Third Time, Lucky?

The US tried.  It failed.  Ethiopia tried (with US backing.)  It failed.  Now it is Kenya's time.  The third country up in an attempt to restore some semblance of order to the bloody chaos called "Somalia."  Will this effort end as did the two predecessors with failure, humiliating withdrawal, and the leaving of a geographic expression with no real reason to exist as a state in even more of a sanguinary mess?

The US failed as a combination of mission leap, one disastrously ill-planned operation, and the lack of both a policy focus and political will in and around the Oval.  When Bill Clinton inherited the "humanitarian" operation initiated by George H.W. Bush, he neglected to define the goal of the force deployed in country.  For reasons which escape rational analysis, his administration decided it was necessary to engage in regime change.  This was odd as there was no real regime to change but rather a welter of tribal leaders engaged in a robust contest for supremacy.  The man on the top at that moment was particularly unpleasant but no threat to the long term prospects for the Somali people.

In a fit of absent mindedness, someone decided--and others farther up the food chain confirmed this choice--to go after the Unpleasant Guy On Top.  The result was the loss of nearly two dozen special forces troops, the bodies of whom were depicted being pulled around, naked, in the dirt of the streets by gangs of cheering women.  This nauseating vision was displayed on the televisions of Americans with the result that Clinton and Company determined to cut and run rather than take proper action against the Somalis responsible.

This loss of political nerve was not justified and counterproductive, not only in Somalia but all over the Arab and Muslim world.  It was this ostentatious failure of testicular and policy fortitude which gave the muscle to Osama bin Laden and his odious outfit as well as other advocates of violent political Islam.

With American support and assistance, the Ethiopian army invaded Somalia in the opening years of this century.  They were successful in toppling the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) which was an effective government albeit given to policies and means antipathetic to American and Western norms.  The ICU was speedily replaced by "the Youth" better known as al-Shabaab.  This crew was orders of magnitude more dedicated to the cause of austere, violent political Islam than the ICU had been.

The Ethiopians rapidly found out that they had bitten off far more than they (or their now preoccupied American sponsors) could chew and swallow conveniently.  For two years the Ethiopians held on, never secure even in their own bases, unable to broker a coalition of Somali tribal leaders willing to take over the burden of freeing their own country from the ever less popular zealots of al-Shabaab.  Finally, the Ethiopians tossed in their towel and departed, leaving the field to the victorious "Youth."

From there it has been all down hill not only for the people caught in Somalia but for the West generally.  As international diplomats played the game of creating a government and the African Union--well at least two member countries--deployed "peace keeping" forces to the center of Mogadishu, al-Shabaab consolidated its hold on the southern third of the country while pinning the Transitional Federal Government and its AU troops to a few blocks around the presidential palace.

During the same time, ambitious Somalis found a new and very profitable line of work--piracy.  Even now with warships of several dozen navies on patrol, the maritime marauders commandeer ships every week with tens, no, hundreds of millions of dollars of ransom collected.  The consensus of "experts" around the world is the pirates will not be defeated unless and until there is a functioning government with effective control of the Somali coast.

In recent months, the Gangbangers of Somalia, both landbased and maritime, have expanded their actions to include the kidnapping of Westerners frequenting expensive Kenyan resorts within in a convenient distance of Somalia.  This has perturbed the Kenyans mightily.  Even more disconcerting to Nairobi has been the tsunami of refugees flowing over the border.  The tidal wave has grown since the drought enhanced famine has been worsened by al-Shabaab's stopping of food aid by international agencies.

The hundreds of thousands of Somalis self-dumped on Kenya is an unacceptable economic burden on the country.  More, it represents a clear national security threat given Somali claims on the northern portion of Kenya and the large number of al-Shabaab agents living in Nairobi and Mombasa.

Kenya has clear reasons to see the end of al-Shabaab at least in the southern portion of the place.  With this in mind, Nairobi aimed at the Somali port city of Kismayo.  The port is the major source of al-Shabaab revenue: taxes on trade, particularly charcoal, headed for Yemen.  It is also a prime source of pirates.

With its invasion, Kenya is doing a service not only for itself but for the West generally.  Al-Shabaab is a threat not only to African states and the sea lines of communication but more broadly.  Not only is it "officially" allied with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab has direct operational links with al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) and Nigeria's Boko Haram.  Adding al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to the mix is apparently in the works.  Given the widespread proliferation of weapons including MANPADS from the old Libyan arsenals, it is to be expected that al-Shabaab's military competence and potential for transnational terror will grow.

