that Carter’s book would not influence key decision makers in the administration. But he added, “the one thing that I assure you is that Carter’s book will be read” by a wider audience.

Carter has a “demonstrated track record of success,” said Miller, now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, referring to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty that the former president helped broker at Camp David in 1978. “He’s the only American president that’s succeeded in brokering a permanent status agreement between Arabs and Israelis, the only one, and you know, he deserves an enormous amount of credit for that, whatever his current and latest views are — and I don’t agree with a lot of them, on the Israel-Arab issue.”

Tue. Oct 17, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Copyright © 2007 Forward Association, inc. | Advertise | Subscriptions | Contact | Sitemap