I met Congressman Keith Ellison at Jummah

[KingMJ]

@Tribal basis. 21 Years on nothing has changed I see.

[FAH1223]

Voltage, would you have supported such an intervention to topple the dictator Mohammed Siad Barre?

No, and here is why. Was Siad Barre an autocrat towards the end of his reign? Yes. Could people have legitimate reasons for fighting against him? Yes. However, when you had SSDF (Majerten), SNM (Isaaq), USC (Hawiye), etc fighting against him on tribal basis then that outcome would be clear, it is an internal fractious matter that should not be interfered with. Anytime you see people advocate for their nation on a sectarian basis, then they would try to govern in a sectarian manner which would lead to instability and maybe even something worse than the autocrat.

It is the same reason why I would have also supported intervention in Egypt and Tunisia but would not for a second support any sort of interference in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain. Ironically enough my position could be construed as to be similar to the current US foreign policy on the Arab Spring but that is only because we came to the same conclusion.

Egypt, Tunisia, Libya a whole populace rose up with one voice against their autocrats and they should be supported to achieve their united aspirations. What we see in Syria or Bahrain or Yemen is exactly sectarian division and just as much detractors Hafiz Assad has in Syria he has supporters and interference would lead to civil war and sectarian instability.

Libya is a bit tribal in itself. The rebels from Benghazi are from the same clan that the former king of Libya, Idris, hailed from (Gaddafi overthrew him in 1969).

Intervening in Syria would be unwise, as with Yemen, and the USA supports the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain and would see the Shi'a populace taking over as a threat to stability as it would increase Iran's influence.