The biggest question is simply: Will Kenya succeed where others have failed?

The prognosis is, at best, mixed.  The Kenyan armed forces have no real experience with war, even the limited sort of which al-Shabaab is capable.  The forces are large, reasonably well equipped and trained, but without combat experience, it is hard to see if these factors are all that important.  The launch of the invasion just as the annual rains were scheduled to start (they commenced on time) shows a lack of proper planning.  The two thousand men across the border have been bogged down in the mud for some days now with the mechanical transport totally immobilized.

Overall the force (ten thousand at most) seems too small to deal with a highly mobile opponent along with the demands of MOUT--if the Kenyans do reach Kismayo.  The Kenyan air dominance will not matter once their ground forces are in close contact with al-Shabaab fighters.  The fight will become a slogging match between the mechanized, fire power heavy Kenyans and the more mobile, lightly equipped guerrilla opponents.

At that point, it will be what all asymmetrical wars must be--a contest of political wills.  Already there are indications that the Kenyan opinion molding elite lack the stomach for a protracted war, which is exactly what the invasion will become without a game changer.

There is only one game changer which might be available.  Not the African Union.  Not the other states of the Horn of Africa.  Nobody local is capable of altering the nature of the war.

The role of game changer properly belongs to NATO.  Fresh off its "victory" in Libya, most of the NATO combatants already have a dog in the fight--the pirates.  Certainly NATO ships have been heavily involved in the anti-pirate patrols and have actually killed pirates!

The leaders of France, the UK, the US and perhaps some of the others will be well advised to man up and back the Kenyan play.  NATO has the aircraft, the ships, the logistics, the special forces, the intelligence assets necessary to change the game in Somalia quickly and surely.  The pirates along with the bloody hands of the brutal killers of al-Shabaab provide more than enough justification for entering the war, even for invoking the doctrine of R2P.

There is no need to invoke the UN.  Even the opposition of the AU can be ignored with impunity.  The morass of Somalia is intolerable now--and will only get worse should the Kenyans suffer the same fate as did the Americans and Ethiopians.  A robust NATO effort will be gratefully acknowledged (even if privately only) and might even silence some of the loud voices criticizing the alliance's efforts in Libya.

Get on with it, Messers Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama--the history books are waiting.

Somali Pirates--Life Gets Better And Worse

A couple of recent events draws one's attention back to the Jolly Brigands of the Somali Coast. Overall the incidents of late draw a sort of fever chart, tracking the ups and downs of the pirate plague in the waters of northwest Africa.

A week ago the skiff riding thugs captured a Norwegian flagged, Burmese crewed chemical tanker off Madagascar. Due to its route and destination the ship was not registered with the fusion center controlling anti-piracy efforts in and near the Gulf of Aden. In its not-registered status the ship was one of the nine thousand plus vessels plying dangerous waters without letting the assorted patrolling navies know of their existence.

The seizure of the nine thousand ton tanker was good news for the pirates. So also is the unwillingness of shipowners and operators to wait for naval convoys--or even register the passage.

Thus the Norwegian tanker becomes another figure in the loss column. If one stares only at the goats, the number of attempted piracies, the news is all good for the pirates. This year seems on track to equal or surpass last year's record number of attempts--198. If, however, one's attention focuses on the number of successful pirate actions, the news is not at all good for the Thugs of the Blue Briny. Only forty-four ships were taken. That is only two more than the previous year where the numbers were forty-two for 122 attempts.

While the pirate net has spread ever wider, the catch is going the way of the bluefin tuna--down. One very good reason for this development is the acceptance by ship operators that minimum defense measures such as razor wire on the rails, blasting raiders with firehoses and, simplest of all, abrupt maneuvers at high speed turn attempts into failures. The addition of an armed guard has been shown to be the ultimate deterrent. It seems the pirates like to shoot but really don't cotton up to being on the receiving end of fast moving bits of metal.

Another way of showing pirates the downside of their chosen occupation was brought into sharp focus by the French frigate Nivose. The frigate, a component of the EU's naval task group went on a romp last week. The crew stopped and seized four motherships and six assault skiffs. The bag was thirty-five pirates in custody--and, one presumes, a whole lot of hard feelings back on shore.

