Freed Zakaria's views have become so irrelavant.

[The`Republic]

First it was his plagiarism caught red-handed and now he tries to remake himself relevant about security and foreign policy using Somalia as a case study when his piece on the country is so far removed from what is actually happening today and how US policy has been carefully worked on and contributes to the resurgence of statehood back in Somalia. He talks like this is Somalia in 2006 or 2007 when the Somalia of 2012 seems like decades removed from what it was even couple years ago. His views are totally irrelevant to what is going on in Somalia and how the US government has participated successfully according to all observers of the US State Department policy in Somalia:

Just read this and scratch your head asking WHY is he writing this and why now it is no longer applicable. Somalia has taken leaps and bounds in statehood resurgence---with physical involvement of African Union troops---which has been funded, manned, and covered by the US. The US never needed to put soldiers in Somalia and nor did the US have to "disengage" from Somalia---in fact the US and UN stayed engage without a single soldier from them and along with regional partners is managing to help turn around the fortunes of what he accurately calls the longest failed state. Nothing else in his writing is relevant to the Somalia of 2012 or how advanced US policy in the Clinton State Department has been engaged:

http://hiiraan.com/op4/2012/oct/26501/t ... ndrum.aspx

I like him personally but this is lazy journalism at its worst.

[AhlulbaytSoldier]

Fareed Zakaria wrote that in 2010.
Actually he is still right. Somalia is number one failed state. This turtle and his yes-man are weak puppets of shisheeya. How come their soldiers rape 14 years old girls? Robb people in Shabeellaha hoose. Alshabaab is still present in Mogadishu, they control Suuqa Xoolaha and many parts of Yaaqshiid, Heliwa etc ideologically. The people there support them, hide them after night attacks.
Just because Amisom captured Mogadishu, it doesnt mean that we are becoming functioning government. A real Government has something to stay in Galmudug, Puntland, Somaliland and in every maamul.

[udun]

The Republic, this article is two years old, so it is not that much relevant to the current stage in Somalia. I also found this fella named Freed Zakaria to be very anti Pakistan. This idiot defends Iran to the teeth, but every foreign policy discussion that he is the host or he participates, you would find him always pointing the finger at Pakistan. It is possible that he is an Indian intelligence agent whose intention is to draw the ire of US military might against Pakistan.

[The`Republic]

Hutuking-

I really don't want to sound condescending towards you but I am not sure you understand exactly what is being discussed. We are talking about Somalia's state formation here and there are two major issues with minor dissecting issues.

1. There is a macro-issue
-What is happening with the "geographical space" known as Somalia
-Is there an entity which is internationally recognized
-What is the entity's legitimacy vis-a-vis recognition by regional, international, and domestic partners
-Is there a minimum security control of the "geographical space"
-Is there a "process" underway which intends to fill control mechanism, i.e. are there are state institutions in formation

2, There is a micro-issue
-After the parameter of security has been set, what is being done to improve
-After institutions have been formed, what is being done to strengthen them
-What is the civil administrative capacity development
-How are various components of the entity in charge sharing power, etc

Essentially NUMBER ONE is about the setting the stage, NUMBER TWO is about decorating the stage.

Fareed Zakaria and I are discussing the "setting of the stage", whereas you seem to be focused on the secondary "decorating the stage"... perhaps even underestimating or devaluing the extent to which Somalia's state disintegration has resulted in a total absence of "state" in control of a modern "geographical space" and so which means primary attention should be shown more to IF the security vacuum is being filled and not a minor issue of some aspects of those security forces committing individual crimes.

Do you understand? You are taking it for granted Somalia should be able to walk when Zakaria and I are at odds about the extent to which we should consider success Somalia's steps to move from crawling to standing.

Somalis like you sometimes irritate me with the entitled and impatient attitude they express expecting a fully functioning Somali state to just stand up today when really even baby steps should be cause for optimism. Yes, Somalia has descended that low; but Somalia is neither not improving (as Zakaria implies) nor should we expect it to improve that fast or pessmism sets in (which quite obviously seems to be your inappropriately calibrated position).

[The`Republic]

The Republic, this article is two years old, so it is not that much relevant to the current stage in Somalia. I also found this fella named Freed Zakaria to be very anti Pakistan. This idiot defends Iran to the teeth, but every foreign policy discussion that he is the host or he participates, you would find him always pointing the finger at Pakistan. It is possible that he is an Indian intelligence agent whose intention is to draw the ire of US military might against Pakistan.

Why did HiiraanOnline give it a 2012 year date? I was very much surprised with how irrelevant it was to the Somalia of 2012. 2010 to 2012 in Somalia seems like a decade in between.

[Eaglehawk]

fareed zakaeria has never been my cup of tea
Intellectuality he comes over as a novice to a well-read person

stephen walt at the foreign policy magazine is the type a guy i listen too
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

here is nail Ferguson bitch slapping the little exotic oriental kid ( anaka bu nola imanaya usual talking points)

[Eaglehawk]

The New Republic, Over-Rated Thinkers

FAREED ZAKARIA
Fareed Zakaria is enormously important to an understanding of many things, because he provides a one-stop example of conventional thinking about them all. He is a barometer in a good suit, a creature of establishment consensus, an exemplary spokesman for the always-evolving middle. He was for the Iraq war when almost everybody was for it, criticized it when almost everybody criticized it, and now is an active member of the ubiquitous “declining American power” chorus. When Obama wanted to trust the Iranians, Zakaria agreed (“They May Not Want the Bomb,” was a story he did for Newsweek); and, when Obama learned different, Zakaria thought differently. There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment. Most of Zakaria’s appeal is owed to the A-list aura that he likes to give off—“At the influential TED conference ...” began a recent piece in The New York Times. On his CNN show, he ingratiates himself to his high-powered guests. This mix of elitism and banality is unattractive. And so is this: “My friends all say I’m going to be Secretary of State,” Zakaria told New York magazine in 2003. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.” Zakaria later denied making those remarks.