Talk:War in Somalia (2006–2009)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

War to Present and in 2007 pages

I don't get the split between War in Somalia - present and War in Somalia 2007. We merging the two pages or not updating the 2007 page by error? Just curious. I really appreciate all the work other are doing here. --Rcollman 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nominee?

I think whoever nominated this as a Good Article should rethink that, as part of the Good Article criteria is stability, which an event as current and rapidly changing as this probably won't produce for this article. Homestarmy 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

Could someone add a source for the fatalities in the infovox? – Zntrip 01:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading the reports, and right now, there are no sources on the web which are keeping tallies of total casualties, such as iCasualties or Iraq Body Count for this conflict.

If one of the governments, or some NGO like the ICRC or other organization is keeping a list of fatalities, thier data is not public yet as far as Google is concerned. I believe casualties are somewhat guestimates on the author's part, but I cannot be sure where the figure came from. It is reasonable to consider those figures given the fighting throughout the year, especially in Mogadishu. However, I don't know a source is for total casualties so far. --Petercorless 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some citations of recent casualty figures, but the total aggregate casualties for 2006 are not compiled anywhere that I can find. --Petercorless 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This has a merge tag and documents a current event. It's not stable enough. Wiki-newbie 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now war?

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can call this a 'war' now. It was a 'civil war' before, but now it's a transnational war. --Petercorless 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the name of the article be, instead, "War in Somalia (2006 - present)"? In other words, flip the date to the end of the title? That would mirror the Somali Civil War (2006 - present) title schema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petercorless --Petercorless 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Any Western volunteers?

Are there any volunteers from the West helping the Ethiopians and their Somali allies fight the Islamists? --Vladko 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No "Lincoln Brigade" sort of volunteer force as far as I can tell. No mention of Western mercenaries either, as far as I can find. The only Western volunteers in Somalia that I can find reference to are humanitarian aid workers bringing relief to famine and flood-affected areas. --Petercorless 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few "western" volunteers fighting for the ICU, mostly Islamic converts and westerners of Somali descent, or naturalized citizens. Now that Ethiopia has invaded, forums and blogs are full of young Somali guys who are buying plane tickets to go fight the Ethiopians, and Mustaf Jpresumably the ICU is mobilizing them into "Abraham Lincoln" style brigades. They would have to, since they wouldn't fit into the existing per-court based command system. --Ingoman 06:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess Mustaf Jama, PC Sharon Beshenivsky's murderer, has managed to reach his homeland. I hope the Ethiopians capture him and treat him like they did with the Italian POWs during the Abyssinian War. --Vladko 08:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Italian POWs were treated rather well (i.e. according to the later Geneva conventions) during the first war (and probably for the second, though I'm not sure). It's the askaris, Ethiopians/Eritreans who fought for the Italians that were treated badly. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I changed the name to 2006-present War in Somalia (example: 2001-present war in Afghanistan) but administrators can agree freely on changing to Ethiopian war in Somalia (Soviet war in Afghanistan, as example) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

please admins do not move back to "involvement" as it's not correct. It should be a normal war page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "War in Somalia (2006-present)" (as it presently is), or "Somali-Ethiopian War (2006-present)". Basically, put the day after the event name. Much as we have "Somali Civil War (2006-present)". I agree that "involvement" is a weak descriptor at this point. --Petercorless 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Every major news organization is referring to this as Ethiopian intervention in what is an ongoing civil war in Somalia. Remember, the main combatants here are the ICU and the provisional government. If outside forces are backing these forces, that is still within the context of the preceding conflict. The Ethiopians are not at war with 'Somalia' but with the ICU. They support the elected government. I think we enter a POV issue when we imply a united "Somalia" is at war with Ethiopia. —Aiden 14:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but still we have a war going on and wars on wikipedia aren't called "intervention". The Civil War period has ended as we have here an international conflict. Anyway, here are my proposals for a name:

Ethiopian war in Somalia (similar to Soviet war in Afghanistan, with similar context also)
War in Somalia (2006-present)
Second Ethiopian-Somali War (see Somali-Ethiopian War)
Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (maybe too POV but still an option)
Ethiopian-Islamic Courts Union War

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of Ethiopia-ICU Conflict (or if it escalates Ethiopia-ICU War), similar to the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. However, right now we have only allegations of direct Ethiopian intervention. Until these allegations are confirmed beyond doubt, it would be POV to assert otherwise. —Aiden 15:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

only Ethiopia denies it, everywhere their involvement is reported. Going by their propaganda is POV. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

war is most suitable, as the media labels it. It's strange there are "no more wars" wikipedia in the past years (examples 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, Darfur conflict, etc..) Why aren't we talking of wars any more?? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Ethiopian intervention in Somalia or Ethiopian intervention in the Somali Civil War, like French intervention in Mexico. We have a country in civil war, split between a recognized government with little control of the land and the ICU controlling a major part of the population. Several foreign powers did already throw in their lot like Ethiopia now. I think this can be compared to the Thirty Years War in Europe. The Danish, Swedish and French interventions don't make this seperate wars. Wandalstouring 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)\\

Exactly. Well said, Wandalstouring. —Aiden 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

a war name would be more shorter. Also, why not then 1982 Lebanon War - Israeli intervention in the Lebanese Civil War.

not including war in the name is POV and euphemistic. I'm putting the tag now. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not 2006 Somalian War? ~Rangeley (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

in that case more precise 2006-present Somalian War. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia confirmed..