While the loss of thirty-five members of the Jolly Roger Club is minuscule considering there are fifteen hundred or so pirates organized in seven syndicates doing a handsome business in ransoms (estimated 110 million for 2007 & 2008 combined), the French stop-seize-and-arrest is an arrow pointed in the proper direction.

(The Geek cannot help but wonder, given the current public view of the Obama administration being soft on terrorism, why doesn't one of the president's political men urge him to call up Secretary Gates or JCS Chair Mullen and tell them to ginger up our naval efforts, to, well, you know, out French the French?)

The problem for the French (and the rest of the League of Civilized States) is what to do with the pirates who are captured. All too often Kenya is used as a convenient dump for suspected pirates. The Kenyans are not thrilled by this. Even though the US and other nations help underwrite the direct expenses involved, the dumping of maritime pollution has caused severe difficulties for the Kenyan judicial system and is putting a strain on their jails.

The current practice also puts Kenya at greater risk of terror attacks emanating from Somalia. It is not surprising that members of the Kenyan legal and political establishments have been pushing back, hard, on the use of their country as the designated waste dump.

The Kenyans have been "playing up" in cricket terminology as shown by the recent conviction and sentencing to twenty years of seven pirates captured by the Royal Navy two years ago. Life in a Kenyan slammer might be bad, but at least these seven ex-thugs are better off than the two of their mates who died in the firefight with the Brits.

The UN Convention which governs the legal response to piracy gives primary jurisdiction to the country controlling the ship which captures the pirates. The US observed this law as well as its own domestic laws with the sole survivor from last year's episode which saw an American merchant captain held hostage by pirates thwarted in their attempt to take his ship. Three pirates were "double tapped" by SEAL snipers and the fourth has been indicted in New York.

The reasons that more pirates are not similarly treated (the Geek means arrested, not given head shots much as he prefers the latter) are transparent--and transparently bogus. The US and other Western states fear abuse of their legal systems by those representing and offering apologies for the pirates as well as entertaining some sort of misplaced anxiety that captured thugs-at-sea will claim political asylum.

Duh!

To make life worse, much worse, for the pirates it is necessary for more of the many navies now offering patrol, protection, and overwatch in the threatened sealanes to do what the French did. In addition it is necessary that all captured pirates be taken to stand trial and do their time in Western courts and prisons. The certainty of capture or worse, the sureness that the slow grinding judicial mills of the US, the UK, and other Western nations will produce in the fullness of time a long stretch in durance vile will raise the costs of doing business as a pirate syndicate.

History, a lot of history stretching back to the quite literal days of Julius Caesar, demonstrates that the vocation of maritime banditry loses its appeal when the costs are raised sufficiently. This does not mean we must return to the days of Execution Dock but it does mean that we must stop off loading the problem onto Kenya. It means that the countries who have stepped up to provide some measure of deterrence and protection against the Somali marauders must take the next step--bring the nasty little buggers to our homelands, give 'em a fair trial, let the apologists apologize, let the defense lawyers do their best, and, when the last hurrah has died away, lock the bloody blighters up for a goodly chunk of their lives.

The trouble and expense will be worth it. At the least by making a salutary example of the Somalis, there is some chance a far greater threat to maritime commerce and thus the global economy can be deterred.

That's right, bucko, there is a far greater threat on the near horizon. The Malacca Straits have been targeted according to Singapore maritime security officials. While the group has not been identified, it (or they) are Islamist in nature. The Malacca Straits constitute one of the greatest if not the greatest maritime chokepoint in the world carrying infinitely more trade than does the Gulf of Aden. The Straits are territorial waters for Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, none of which has a significant navy. At the same time none of these rather prickly entities desires international assistance or an international naval presence. And, of course, two of them are Muslim majority countries and have internal problems with Islamist jihadists.

As even a member of the Obama administration should be able to see and understand, there is much more to be gained by showing palpable resolve against the annoying Somali skiffers than simply making the Gulf of Aden less risky. All that is necessary is to look at a map and see just how many very critical shipping lanes merge in the Straits and imagine what sort of destabilizing damage could be done by a few Muslim pirate/terrorists on skiffs of the Somali sort.

Making life worse for the Somali pirates will make life a lot less worse for the rest of us.

(Stay) Out Of Africa

The human race started in Africa. A few tens of thousands of years ago, the smart ones left.

Now, before you call the Geek a racist and similar unkind things, consider the growth of the human population when it left behind the continent of its origin. Then, think about the slow growth of the population descended from those who chose to stay behind.

