Islamist militia target new Somali town

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Islamist militia advanced on the Somali town of Baladwayne on Thursday, aiming to expand their control of southern Somalia and beginning to flank the weak interim government's base in Baidoa, residents said.

Residents woke to find the militias, supported by local clerics, in control of a key bridge and a prison without any fighting. The town near the Ethiopian border has been under the control of a governor appointed by Somalia's interim government.

...

The Islamists, linked to sharia courts, last week become a force to be reckoned with after they seized the capital from secular warlords after a fight.

The interim government is Somalia's 15th attempt to bring central government to a country where warlord-control has prevailed since dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted in 1991.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/06/15/islamist_militia_target_new_somali_town/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

to criticize islamists? i find this an outrage. the black non/islamic somalis are used as slaves and chattel. but i suppose it's un-PC to remind the world of this mess.

I've been to Somalia a couple times and don't remember a large population of non-muslims. How many are there?

Also, why is the rule of Islamic warlords any worse than your run-of-the-mill warlord?

What the place needs is stability. If Islamic warlords can provide that, more power to them.

If not, another warlord coalition will depose them soon.

I don't see any need for the US to be involved.

"Also, why is the rule of Islamic warlords any worse than your run-of-the-mill warlord?"

Please see Taliban Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. Islamic rule makes for a very unpleasant place to live. Although to be fair, Somailia wasn't, and probably will never, be a nice place to live, regardless of who is in power.

You didn't answer the question.

The other Somali warlords aren't exactly great people themselves.

Most warlords demand stuff, and obedience to their authority. Their authority includes not trying to undermine them, and requires that you give them stuff. It's arbitrary, but if you don't piss them off, the worst that happens--apart from background levels of oppression and thuggery--is that you may wind up in military service to them. Avoid those engaging in random acts of thuggery, and you minimize the damage.

Most ideologues demand less stuff and more obeisance to their beliefs. Their authority includes not trying to undermine their ideology--which means not trying to undermine them--and requires that you profess a rather large body of belief. It's arbitrary, but if you don't evince doubt or disagreement with anything in that body of belief, and you don't piss them off, the worst that happens--apart from background oppression--is that you may wind up in military service to them. There's less random thuggery, but the entire system preachers morally right thuggery; avoiding the thugs itself triggers punishment.

One, in the case of disagreement, requires silence, and acquiescing to some simple, external requirements. It's the standard dictatorship. Little buy-in required. It mostly has 'negative obligations' (sort of the inverse of 'negative rights').

The other, in the case of disagreement, requires self-criticism or repentance, and requires that you explicitly accept their beliefs and declare them righteous. It's the standard totalitarian dictatorship. Substantial buy-in required. It has 'positive obligations' (again, parallel in reverse to 'positive rights').

Why are the new warlords any worse than the old ones?

But the Islamic clerics, the guys taking over and driving out the warlords, are worse. IMHO.

Warlords tend to be thugs, and if you stay out of their way you're usually ok. Clerics tend to require not just obedience to a large set of rules, but to require that you actually profess them.

Hitler was bad; but Nazism was worse, and made the Holocaust from thuggery on a grand scale to a systematic moral evil. Stalin was a thug; but enforcing Stalinist ideology made the system unbearable. Mao was nasty; but the Cultural Revolution did more harm than simple thuggery could have done. Even if much of what they say is culturally present, the ideology justifies hate, intolerance, and coercion and makes the thuggery endemic.