[1] <- its troops are fighting, and also confirms it is on the offensive -> [2], like the Soviet Union in the Afghan Civil War and Israel in the Lebanese Civil War. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has now escalated and it's a full-blown war any thoughts on renaming to Ethiopian-Islamic Courts Union War. It's no more a civil war... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, just like with Lebanon, you name it geographically not between the parties involved. It wasnt Israel-Hezbollah, anymore than Afghanistan was USA-Taliban war. And further, its not just Ethiopia against the courts, and its not just the courts vs others. There are multiple groups involved, and therefore the only possibility would be a geographic name. Unless war spreads beyond Somalia, I prefer Somalian War, and if it does, we could consider Horn of Africa War... possibly, though Somalian War still might be a good enough name. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree but 2006-present War in Somalia or War in Somalia (2006-present) because the adjective is uncertain: Somali or Somalian. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of Ethiopian war in Somalia. —Nightst a llion (?) 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Seeing that both the ICU and Ethiopia are calling this a "war", I would support renaming this page. – Zntrip 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But dont you realize that its not Ethiopia's war? They arent the only party involved, to randomly pick it to be their way in Somalia is incorrect. And no, the adjectives are not uncertain. Somali is the ethnicity, somalian is the nation geographically. Its not a Somali war, because its not just Somalis fighting, but it is a Somalian War as it is in Somalia. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mh, you may have a point on the Somali/Somalian difference, aye. Still, what do we call it? It's not really got a common name, and I don't see anything wrong in calling it Ethiopian war in Somalia for now -- when Eritrea actually states it's involved officially, we can call it 2006-2007 Horn of Africa war or something like that. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

support nightstallion. The context and combatants list is very "similar" to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Then Ethiopian war in Somalia. For now.

so, any admins to help with the move?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While renaming and moving around, keep in mind that there are also Somali factions fighting each other in this war and they still contribute the larger portion of fighters. Wandalstouring 13:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

keep in mind that that also happened in the US war in Afghanistan (Northern Alliance vs Taliban) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally, until people eventually pointed out that it wasnt the USA's war in Afghanistan, nor was it even NATO's war, it was NATO, plus allies, plus Northern Alliance, plus anyone fighting the Taliban. It is currently the 2001 War in Afghanistan. Why dont we just go with 2006 War in Somalia and end it there? None of this 2006-2007 or 2006-present crap, it was the War of 1812, not 1812-1815 British Intervention in North America. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

let's for instance say it is going to last (this war) for 2 years. How can we give then the name 2006 XXX and it lasted for less than a month in 2006 + the two next years. Same thing with Afghanistan. ONLY 3 months in 2001 + 5 more years. Your point is not logic.

in this case I'm for 2006-present War in Somalia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best name for the article would be something like the "2006 Ethiopia-Somalia conflict". The situation is similar to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the name of the article is NPOV and works. But since this conflict is going to drag on, at least, until next year I'm really not too sure. I am totally against making up a name for the conflict like "Ethiopian-Somali War" as it would constitute original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. – Zntrip 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's POV to euphemise it with "conflict". --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

it's a War in Somalia and it has been explicitly declared. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, making up a name for it without a reference is original research. See here: Wikipedia:No original research. – Zntrip 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, so you have a source calling it the 2006 Ethiopia-Somalia conflict? No, you dont. Its like calling something the Battle of (insert city,) if a battle happened there, and you have sources stating it, its not original research to name it that - even if they dont explicitly call it the battle of that city within the article. Naming it a war when both parties are calling it a war isnt original research, its just dropping the euphemistic term "conflict" which typically is reserved for long term hostilities that dont really become open warfare. The war in Lebanon is called that in the Hebrew encyclopedia, and both sides called it a war. There isnt a good reason we dont call it that here, people have suggested it, but its always ignored. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it doesn't need a name change? – Zntrip 22:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

...No. It was about how its not original research to name a war a war, or a battle a battle. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Somalia Diplomatic and Humanitarian Efforts

The flip side of war is peace. I have created a separate page where diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives and news can be reported, separate from the military aspects of the conflict. Feel free to help buff it up. --Petercorless 12:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

POV issue in listing combatants

10,000 – 30,000 soldiers for the ICU forces against clan militia listed for the government is not quite correct. The ICU has allied clan militias. Furthermore there are warlords of clans and businessmen with their own armed forces (sometimes called businesslords) so the ICU military system isn't that much of an organized army like the word soldier suggests, although its core of forces is organized by the ICU itself (they derived from a kind of "police forces"). Wandalstouring 12:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how to validly remove the claim that the neutrality of this article is disputed? It puts a sort of red flag on the article, I believe, unfairly. The ICU is definitely a loose affiliation of forces. However, they are all allied or confederated in the conflict in such a way that they cannot be clearly divided into subgroups as far as I can tell. --Petercorless 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? There is no such thing on the article and I didn't put one there neither. Try the edit history once before you accuse someone of such brainless deeds. Secondly read the comment again it doesn't at all ask for any subdivision of participating groups but questions the use of the word soldier while the enemy side is labeled militia. Wandalstouring 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be a bit more polite. The article was flagged, and that flag has since been removed. I did (try) to use the edit history, and I could not see specifically who added it. This was the only area of dispute I could see in the talk page at the time. Don't sweat it. As to the term "militia" versus "soldier," I agree both sides are using a broad range of formally-trained soldiers, paramilitaries, militia, and untrained volunteers. The term "troops" might be the most neutral descriptor of all. --Petercorless 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New Map

