US Intervention in Somalia: A Study of Political Factors and Global Developments

This article discusses the US intervention in Somalia in 1992 as a part of the United Nations peacekeeping operation. It highlights the political factors and global developments that led to the intervention and its impact on international relations. The discussion involves a study of the different factors that were involved in the development of the UN operation and the involvement of the US in the invention in the Somali crisis. The article also highlights the different actors and the active role that they played. The intentions of the actors and the highlights of the global situations play an important role in the development of the discussion.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
U.S INTERVENTION IN SOMALIA
Name of Student
Name of University
Author note

1INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Introduction:
The US intervention is Somalia in the year of 1992 is one of the most important
peacekeeping military operation in the history of the modern world. The operation, which
took place as a part of the United Nations peacekeeping operation has been always seen as a
peacekeeping operation has several layers of interpretation. There have always been
accusation from the Somali liberals to the American government, that the operation was a
part of a larger motive in the name of humanitarian mission1. This mission has been an
exemplary action, which highlights several political factors that were active in that time and
resulted the international actors to take part in the active peacekeeping operations. The 1992
US intervention in Somalia, which was known as Operation Restore Hope portrayed some
factors, which seemingly defended the US side. However, further studies in the international
relations and the development of newer literature on the relations and developments of the
African nations highlights several facts, which are different from the conventionally
portrayed ideas. The risk factors involved in the Somali operations were very high and
several international developments escalated the US government to take active action in the
peacekeeping operation2. The discussion involves a study of the different factors that were
involved in the development of the UN operation and the involvement of the US in the
invention in the Somali crisis. The discussion also highlights the different actors and the
active role that they played. The intentions of the actors and the highlights of the global
situations play an important role in the development of the discussion.
Discussion:
Conventional US Ideas on Intervention in Somalia
1 Choi, Seung-Whan. "What determines US humanitarian intervention?." Conflict Management and Peace
Science 30, no. 2 (2013): 121-139.
2 O'Connor, Bernard J. "Beyond Black Hawk Down: Papal diplomacy and the lessons of Somalia." The
Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs 2, no. 1 (2004): 27-35.

2INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The United States of America had its own reasons of justifying the actions in Somalia.
Firstly, the intervention was a part of the humanitarian drive, which led the US to actively
participate in the peacekeeping operation with no personal interest in view. Secondly, the US
actions were a part of the humanitarian action that moved the then US President George HW
Bush to encourage the armed forces to participate in the UN peacekeeping operation in
Somalia3. Thirdly, the US actions in Operation Restore Hope was a chance to justify their
humanitarian side, which was largely questioned due to their actions on the Bosnian side
during the cold war period. However, detailed studies of the development of the decision by
the US military officials show that the operation was not merely a part of the humanitarian
action.
The motivation of the decision was a more pragmatic one. US believed that the UN
operatives might not be able to handle the peacekeeping operations successfully as the
Somali militants could have easily brought them down. To avoid the failures and casualty of
the UN forces, the US decided to intervene with full force, so that the militant revolution
could be easily crushed down under the immense power of the US military power4. A
strengthened UN peacekeeping force aided by the US military could then bring the stability
required in the area.
Secondly, as it was generally believed that, it was President Bush who pushed the US
military into action; further studies revealed that it was primarily the decision of the US
military generals led by General Colin Powell, who was the then chairperson of the US
generals.
Thirdly, the US intervention in Bosnia was a very long process and had very deep
impacts on the East European political scenario, which brought the US under critical fire
3 Yannis, Alexandros. "State collapse and its implications for peace–building and reconstruction." Development
and change 33, no. 5 (2002): 817-835.
4 Lisle, Debbie, and Andrew Pepper. "The new face of global Hollywood: Black Hawk Down and the politics of
meta-sovereignty." (2005): 165-192.

3INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
from political critics all over the world. If the US intervention in the Somali operations are
considered to be a measure by the US military to reduce the political pressure of Bosnia, then
the argument seems to be very weak as the Somali operation was only a short period
operation of four weeks, which in no way could justify the long operations in Bosnia.
The peacekeeping intervention by the US in Operation Restoration Hope was a part of
the strategy to aid the United Nations Operations in Somalia, which was under siege in
Somalia in 19925. This resulted in several thousands of Somali civilians to be in the threat of
acute famine. The US generals were of the idea that a massive intervention by the US army
would help in extraction of the peacekeeping forces and provide relief to the thousands of
Somali civilians. This would allow the UN the necessary elements to decide on a further
strategy to conduct in the peacekeeping operations in the future. The stabilization of the
situation in the aftermath of Operation restoration Hope led to the restoration of the local
government on the UN, while it reduced the civilian deaths in a drastic level, which served
the initial purpose of the operations.
However, the question arises in the later days after the completion of the Operation
Restoration Hope. It is not clear what the political developments were in Washington, which
led them to draw the US forces back from Somalia in a very short period of time before the
next peacekeeping mission started. The progression of the UN peacekeeping forces pointed
out the risks of the future failures of the mission, which led to an unplanned deployment of
the US combat forces in the Somali zone in the summer of 1993. The political critics are not
yet sure, what led to the unplanned deployment of American combat forces, which eventually
turned out to be a failure in the due course of time, following the deaths of 18 soldiers as a
result of the infamous ‘Black Hawk Down’ event6. According to some scholars, these actions
5 Malito, Debora Valentina. "Neutral in favour of whom? The UN intervention in Somalia and the Somaliland
peace process." International Peacekeeping 24, no. 2 (2017): 280-303.
6 Western, Jon. "Sources of Humanitarian Intervention: Beliefs, Information, and Advocacy in the US Decisions
on Somalia and Bosnia." International Security 26, no. 4 (2002): 112-142.

4INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
served as the learning phase, which served the dual purpose of highlighting the main causes,
which failed to reflect the desired result. Moreover, the Somali crisis also highlighted the
relation of the political military connection, and how the global forces were influenced in the
effort to maintain the benchmark set by the UN bodies. The challenges and the difficult
situations called for immediate action, which acted as the stepping-stones for the future
political actions to take place.
Black Hawk Down and its impact
The infamous Black Hawk Down event, which was later depicted in the famous
Hollywood movie of the same name. Black Hawk Down was not significant only in the
matters of global event influenced by nationalistic feelings, but also depicted the new order of
the political management that worked in a flexible manner to give new shape to the global
crises. The US intervention in Somalia opened up a new dimension, which helped in the
understanding of the new national and international sovereignty. It helped in the
deconstruction of the idea of America and its influence over the world politics.
The new understanding of the global politics is the dominion of the American
influence in the world political developments. The relationship between the global politics
and American sovereignty. The face of globalization does not let the internal domestic issues
remain confined to the borders of the country. This is a lesson from the past years of the post-
world war days. The intervention by the so called big governments in the internal matters of
the smaller countries helped in several political developments which has resulted in world
politics of the modern world7. The inventions by America has presented sovereignty in a
different light, where personal interests have been hidden in the garb of humanity. The initial
responses night have been on the lines of the UN peacekeeping forces, but the second
7 Lofland, Valerie J. "Somalia: US intervention and operation restore hope." Case Studies in Policy-making and
Implementation 6 (2002).

5INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
deployment highlights the transformation of the global events into a conceptual development
of sovereignty. The recent literature of global crises and the US intervention provides a more
intellectual view of the development of a nation state outside of a nation. The national
interests lie hidden in the international operations, which serve the purpose of the attainment
of the peace process while maintaining a safe distance from the political developments.
The neutrality of the peacekeeping operations have often been questioned. The
modern political literature questions the efficiency of the peacekeeping operations, and
whether they are actually able to promote the cause of domestic or international peace. The
neutrality of the American intervention in Somalia is such an argument. It is often difficult
for the intervening nations to separate the neutrality from the political alignment of the home
state. This results in the dilemma of the differential peace development in the times of war.
The impartiality factor is not synonymous with the peacekeeping operations with regards to
the US intervention. The soe aim of humanity though highlighted in all the manifestos of the
peacekeeping operations have not always been able to justify the neutrality of the same. The
Black Hawk Down event is a result of such a development8. The death of 13 soldiers created
a disturbance in the American political scenario in its domestic domain and President Clinton
was forced to withdraw the forces from Somalia9. The argument against such a decision
highlights the validity of the idea of neutrality in the peacekeeping operations. It has been
argued that if the US was so determined to promote peace on humanitarian grounds in
Somalia, then why a disaster shook the very foundation of the military operations of a
powerful country such as the US. The third party interventions and their purpose have often
overshadowed the neutrality of the operations.
8 Eland, Ivan. "Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?." Cato Institute Foreign Policy Briefing 50
(1998): 1-24.
9 Ahmed, Ismail I. "The heritage of war and state collapse in Somalia and Somaliland: local-level effects,
external interventions and reconstruction." Third World Quarterly 20, no. 1 (1999): 113-127.

6INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The classical approach of the powerful nations have been said to promote the
relocation of the political power, which worked in the favour of the development of power
politics and strategies. The internal distribution of political strategy and the foreign policies
must align with the agenda of the peacekeeping strategies to understand the distribution of
power in the disturbed region. This neo-realism idea has a more analytical approach towards
the peacekeeping approach. It is hard to determine whether the US intervention followed the
neo-realistic approach because of the timing of the intervention. The tension in Somalia, and
the failure of the UN in attaining success, highlighted the success of the US in Operation
Restoration Hope. On the contrary, opposite to the neo-realistic approach, many critical
modern political literatures argue that the success of a peacekeeping intervention is
determined by the apolitical space in the disturbed region. The second intervention is the
example of the second theory where the US intervention drastically failed due to lack of
planning and the presence of a more political stableness which was partially restored in the
first intervention10. The uncalled deployment of the US combat forces aggravated the
situations in Somalia, which created an uproar in the militants. The sudden uprising and
skirmishes by the militants resulted in the unwanted deaths of a number of civilians and the
infamous Black Hawk Down event, which brought down an US helicopter resulting in the
death of the soldiers11.
The theories of politics involved
The internal government plays a very important part in opting for the peacekeeping
interventions from a third party. The extent of the political dispute and the nature of cover
that can be provided over the external power determines the efficiency of external
10 Lewis, Ioan Myrddin, Ioan Lewis, ASCAP, and Michael J. Dwyer. Understanding Somalia and Somaliland:
culture, history, society. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
11 Ahmad, Aisha. "Agenda for peace or budget for war? Evaluating the economic impact of international
intervention in Somalia." International Journal 67, no. 2 (2012): 313-331.

7INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
intervention. The domestic violence often calls for internal settlement. However, at times it
can be seen that it is not possible for an internal mediation due to the hostility of the political
powers of the nation. The call for an external power is determined based on its take on
impartiality and should be relevant with its viewpoint of settling the matter. If the external
power has the intention of gaining power in the process of mediation, then the sole purpose is
defeated leading to a disruption in the political atmosphere of the country.
The incidents of Somalia depict such a picture of power play and threat of external
dominance. Somalia has been deprived of a stable government since 1991, which has resulted
in the conflicts12. The conflict between the different factions has the sole purpose of
controlling Mogadishu. The call for peace has been rejected by one faction or the other and
the neutrality of the UN and the US have been rejected by them13. The unstable government,
which called for the mediation, was rejected and the peacekeepers were labelled as partial
powers who had specific purpose behind their intention for mediation14. For example, the
presence of US soldiers even to the present day in Mogadishu has raised the questions as to
why does the US army needs to keep its presence when temporary peace settlements have
been agreed upon by the different factions. The US forces are of the idea that they play an
apolitical role and does not take part in any military operation15. Their mere presence is only
for the sole purpose of training the Somali force against the terrorist outfit known as Al
Shaahab, a loose affiliate of the infamous Al-Qaeda. However, the critical approach of a
realist scenario rejects the active participation of the active powers, focuses on the interest
12 Gordon, Ruth. "United Nations Intervention in Internal Conflicts: Iraq, Somalia, and Beyond." Mich. J. Int'l
L. 15 (1993): 519.
13 Finnemore, Martha. "Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention." The culture of national security:
Norms and identity in world politics 153 (1996).
14 O'Connell, Mary Ellen. "Continuing Limits on UN Intervention in Civil War." Ind. lJ 67 (1991): 903.
15 Gilligan, Michael J., and Ernest J. Sergenti. "Do UN interventions cause peace? Using matching to improve
causal inference." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3, no. 2 (2008): 89-122.

8INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
elements, and highlights that neutrality and impartiality are nothing but myths in the modern
political scenario. The intervention of elements in the political setting abolishes both the
elements of a liberal approach as well as the self-interest elements. This aspect depoliticizes
the situation and arises the falsehood of a peacekeeping approach in the midst of the reliance
in power and intervention. The authority and violence are two sides of the same coins where
the primary actors are dependent on the sole objective of power. In this situation US plays the
role of the primary actor with the aid of UN and the unstable Somali government. The
traditional approach is not based on the peacekeeping objectives but on the polarisation of
power play and neutrality.
The role of the Barack Obama government is actively participating in the Somali
disturbances pinpoints the similarities of power play, while the UN affiliation states its role as
a neutral element in the establishment of a stable government in Somalia, which requires a
political assistance from a strong nation16. This relation between the US and the UN is seen as
the most complicated one in the context of the Somali disturbances. The UN’s attempt to
increase the military dominance in Mogadishu against Al-Shaadab escalated the diplomatic
councils, which questioned the role of the US in the military dominance. The notion of the
elective representation of the councils supported by the UN worsened the situation more as
the relation between the separatists’ militia and the leaders of Somalia. The proclamation of
power defied the peace agreement between them, and the purpose of the interim government
was questioned on the basis of the role played by the UN and the US17.
The UN lacked the material reasoning behind its causes for supporting the elected
council and depended more on the prowess of the US military presence. Moreover, the global
16 Bush, Kenneth D. "When two anarchies meet: international intervention in Somalia." Journal of Conflict
Studies 17, no. 1 (1997).
17 Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. "Sociology of humanitarian intervention: Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia compared."
In World Orders in the Making, pp. 230-265. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1998.

9INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
dominance of the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, put the question of its
legitimacy of intervening in every politically disturbed area on the request of the UN18. The
harmonising role of the US as the commander of the UN peacekeeping forces set new
priorities for the role of the actions19. The change of command strengthened the power of the
UN, due to the massive of the US military but at the same time demanded resolution of
neutrality and impartiality not only in the government making but for the protection of the
civilians in the war torn Somalia. The civil conservation called for the establishment of a new
purpose for the government and as a part of the formation of a new and reformed Somalia
focused on the inclusion of a diaspora of civilian outfits comprising of leaders from the
different clans. The united front seems to promise to make a change at the grassroots level of
establishing a stable government20.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above discussion that the since there is an absence of a
stable government in the country. The authoritative and regulatory bodies in the country are
dependent on the intervention of the third parties like the UN or the US government. The
intervention of the US government during the summer of 1992 began with a view of
peacekeeping in the country which ended in a bloodbath; several civilians were killed along
with 18 US soldiers. This agenda of intervention was for the sake of peacekeeping but the
aftermath of the collision caused to take a number of lives and hence it is regarded as a
failure. Recently the US militants have been active in the Somalia region to combat the
militant group known as the Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen however; they are not
18 Ottaway, Marina, and Bethany Lacina. "International interventions and imperialism: lessons from the 1990s."
SAIS review 23, no. 2 (2003): 71-92.
19 De Waal, Alex, and Rakiya Omaar. "Can Military Intervention Be" Humanitarian"?." Middle East Report 24
(1994): 3-3.
20 Western, Jon, and Joshua S. Goldstein. "Humanitarian intervention comes of age: lessons from Somalia to
Libya." Foreign Affairs (2011): 48-59.

10INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
assigned to engage unless it is for self-defense. These US military forces in Somalia help in
planning and carrying out the raids in the region against the militants and terrorist groups.
Under the Trump administration, U.S. Africa Command was granted new powers that allow
the U.S. military forces to perform unilateral offensive counterterrorism airstrikes against al-
Shabaab during the time of need. Until then the airstrikes were in self-defense. This call for
external help from a powerful administration like the US has set the militant group a message
that the government also has the capability to combat hostile situations. The government of
any country tries to provide the people with a better lifestyle and developed economy, with
the help of the intervention from the US, the government of Somalia can approach to provide
the people with a livelihood that is out of the conflict. Form the negotiations that have been
reported it does not seem to have a political agenda form the US perspective, however, the
reports are based on the information that is available for the consumption of general public.

11INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
References:
Choi, Seung-Whan. "What determines US humanitarian intervention?." Conflict
Management and Peace Science 30, no. 2 (2013): 121-139.
O'Connor, Bernard J. "Beyond Black Hawk Down: Papal diplomacy and the lessons of
Somalia." The Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs 2, no. 1 (2004): 27-35.
Yannis, Alexandros. "State collapse and its implications for peace–building and
reconstruction." Development and change 33, no. 5 (2002): 817-835.
Lisle, Debbie, and Andrew Pepper. "The new face of global Hollywood: Black Hawk Down
and the politics of meta-sovereignty." (2005): 165-192.
Malito, Debora Valentina. "Neutral in favour of whom? The UN intervention in Somalia and
the Somaliland peace process." International Peacekeeping 24, no. 2 (2017): 280-303.
Western, Jon. "Sources of Humanitarian Intervention: Beliefs, Information, and Advocacy in
the US Decisions on Somalia and Bosnia." International Security 26, no. 4 (2002): 112-142.
Lofland, Valerie J. "Somalia: US intervention and operation restore hope." Case Studies in
Policy-making and Implementation 6 (2002).
Eland, Ivan. "Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?." Cato Institute Foreign
Policy Briefing 50 (1998): 1-24.
Ahmed, Ismail I. "The heritage of war and state collapse in Somalia and Somaliland: local-
level effects, external interventions and reconstruction." Third World Quarterly 20, no. 1
(1999): 113-127.
Lewis, Ioan Myrddin, Ioan Lewis, ASCAP, and Michael J. Dwyer. Understanding Somalia
and Somaliland: culture, history, society. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

12INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Ahmad, Aisha. "Agenda for peace or budget for war? Evaluating the economic impact of
international intervention in Somalia." International Journal 67, no. 2 (2012): 313-331.
O'Connell, Mary Ellen. "Continuing Limits on UN Intervention in Civil War." Ind. lJ 67
(1991): 903.
Gilligan, Michael J., and Ernest J. Sergenti. "Do UN interventions cause peace? Using
matching to improve causal inference." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3, no. 2
(2008): 89-122.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. "Sociology of humanitarian intervention: Bosnia, Rwanda and
Somalia compared." In World Orders in the Making, pp. 230-265. Palgrave Macmillan,
London, 1998.
Western, Jon, and Joshua S. Goldstein. "Humanitarian intervention comes of age: lessons
from Somalia to Libya." Foreign Affairs (2011): 48-59.
De Waal, Alex, and Rakiya Omaar. "Can Military Intervention Be" Humanitarian"?." Middle
East Report 24 (1994): 3-3.
Bush, Kenneth D. "When two anarchies meet: international intervention in Somalia." Journal
of Conflict Studies 17, no. 1 (1997).
Gordon, Ruth. "United Nations Intervention in Internal Conflicts: Iraq, Somalia, and
Beyond." Mich. J. Int'l L. 15 (1993): 519.
Finnemore, Martha. "Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention." The culture of
national security: Norms and identity in world politics 153 (1996).
Ottaway, Marina, and Bethany Lacina. "International interventions and imperialism: lessons
from the 1990s." SAIS review 23, no. 2 (2003): 71-92.

13INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS