by Zack Beauchamp
Ken Menkhaus describes al-Shabaab's implosion in the face of the famine:
The strain on al Shabab is likely to grow. Some of the organization's leaders operate in territory controlled by their own clans and face intense pressure from their people to allow food in. Tensions are strong between the most radical elements in the movement and these local commanders, who might defect from the movement to permit food aid. If this happens, key parts of southern Somalia may open up to aid agencies. Indeed, the key to ending the famine rests with these local al Shabab leaders, who are most likely to cooperate with aid agencies if allowed to do so discreetly. The United States and the UN should act accordingly, quietly working with dissident al Shabab leaders and protecting them from reprisal. The defection of al Shabab commanders would simultaneously strengthen humanitarian operations and weaken al Shabab. To further undermine and perhaps vanquish al Shabab, Ethiopia and Kenya have considered sending in Somali militia units that they have trained and equipped. But the United States should be wary of military operations by its regional allies at this time.
Foreign-inspired military operations in Somalia have a long history of triggering unintended consequences and, in this case, could rally Somalis behind al Shabab or encourage the organization to launch terrorist attacks outside Somali borders. If al Shabab remains intact and the famine worsens, however, the international community may face a painful choice between supporting armed humanitarian intervention and resigning itself to witnessing a major famine and offering aid only to those who manage to cross into Kenya.
You should go read the whole thing. Menkhaus' argument for humanitarian aid and diplomacy rather than intervention fits well with argument about global governance I was making yesterday. Though American military power gives us the ability to involve ourselves in issues outside our border without fear of conventional reprisal, said involvement by no means has to be military. In fact, global governance in the American order generally relies much more on non-military tools than the U.S. Army.
The Dish 