I added another new map for the conflict. My main concern is the boundaries drawn in Gedo. Can anyone confirm if Bardheere has been occupied by the ICU yet? I saw an article that said they were approaching the town on Dec 19, but I might have jumped the gun by showing it, and much of the land to the north, occupied by the ICU. Please let me know the status of the conflict in Gedo, and I can revise the map as appropriate. Also, the boundaries of the areas were taken from a 2004 map of the administrative regions. They do not directly coincide with the regional boundaries I had in my other map, or that were depicted in the other maps. If possible, I will redo those regional boundaries as well in an upcoming revision. --Petercorless 01:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is a bit off. Idale is apparently directly in between Baidoa and Dinsoor, and has been retaken by the TFG/Ethiopia. See the map here (click on the slideshow and go to the 14th picture, which is the same as the 16th). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the AFP map; compare with the BBC map, which shows Idale in the approximate location I have drawn. I am still looking for Lat/Long coordinates on this town, or better confirmation of its exact location. However, considering that back-and-forth fighting in Idale was conducted simultaneously to the advance on Dinsoor, it seems to indicate they were not directly on the same road. I therefore question the AFP map. If anyone with direct knowledge could give an indication, I'd appreciate it. --Petercorless 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The name on the map should be of this war, not the civil war. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 03:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the TFG and Puntland, both parties in the Somali Civil War, are fighting with the Ethiopians against the ICU, I still see it as a "Civil War" with Ethiopian intervention therein. We also don't have consensus on a name for "This War". Not wanting to start a further controversy regarding what else to call the conflict, I figured "Somali Civil War" was still a safer and accurate choice. --Petercorless 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This map needs some work, I left my comments on the image talk page. --Ingoman 04:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps?Wandalstouring 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Yet reading over the WikiProject Maps page, their resources are more mapping software, etc. There's a lot available at the general national level. Not a lot for detailed villages. What Ingoman is pointing out is the political facts-on-the-ground, which have to be gotten by either first-hand-knowledge of the factionalization of Somalia, or by scanning news reports and other resources on the Web. The best set of maps for Somali village locations I have been able to find are those hosted at FSAU. They are not perfect, but they are the best references I spotted. There are a few obscure villages that are not locatable: Idale (Bay) and Jawil (Hiran), for instance. --Petercorless 14:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The trick is they can make changes to all maps we have and thus create derivate works with the same license conditions. Wandalstouring 14:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by that. I can place a note over in the project, but what do you want me to say or ask for particularly? I thought at first you wanted me to make a request for help making this map. --Petercorless 16:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New Map Revised

In response, I created a new version of the map (Image:Somali-war-12252006-0804.svg) with the following changes:

Changed the control of the south to "TFG/Ethiopia" to account for the massive amount of Ethiopian troops in the area; I admit that I am not splitting out TFG/JVA areas as separate.
Put Baardheere clearly in the possession of TFG/Ethiopia.
Indicated the advance of Ethiopian troops to Buulobarde.
Added airstrikes on Mogadishu and Bali-Dogle.
Advanced the Puntland offensive to the border of Adado.
Changed offense arrow color of the ICU to red.
Added arrows for counterattacks to show TFG/Ethiopian/Puntland offenses.

Things not done:

Did not yet update the political boundaries as per the other maps.
Left out indications of any ICU presence in Sool (or at least, the autonomy of Sool from Somaliland)
Left out border disputes between Somaliland and Puntland
Did not break out JVA or Ethiopian-controlled areas separate from TFG in the south.
Did not break out Galmudug separate from Puntland in the north; Galmudug was opposed to both Puntland and UIC control, but was overrun (from what I can see) by the ICU.

Ingoman, I read your comments but because I cannot establish in any way whether Somaliland-Jubaland has turned into any actual military actions related to the present stage of the Civil War. Somaliland seems, for all intents, "neutral" towards present events in the south. I also had to make a few choices to make the graphic understandable. Right now, the TFG, JVA and Ethiopian militaries are operating in alliance. It makes sense to keep them all together. Likewise, I kept Puntland and Ethipia as their own color in the north. Please let me know if you can find any activity for Galmudug remaining as an autonomous force, fighting independently or on the side of one or the other parties, in December. I am willing to be educated and to improve the maps as befitting the situation.

Please provide references/links to any documents if you wish for me to make changes to the map to account for your arguments so I can get more details of lines of control or names of towns under possession/occupation. Also, considering the maps will be changing, possibly a few times a week, please post comments here rather than on the specific image "talk" page, to track your comments over time. Thanks for the feedback! --Petercorless 17:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Adado

Adadow has fallen to a combined Ethiopia/Puntland force.[3][4] --69.155.228.96 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. I have drawn it under Galmudug administration, though I am not sure who is in charge of the town. It would make sense to place it under the GDF, but Ethiopia contributed most of the troops so who knows. --Ingoman 03:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a new battle map to the page for the Battle of Bandiradley. So far, only Ethiopian, Puntland, and warlord Abdi Qeybdid's forces were mentioned. Nothing about a separate military presence of Galmudug in any news report. --Petercorless 03:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Qeybdid is the leader of Galmudug's military forces. --Ingoman 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. --Petercorless 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we create a separate Battle page for Adado? We don't seem to have a huge amount of information on it, so it might become a stub. Unless more information arrives. - Permafrost 03:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if there will be any fighting at Adado. According to the reports, the ICU pulled out of the town rather than face a fight. It could be that there might be a fluid period of advance. Or, we might wake up to reports of fighting. Let's wait and see. --Petercorless 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some significant changes required to the map for the 26th. IUC fighters have withdrawn from the Battle of Baidoa.[5] --69.155.228.96 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems the Islamists are in full retreat. It gives credence to the reports that they're switching to guerilla warfare since they can't win conventionally. I suspect Mogadishu will fall soon. -- Permafrost 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my thought but tactically, TFG-Ethiopia-Puntland force should stay out of Mogadishu and let the ICU force keep it so that its resource would be depleted trying to protect it. As ICU lacks the air-defense capability, having to protect or even attempting to maintain its airport would be too much trouble. Periodically harassing (but never taking) Mogadishu will be an effective propaganda against ICU. This also prevents ICU from going to a fully guerilla force.--Revth 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, pretty smart idea. If they did that perhaps the ICU would collapse from a loss of credibility from within, rather than remain as a legitimate guerilla group. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears you're right, Revth. Ethiopia's PM said he will likely only encircle Mogadishu to contain the ICU. And they're halfway done.[6] Perhaps Ethiopian withdrawal will begin before Orhthodox Christmas. -- Permafrost 15:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Battle of Baidoa" Map Updates for December 26, 2006

Updated the "Battle of Baidoa" map to account for the following:

ICU retreat from Burhakaba
ICU retreat from Dinsor
Added a line of advance for Ethiopian troops from Buuloburde, but it is uncertain from current reports what city they are closest to at this point.
Added Ethiopian airstrike to Leego.
Changed legend to show TFG/Ethiopia as forces advancing (not just TFG)
Changed legend to show lines of ICU withdrawal

--Petercorless 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more changes needed. I've just updated the main article with news that the ICU is on the run everywhere, right up to Jowhar and the province it's in. 90% loss in territory. -- Permafrost 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Last report I saw of specific front lines listed Fidaw and Bur Weyn, which is still up near Buulo Burde. See: Somalia: Ethiopian warplanes bomb Lego, an Islamist base; though this is as of Dec 26, 8:30 am. Though they are indeed on the run, there were also reinforcements coming from Mogadishu. What I have yet to establish is a specific new frontage.

I have not seen a confirmation of withdrawal from Tiyoglow, nor what is particularly occurring in the Juba valley. I'm wondering whether the ICU will send all their troops back to Mogadishu, or if any of them might make a front before Kismayo, or begin any independent raids or last stands at whatever place they happen to occupy presently. There might be pockets of resistance the Ethiopians and government forces bypass on their forward march.

I will to start a new map for the next phase of the campaign, which is likely to be the advance of the TFG/Ethiopian troops to the outskirts of Mogadishu. I am deliberating on whether the map should be more regional, to comprise as far south as Kismayo, and as far north as Beledweyne, or simply keep the same scale/scope to compare over time with the present map, and create a separate "Kismayo" area if that develops into a conflict zone.

At this point, I am calling a 'wrap' on the Battle of Baidoa map, and will come out with 'something new' depending on what news events we see in the coming days, and where the fighting seems to pick up.

Further north, and nationally, I am wondering what is happening in Galgadud. I have no reports of forces coming back through Ballanballe, nor indication that the Ethiopians have pressed on towards Dhuusamareeb yet. --Petercorless 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation the Ethiopians/TFG entered Jalalaqsi. Still no word about taking Jowhar; or Bali-Dogle or Wanlaweyne. Also found a report of the abandonment of Dhuusamareeb by the ICU, but not its occupation by Ethiopia/Puntland/Galmudug. --Petercorless 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats pretty much what Ive been getting. Today was a rather slow news day as far as things went, I was expecting some word on Jowhar but none came. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The battle's underway for Jowhar. [[7]] The Islamists have stopped retreating at Jimbale 140km/87 miles north of Mogadishu and putting up a fight against the TFG/Ethiopians there. I'm not sure what they mean when they're using weapons people haven't heard of before. Have they received new weapons shipments? And I suppose that the Ethiopians have advanced right up to Jimbale if they're clashing right now. -- Permafrost 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Made Battle of Jowhar. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style reminder

A lot of new content is coming in as actions are reported, but I'd like to remind everyone that the MoS recommends avoiding one sentence paragraphs and linking to nonexistent articles. It makes the article look poor and confusing. Otherwise, everyone keep up the good work! —Aiden 16:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

War - the only choice

As we have FORMAL declarations of war from both sides, it cannot be neither conflict, neither original research, because we have sources (see references in article).

War in Somalia (2006-present) is most NPOV for me. As is Battle of Baidoa etc... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

we must have in mind how will people search the article, also. War will be their first word. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I dont like the present part, ultimately this is a better title than it is currently. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Every time Ethiopia has ever fought Somalia in the past century, it was all over in about a week. So there is a very good chance it won't even last into 2007, then you can take out the "-present" part...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Told ya so. Propose article move to War in Somalia (2006). ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm, the courts said repeatedly that their new form of Jihad will be hit and run and other guerrilla tactics like Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghani Talibans were chased from power more than five years ago. However, they are still strong and damaging. The Islamic Courts are adapting this strategy in hopes of defeating Somalia Ethiopia governments slowly. Time will tell if this formula will work in Somalia. [8] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but militarily I think that Al Qaeda is no match whatsoever for the experienced Ethiopian force, that even defeated the Kremlin-backed troops of Mengistu in the most difficult war ever of 17 years. The same Jihad tactics they are using in Afghanistan and Iraq, will only work for them if Ethiopians stay around in occupation of the country -- which they aren't stupid enough to do, and have even said plainly they won't... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The question is, what is Ethiopian governments intention in this war? It seems to be to protect their borders and strengthen the transitionary government. But by definition, both of these would have failed if the ICU and allies are attacking Ethiopia in Ethiopia and sniping at the transitionary government in Somalia. The nature of the war may have changed, but no side would be any closer to a victory Nil Einne 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing your point, as it does not seem clear to me. I had no problem understanding what TheFEARgod was saying, though... I see that you say "the question is, what is the Ethiopian government's intention in this war?", then make some premises to answer that question. However, PM Meles has been quite clear about his intentions, and yesterday he stated that he aims "to severely damage the courts' military capabilities and allow both sides to return to peace talks on an even footing." I think he has succeeded at the first of these stated goals already, many foreign militants have been killed, the same fanatics who have been causing serious trouble all over the Middle East with their suicide bombings of innocent people. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will suggest the above user to use his or her soapbox for these pro-western rantings and keep the CNN sponsered opinions down to a minimum. How many people has Melwes killed? How many have these court killed, havent they brough peace? Ethiopia has all kinds of other concerns they seem to neglect--like its people. (ha ha My soapbox)--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugandan troops in Somalia

[9]

Condoleeza Rice, a government Secretary, has said that Ugandan troops are in Somalia. The Ugandan government is denying this, because it'd be illegal for them at the moment, but it's coming from a credible source. Since the US looks favourably towards Uganda involvement, would it not be safe to assume that alleged Ugandan troops would be on the side of the Ethiopians in "restoring peace"? -- Permafrost 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse they are aiding the TNG. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why have the ICU or witnesses not reported seeing them before? Are there any other reports saying how many troops or what their specific mission is in Somalia? Permafrost 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and until this I wasnt even aware that they were rumored to have deployed already. But this could be because Uganda has integrated its force into Ethiopia's, or the TNG's. They would probably not be discernible from Ethiopian fighters. But its not possible that Uganda would be aiding the ICU in its deployment, as they have in the past come out against the ICU and have talked about sending peacekeepers with AU support to help the TNG. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ugandan troops might be members of the Uganda military meeting with the TFG in preparation for IGASOM. They are definitely not welcome by the ICU. If they are present, it might be as UN peacekeepers, not participants on the part of the TFG/Ethiopia. --Petercorless 16:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have family in Uganda and I can say pretty confidently that the "SomaliNet News" link quoted is not true. I also looked for a confirmation -any confirmation of this through more reliable news source -and there is none.

Uganda is considering deploying peacekeepers in the area. Which makes this "allegation" false until they do.

Furthermore I am offended by the statement above by Rangeley that Ugandan troops would not be discernable from Ethiopian fighters. There are somewhat biggoted overtones to this discussion. Uganda is it's own country and is seperate from Ethiopia. Any significant movement of troops from Kampala would be noticed and would also draw Ugandan forces away from the LRA.

I beg of all to keep your objectivity and not invent facts to suit theories.--Astrocloud 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopia Admits "3,000 - 4,000" Troops

Islamic threats follow Ethiopian troop advancement in Somalia USA Today --Petercorless 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Add that Ethiopia lied and first said NO TROOPS

can we add a source for the statement that Melwes said he had no troops in Somalia?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he really didn't have that many there after all, until the sudden change in the tide tipped the balance, which is right after he said he sent them... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No WAY man, how that is sound nice to believe, Somalia said they saw them all of a sudden a war. YOu know what happened, he was waiting on the full permission from USA. Like this is an African war this is an extension of US control and western interest, like Sudan and their oil, America cannot fight the war so get poor hungry need every cent they can get Ethiopia to fight. Sorry for the soapbox. But We cannot take any politician at face value, look at the Iraq of "they have WMD" --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, dont use this as a soapbox for anti-western ranting. If what you are saying is true, they wouldnt have been waiting for approval, the USA would be begging them to do this years ago. The more likely explanation for Ethiopia's denial would be strategy. They didnt want to make a target out of themselves so early, and instead moved in to train the Transitional Government for this - infact they have even said this. After they were trained to a point, they began a counter offensive against the Islamist forces which had to that point been expanding rapidly. Admitting that they were there early on might have rallied more to the ICU at a time it could not have been as easilly handled as it can be now, where they are making great strides and able to force a retreat. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has to keep a NPOV -- Neutral Point of View. If you wish to make this point, cite published sources. I do believe the prior contributors have been fairly pointing out while the Ethiopians claimed they had no troops in Somalia, there were reports of troops in the country. There are also points in the article where we speak of the different claims of Ethiopia, who said "no troops" or "hundreds" while the ICU was saying "30,000" -- both of which were exaggerations -- while the UN was said to have estimated 8,000 -- though we never got a reference to where that precise figure came from in any published UN report. So, we have to be careful about saying people "lied," to avoid taking sides. There would also have to be external references to assert it was a purposeful deception as an Information warfare or Disinformation tactic, which is probably more to the point than simply calling it a lie. --Petercorless 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree about using "lie" but it is a very upsetting issue.But the ranting of an Ethiopian dictator needs to be put into context, p.s I am not anti-West, i am anti-colonialism and terrorism (governement or otherwise)--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good than you are against Arab colonialism, well said. The Arabs are trying to colonize Somalia through the islamist groups and lie about the aid they recieve as well. The ICU gets help from Arabs, Djibouti, Iranians and Eriteans. See article on ICU on this.

I have started an area on Information Warfare, Disinformation and Propaganda. It would behoove you to contribute, but to be rational. To cite any claims that can be asserted as false. To search for proof both ways. For instance, the ICU claims "35,000" Ethiopian troops were in Somalia back on December 12. Do we have any proof that there were, or were not, that many Ethiopian forces in Somalia? This would put it a full ten thousand troops above the next higher estimate. You need to make provable assertions, made from external references you can cite. --Petercorless 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section on Propaganda to its own page (Propaganda in the War in Somalia) to shorten the main article. --Petercorless 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's all the great maps gone?

How come the other maps of the conflict have been removed? I'm talking about the ones made by User:Ingoman, they were excellent stuff and it seems very strange now to only have two of them. Now people can't see the rest of the situation and the lead-up to the most recent phase. I think they should be back, maybe if they are taking up too much room they can be put into a gallery box side-by-side, or something like that. --Hibernian 07:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. My maps are still where I left them, the confusion probably arises because this article "War in Somalia (2006-present)" is a different article from "Somali Civil War (2006-present)". We probably need a better name for the "Somali Civil War" because this is actually two seperate civil wars. I propose "Somalian Revolution 1988-1993" for the first civil war up until Somaliland declares independence and the UN leaves the country. This should lead to four seperate overlapping articles: "Attempts at National Reconciliation in Somalia 1993-2004" discussing the endless attempts to recreate Somalia, "Disintegration of Somalia 1993-1998" discussing the breakdown of authority down to clan based fiefs under warlords, "Consolidation of States Within Somalia 1998-2006" the creation of Puntland, Southwestern Somalia, Jubaland, Hiranland, the Transitional Government and the ARPCT, "Somalian Civil War" should be the over-article for all of these articles.--Ingoman 08:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that reorganisation sounds about right. Go right ahead, Ingoman. :) —Nightst a llion (?) 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this two separate civil wars? When did the first one ever end? When a civil war ends it means that the factions in the war are no longer fighting either because they've all agreed to peace (which never happened - some factions agreed to peace, not all) or they have all been defeated save for one victorious faction (which also hasn't happened). You even point out that between 1993 and 2004 there were only attempts at reconciliation. Attempts at reconciliation do not mean all the factions were reconciled. This is more of a new phase in the civil war, but it is still the same civil war. The Islamic Courts were just a new faction in an old civil war, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan (and I'm not comparing the policies of either just their rise within a civil war).72.27.62.58 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the Somali Civil War page shows the single continuity of the civil war since the rebellion against and ouster of Siad Barre. What made this phase of the war distinct was the involvement of foreign powers -- Ethiopia and the United States -- which changes it from simply an internal civil war to an international war. The war is entering yet another phase. For each of these phases of a polymorphing war, we are creating separate articles. --Petercorless 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget Eritrea and Al Qaeda are also outsiders who have joined the war. JRSpriggs 08:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiiraan? or Hiran?

I have been seeing a hiran all over the article, its actually Hiiraan and since my account is named after it, I should know it :) ... I am just informing everyone who is editing the article to use Hiiraan and not Hiran because hiran is incorrect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiiraan (talk • contribs) 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

English transliterations of Somali names don't use the double vowel (no Oo, Uu, Ii Ee or Aa) because in English these either don't exist as sounds (English speaker doesn't know what to do with Uu or Ii) or mean different sounds than what they mean in Somali (Ee and Oo are different sounds in English). So English transliterations take out all the doublings. --Ingoman 09:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any other precedents for "transliterating" a word from the Latin alphabet to another Latin alphabet. By custom, all foreign names that share Latin letters, even those with very different sounds, are kept with the original spellings, rather than transliterated - do we phonetically write out Hungarian names, for instance? Technically what you are describing would be called "Anglicising" the name rather than transliterating, and I'm not sure that's appropriate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's transliterating. When you spell out "Hiraan" in Somali, the Aa is not a really long A sound, as you would expect it to be, but that the A should be heavily emphasized. This is the same with all Somali vowel doubling, and translated Somali always removes the doubling. Ethiopian government maps in English for instance go even further, transliterating AND anglicizing the names, so Qalaafo becomes Kelafo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 09:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

No, it's not called "transliterating" when both orthographies already use the Latin alphabet. "Transliterating" is when you represent the sounds of one alphabet in an entirely different alphabet. I again ask if you can show me one other language where there is a precedent for Anglicizing orthographies from another language written in the Latin alphabet. By the very same logic you use, Wikipedia should move the article Juan Valdez to Wan Valdez, because the letter J has a different sound value in Spanish, and this might prove too confusing for some English speakers. There is no difference in the argument you are using here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are not going by Ethiopian Standards of translation, are we? if we are, then Hiran is fine but since I know we are not, Hiran is a wrong transliterating. The Word Hiiraan actual pronounced (He-Ra-aN) and to an English speaker with no knowlodge of the Somali Language Hiran sounds as (Hi-ra-n) which is wrong. I am a Somali speaker and when I saying Hiiraan, Actually the Aa is emphasized so the Aa is important part of the word. --Samantar Abdirisaq 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Many spellings are what we are getting are from the press reports. Lots of examples of non-standardized spellings of many Somali towns and even people. At some point, all of the articles involving this crisis can be gone through and checked for what the "official" name should be. For instance, Iidale became Idale in most reports. Bedelweyne is also alternatively spelled Beletweyne and Belet Weyne (with a space). Burhakaba has been written a myriad of ways. Some variants of Adado spell it Cadado. The only thing I can think of is to create a gazeteer and an index of persons with the variants listed therein. --Petercorless 14:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

I realize that this article's subject is the epitome of a Current Event in which "information may change rapidly as the event progresses", but can editors make some effort to stick to inline citation style when adding references? A mixture of embedded numbered links and inline footnotes makes the article look less professional, and ultimately just creates more work, in order to switch one set of references to the other method. Please? Thank you. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UIC or ICU?

The Somalia article uses the term UIC whereas this article uses the term ICU. Should usage be standardized? Otherwise readers will be prone to confusion. I've noticed that this discussion uses both. Mamalujo 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally we are using ICU. Other variants of the name of the Islamist movement in Somalia, including UIC, SCIC and SICC, have generally been deprecated in this article in favor of ICU. --Petercorless 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll propose on the Somalia article talk page that the ICU acronym be used for consistency and to avoid confusion.Mamalujo 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Start of War

The current article says 21 December in the lead and 20 December in the infobox, while at other times it has said 24 December (when Meles admitted that Ethiopia was fighting). Shouldn't the war have started on 19 December, the first day of fighting when the 7-day ultimatum issued by the ICU expired? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

yes it should be when the war physically started not when the US rep in Ethiopia (Aka..) admitted 2 war.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

saying December 24 would be Ethiopian-POV. Like user above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made the clarification of the formal declaration of war by the ICU given on the 21st, the Ethiopian response the 24th, but the fighting began on the 20th with the lapse of the 7-day deadline for withdrawal given by the ICU. That is as clear as it can be made, I hope. While there was fighting on the 19th, and before then—there's been skirmishes between the ICU and Ethiopia going back for many months—this was the lapse of the formal warning by the ICU and that seems to be the time when the "gloves came off" officially for both parties. --Petercorless 11:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, very good

Hello guys, the article kicks ass!! Let's "drive" it towards Featured Article level! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a very well constructed article , i like those maps. still dont know how ET can afford a war.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrasted with the very painful creation of the 2006 Israel Lebanon conflict, this one has come out very well. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because there are fewer representatives from interested parties (mainly Ethiopians, Somalis, and Eritreans) on Wikipedia. If the U.S. and mujahideen had been more heavily involved, I'm sure there would have been just as much trouble. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortening?

Is there any more shortening we can do for this main article by moving sections to the specific pages for aspects of the conflict? Feedback? I did not want to hack away anyone's timeless prose just yet. --Petercorless 11:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

shortening most of Timeline of the build-up because it's already included in the Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006) article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

also shortening the Battle of Baidoa part because we have an article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Careful about editing footnotes

There were a few oddities after an edit of footnotes. I corrected them. --Petercorless 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing part

"A spokesman for the African Union said Ethiopia has every right to defend its sovereignty and nodded Ethiopian military actions in Somalia." - what does nodded mean? Is that supposed to be noted? --AW 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed the word to "supported." --Petercorless 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Control of the Juba Valley

Depending on how things go, we might create a "Battle of Jilib" or a "Battle of Kismayo." I am working on a map for the Juba Valley area presently, to show the advances of the ICU in September and October, and the TFG advances from Bardheere and Dinsoor so far. --Petercorless 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done: Somali Civil War, Withdrawal of the ICU, as of December 29, 2006 --Petercorless 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it wasn't needed. They abandoned Kismayo without much fighting Akubhai 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you guys for reporting on this war which is an important front in the War on Terrorism. I figure that the ICU is just like the Taliban. But it does not get much coverage in the newspaper I read. So please keep up the good work. JRSpriggs 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The are some similarities between the ICU and Taliban, but also many differences. However your right about one thing, the acts of this war, especially the US's support for Ethipia is likely to increase the support for those who wish to commit terrorism Nil Einne 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image in the infobox?

As this article is a candidate for the Release Version, can we try to see if a free image is at all available? I know the chances are slim, what with most photos being under the copyright of news organizations, but a good effort to find free images strengthens a fair use rationale. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I havent found any free images for this war. It tends to be difficult to find any for wars not fought by western nations, but the current infobox image was pretty widely distributed and used by outlets in comparison to other images. Might be the best we have at the moment. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article split

I suggest splitting the article into two parts, similar to the Iraq War (Invasion + occupation), to:

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not how the Iraq War is split, and I wouldnt want it for this either. The Iraq War article is about the whole war, there is also the 2003 Invasion of Iraq which talks specifically about the invasion, but its stated as a part of the Iraq war, just as any other operation would be (like Operation Swarmer}. I dont think there is a reason to split things at this point, it will depend on where things actually go from here. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

your statement has an error, see phases in the Iraq War campaignbox, it is clear: invasion + occupation articles along the main one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then its not actually splitting. My point was that the Iraq War covers the entire war, and I dont see why this article should be any different. If by split you mean create parallel articles to this covering specific aspects, I think at this point it would be redundant. We already have an overview of the battles here, with specifics in the battles article. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Making prematurely predictive articles like "Occupation of Somalia (2007-present)" on Jan 1, 2007 is exactly what Wikipedia should not be doing. Ethiopia has clearly stated they have no intention of staying behind to occupy, maybe this will prove false, but let's stick to writing articles about things that have actually happened. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. —Nightst a llion (?) 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not PREDICTIVE. It's ONGOING --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw today's BBC article too, and it's just a teeny bit easier to say '2007 occupation' today than it was yesterday, on Jan. 1! At any rate, it appears there will be some kind of occupation in 2007, at least by AU peacekeepers if not Ethiopians, so no doubt there will soon be enough to make an article called the "2007 Occupation of Somalia" or some such, but let's be patient. Interesting to note that the BBC says Meles wants to get his troops out in two weeks tops, while al Ghedi is who wants them there much longer. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm some more interesting developments from the "Somali" side: [10] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Any article detailing the occupation should probably start in July of '06, as that was when Ethiopia occupied most of Gedo and half of Baidoa. --Ingoman 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added "Disarmament" section