When you have compared the numbers, consider the differences--and the reasons. The world outside of Africa presented a myriad of challenges, of opportunities, of new and different niches in which H. sap could make a living. Pace that misguided, agenda driven perversions of scholarship called the "Afro-centrists," the human race stretched its collective wings and flew once some folks went for the far horizons.

The ones who stayed in the birthing room expanded slowly, painfully. Geology and geography conspired against the fulmination of population, social complexity, technological innovation, economic advance, and political evolution which characterised those descended from the adventurous sorts who shook the dust of Africa off their (initially) bare feet.

Geology conferred upon Africa a plethora of natural resources, primarily those of a mineral sort, which were of no use to the locals until those who left had invented means of extraction, exploitation, and fabrication into useful implements. Balancing the abundance of sub-soil resources, geology provided little arable land, little opportunity to farm in quantities which would support urban centers, an expanding population, and provide the excess that leads to the division of labor and all that arises from that.

Geography, or more precisely, climate, made the agricultural base even weaker. And, it added factors of endemic disease such as malaria which are absent in much of the rest of the world. The deck was environmentally stacked against the Africans from the get-go. The basics which allowed, no, demanded change--advances in technology, organisational complexity, and, never forget, more population--were simply not present in Africa.

Consider that evolution did not even produce a suitable draft animal anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. No horses. No replacements for the ox, the ass, the camel, the llama. Not until the many times grandchildren of those who left came back, first from the Mideast and then from Europe, were these lacks remedied even in part.

Not until the much maligned Europeans returned searching for resources, global advantage, or simply glory and slaves, were any of the fruits of the human diaspora made available to the stay-behinds. Not all these fruits were sweet, pleasant to be sure. The colonisers and their successors brought many fruits which were bitter and some which were poisoned, but, on balance, the sweet and good over matched the bitter and poisoned.

The foundation of that contention can be seen in the explosive growth of the African population in the Twentieth Century as the agricultural, public health, and infrastructure innovations carried in the packs of the colonisers took hold. Birth rates soared. Infant mortality dropped. Longevity increased.

The availability of food was greatly increased. And, the average cost dropped. Education in the new means of production, of social and political organisation became available with the result that today's Africa has many who are completely at home with the latest gizmos and ideas.

Yes, the Africans paid for the benefits. They were enslaved not only by their own but by Arabs and, later, Europeans and Americans. The resources both of and below the ground were exploited with little reward to those who did the dirty work but much to those locals and foreigners who directed and were enriched by the exploitation.

There are people and organisations who argue that the rest of the world, particularly that part of the world occupied by Western Europe and the US still owe Africa much. There is particular hyperventilation regarding the way in which the "rich" countries of the "north" are stockpiling vaccines and therapeutic drugs against the new flu, A-H1N1. Ban Ki-moon, the World Health Organisation, and a host of non-governmental organisations are demanding that the same countries which are seeking to protect their citizens against a disease which may--or may not--be a global killer send billions of dollars to Africa to fight malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV infection.

These diseases are killers. There is no doubt about that. Malaria, even when it does not kill--and most forms are not all that lethal--has the capacity to enervate the body, the mind, the will. The Geek is personally acquainted with that aspect of malaria. TB has been called the "white plague" for centuries. Historically it has been the leading cause of death by infection in every continent on the globe. And, AIDS has hit Africa like a bio-weapon, wiping out the younger, more productive adults, leaving families and villages empty save for children and grandparents.

It is easy, very easy to invoke that most important of human characteristics--altruism--in the service of fighting deadly diseases in Africa. And elsewhere. Altruism is a good. But, it is not an absolute good.

Consider that Africa now has a population which far outstrips the agricultural carrying capacity of the land. Countries which were formerly either self-sufficient in food or even net exporters are now dependent upon imports, often provided gratis by donor governments including the US.

Additionally, the population of much, if not most, of Africa now vastly exceeds what might be termed the economic carrying capacity of each state and the region as a whole. Poorly considered development schemes coupled with inherent and endemic corruption and governmental inefficiency to assure that opportunities for proper, sustainable development went by without effect on the population beyond the most transient. Some countries have no real economic reason to exist.

Had these places been bypassed by the wave of colonisation, they would have slouched on as they had for tens of centuries with a base of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism and hand tool agriculture. The population limitation techniques practiced by women for hundreds of generations would have kept the population within the limits of sustainability.

The brutal fact which must be gripped is that a country without an economic reason to exist particularly if it contains a population which cannot be supported effectively by the agricultural carrying capacity of its land has no claim on others to keep it on life support in perpetuity. The actual nature of humanitarian aid in any of its many forms is one of never-ending life support unless the recipient has the means and will to adjust its population level to that which can be maintained in decency by the local economy and agriculture.

Secretary of State Clinton is off to Africa. Her tour has been widely touted by the White House, even to the extent of a text message from President Obama. Her eleven day jaunt is the longest she has taken since becoming SecState.

Highlighting her trip will be meetings with the leaders of three African "powers": South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. All three of these are regionally important. South Africa is the largest economy in the Sub-Sahara. Nigeria is the most populous in Africa. And, Kenya is Kenya.

All three are politically, socially, and economically in the deep kim chee.

Since the Anglo-Dutch minority surrendered total power to the indigenous majority, a combination of very bad economic decision making and political unrest has wreaked a species of havoc which has reached the level that electrical power supplies have become unreliable.

Nigeria has a deep split between Christians and Muslims, which recently left more than seven hundred dead. It also has a festering insurgency in the Niger Delta, which has crippled its number one foreign exchange earner: oil.

In Kenya, the fissures opened in last year's election and the consequent violence have been addressed cosmetically but remain wide and unhealed. Additionally, Kenya is under pressure from the refugee hordes crossing from Somalia. And, the Islamist jihadist threat is both real and growing. At the same time the global economic crisis has hit Kenya's foreign exchange position.

SecState Clinton will also meet with leaders from the (sorry, but it is the official name) Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Liberia. The flacks at the White House describe each of these as being recovering from war.

That description is more or less true regarding Angola and Liberia. It is false regarding the Congo. The fighting hasn't even paused in that resource rich, pathetically misgoverned country. Nor is likely to end simply to comfort the Nice Minded Ms Clinton.

The US has no direct national or strategic interests in play in any of the featured countries. That is other than access to natural resources, some of which have a great economic and military importance. The reason for Ms Clinton's extensive trip might be found in the Chinese diplomatic penetration of Africa in recent years.

That rational explanation has been explicitly rejected by Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa as "a Cold War paradigm." There is no rivalry, ASS Carson maintains between the US and its "colleagues from Asia."

Holy lost in space!! What has the ASS-A been smoking? What is the name of his dealer?

Of course, it really doesn't matter if China gets an even firmer grip on Africa. It will cost them money and energy without any great reward. The Chinese have tried the African gambit before. Once was roughly five hundred years ago. The next emperor called it off. More recently the Lads in Beijing tried with a massive set of aid projects which brought new railroads to Tanzania but nothing in return.

The emphasis placed upon women's rights and the travails of rape victims seems to indicate that there is little in the real, substantial goal department involved in the upcoming trip. Yes, the rights of just over half the population of Africa is important. And, rape is a real problem--particularly on the fringes of the endless wars within the less well governed, less socially and politically cohesive states (which is most of them.)

In the last analysis women's rights, rape, human rights, and the rest of the humanitarian concerns are simply the farthest edges of Africa's problems. The centrality is simply that there are too many people today for the economic and agricultural carrying capacity of the region and its many, many diverse states. The next ring out from the center of the problem is that the majority of the governments and their supporting elites are both inefficient and corrupt without any pervasive cultural or intellectual imperative to serve and benefit the commonweal.

Unless and until the SecState and the President can get a grip on these ground truths, there is no reason to go to Africa. We--and they--will be better off without the combination of photo-op and unrealistic expectations.

And, that's a fact, Jack.

Al Shabab Gets Ready To Move Out

No. It's not as if "The Youth" are fixing to leave Somalia in peace. That would be a clear case of "Non-Islamist Activity." Rather, the ambitious Trigger Pullers For Allah are threatening Kenya.

Kenyan sources aver that al-Shabab has stated its intention to invade Kenya's Northeast Province and annex it to Somalia. While the Kenyan Assistant ForMin, Richard Onyonka, has pooh-poohed the warning and alleged in reply that Kenya has "the capacity and ability to stave off incursions by anybody," others in the Government of Kenya are not so sanguine.

Kimeu Maingai, the Provincial Commissioner, is among the worried. He is all too well aware of a pair of realities which may be eluding the Deep Thinkers of Nairobi.

The first of these factors is demographic. The majority of the population of the Northeast Province is Somali. While some of these ethnic Somalis have lived in the NEP for years, even generations, most are recent arrivals, detritus from the twenty years of war.

The second disconcerting reality is the flow of weapons from Somalia into the NEP. For all practical purposes the border is no more than a polite fiction on pieces of irrelevant paper. Since the density of automatic weapons per person in Somalia is so high as to make the US population look disarmed in comparison, it is not at all outre to see a flow of AK's from Somalia into Kenya.

The large and growing refugee stream still pouring into Kenya provides more than ample cover for the introduction of al-Shabab agents provocateurs and weapons by the ton. The Kenyan refugee camps, including the largest in the world with an estimated Somali population in excess of 23,000, provide an excellent recruiting source.

To expect the Kenyan government to adequately secure either the border or the 173,000 or so Somalian refugees is to expect the impossible. The GOK is fully aware of the menace in the country's midst. Mere realization is not sufficient. It is essential to take action.

Taking action is well neigh onto impossible. The ongoing stasis in the Kenyan government in the aftermath of the December 2007 election violence assures that nothing is or can be done. Public disenchantment with the government's total inability (or unwillingness) to come to grips with the numerous problems confronting the country have reached such a pass that a coalition of women's activist groups has called for a one week sex boycott to force the guys off their duffs and on to the job of fixing Kenya.

Corruption pervades Kenya. Even temporary suspension of IMF and World Bank programs failed to inveigle the government into effectively addressing the problem. The miasma of government for sale not only drastically lowers the faith of the Kenyans generally in their government, it enhances the appeal of al-Shabab in the NEP where Muslims are routinely mulcted by the money grubbing governmental officials.

Al-Shabab, in common with Islamist groups everywhere, makes much of its stern anti-corruption stance. "The Youth" promise justice which is impartial and totally uninfluenced by a person's deep (or shallow) pockets. This "Death to Grafters" message has an appeal to folks on the bottom of the heap which should never be underestimated.

The takeaway is simple. Al-Shabab has a message. The NEP is filled with eager to hear Islamist tilted ears. Weapons in hands both actually and potentially hostile to the Kenyan central government are proliferating faster than post-rain mosquitoes. The GOK is flaccidly paralysed. The Kenyan population generally has no particular faith in the capacity or honesty of the Nairobi regime.

That leaves the Kenyan armed forces.

Afflicted with May Day charity, the Geek can only say that based on its past performance in African Union "peace keeping" missions as well as internal security missions, the Kenyan military is a mighty slim pole on which to lean. Not only has the Kenyan army shown a lack of leadership at all command levels, it is not well equipped or trained.

More fatal to any optimistic conclusion concerning the Kenyan army's capacity to suppress al-Shabab or any indigenous Islamist jihadist movement are the observations by foreigners that the army personnel moved into the NEP recently with the mission of collecting weapons have become arms merchants themselves. These observations comport perfectly with the overall atmosphere of corruption.

The Kenyan government has not yet released the text of the latest warning from al-Shabab. It prefers to point to past such threats in 2008 which amounted to nothing beyond a war of words. The necessary implication is the Nairobi authorities believe (or hope) this case will be the same.

However, the realities on the ground have changed over the past few months. Not only have the number of refugees and other border crossers grown geometrically since last fall. Not only has the weapons flow done likewise. The fighting in the NEP between pro- and anti-al-Shabab Somali clans has done the same.

More worrisome is the apparent success of the pro-al-Shabab faction in the fighting. Their success has grown in tandem with al-Shabab's victories in Somalia. This should not have surprised the Kenyan government or its intelligence service. Nothing attracts support more than victory on the battlefield.

As usual the High Minded have invoked the need for security and economic development in Somalia as the sovereign remedy for the ails of the region. Another influx of doomed-to-fail cash for these ends has been promised by the participants of the recently concluded conference of donor nations. The quarter of a billion dollars promised will not end piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Neither will it prevent the subversion of or armed incursion into Kenya's NEP.

The continued impotence of the Kenyan government, the lack of competence resident in the Kenyan armed forces and the probable total success of al-Shabab in Somali do not combine to make one optimistic about the future of the Kenyan border region. Short of a miracle al-Shabab seems destined to carry the Banner of the Prophet out of Somalia--and into Kenya.