Rather than focus on an "occupation," which is speculative, I created a new section for the efforts on disarmament of the militias, which is a readily-citable government initiative. I put it in the "political" section rather than military. --Petercorless 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

an occupation is now taking place in Baidoa, Mogadishu etc.. Ethiopian troops are still there. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

it's not importan whether 15 days or three months it's still an occupation. [11] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 1 Map

Looking at Image:Somali_land_2007_01_01.png I found a few things to correct. The TFG/Ethiopian forces already took the following areas:

Wanlaweyne - report of 70 Ethiopian tanks passing through en route to Mogadishu
Baraawe (I believe reported as "Barava" in the AP article.)
Marka - passed through en route to Jilib.
Kurtenwarey - passed through en route to Jilib.
Qoryoley - passed through en route to Jilib.

--Petercorless 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to a computer with that kind of image editing software right now, but couldn't you easily change the data yourself (I assume you have the appropriate software given that you've made some images for the article before). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've been scanning the news but very little seems to be about actual territorial gains or losses. As far as the media is concerned, the ICU is completely gone. I've been hearing rumors that Galmudug took El Bur, but no confirmation. No info on the status of Hobyo or Haradhere either.--Ingoman 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is something I have noticed in a lot of them. There is one light green (ally to ICU) troop in the middle of Ethiopia, is this a mistake? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to the WSLF/ONLF (Western Somali Liberation Front, now the Ogaden(i) Liberation Front). They claimed that they attacked some Ethiopian convoys earlier in the war. There's been no news since then, so maybe it's time to remove the troop image (and perhaps also for images aside from that day?). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read reports that state quite the contrary, including two convoy attacks in the last two weeks. --Ingoman 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read of any attacks aside from the first and a new one today, so the troops should be kept for today, but I'm not sure that they should be included for every day, as they are highly fluid and integratte within the local populace (and equally as quickly appear). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this form of map works for insurgent movements. You might instead consider putting some form of explosion symbol where they have conducted attacks. That might also be more appropriate for other insurgency attacks in coming days. Because these are not issues of territorial control or standing forces so much as individual acts of violence. --Petercorless 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Eritrea & Foreign Jihadists

How much evidence is needed before Eritrea's involvement and those of foreign jihadists is confirmed? Here are some more recent sources, apart from claims at the Battle of Baidoa [12][13][14] — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 18:37, January 2, 2007

Well, it's certainly not enough to prove anything other than the fact that they happened to have Eritrean passports. Two of the men had Canadian passports, and I hope you're not suggesting Canada be added as a combatant? I think we all need to try and not be carried away with the claims made at this stage in the game. I mean heck, there's a news item out today stating Ethiopia's intention to annex Somalia. --Ingoman 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it proves anything yet, but an Eritrean passport is certainly more indicative of Eritrean involvement than a Canadian one of Canadian involvement. The Canadians have been identified of Ethiopian-Somali descent (i.e. Somali from Ethiopia), while the Eritreans are simply described as Eritreans (i.e. ethnic Eritreans), and not simply having an Eritrean passport.[15] UPDATE: One of the Eritreans is an Colonel in the Eritrean Army.[16] — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it somewhat suspicious that they didn't even mention his name. --Ingoman 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was an Eritrean army Colonel captured in Somalia I don't see how this can be explained other then direct military involvement by Eritrea, however this report does seem to be sketchy to say the least. I guess if the claim is true, it will be confirmed shortly; if it is not true, we will never hear of it again. Also, if this doesn't pan out then it would seem that the entire group of 2000-3000 Eritreans, Ethiopia and the TFG claimed to be fighting, have completely vanished. Mesfin 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think it is more than a little unlikely that people sent to fight covertly (assumed as involvement is being denied) on behalf of the Somali's would be carrying passports from their respective country? Seems a little unlikely don't you think? But hey, thats just me and my logical mind...Anyway, lets see if we can get more details from the Kenyan papers, which havent really mentioned it.-Merhawie 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Eritrean involvement has been cited numerous times as being fact, but in reality it's never been proven. It's mostly cited to raise the spectre of regional warfare. --Ingoman 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

US Media Coverage of the Somalia War

Hey, why isn't ABC News and all other news networks in the United States, haven't been covering the developments of the War in Somalia, because this is just as important as the issues like Saddam Hussein or Gerald Ford's death. I mean, come on, this war have been going off and on sproadically since 1986 and I have not heard one time that the media mention about this war. The only people I heard discussing about this war is sites like Wikipedia. If you like to send me a comment about why the media is so dishonest and won't cover the war, send it to my talk page, thanks.--jsalims80 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been listening mostly to NPR, where it has been mentioned numerous times. --Petercorless 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I listen to New Hampshire Public Radio, especially at night. So I get German and BBC versions of world news along with the NPR coverage in the morning. But even our local daily papers have coverage on a faily regular basis. But Jsalims890 is right, nothing compairs to Wikipedia. --Rcollman 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All wikipedia does is take information from news coverage out there and puts it together. If it werent out there, we wouldnt be able to write these articles. For the most part I got my information from near constant refreshings of google news searching for various things such as "Somalia," "Mogadishu," or whatever city fighting was at on that given day. There were some things on TV, but not enough to write an article about. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I live in Australia and heard a fair bit through a dedicated world news channel (SBS), I still heard latest developments through BBC world and CNN International. I would assume CNN USA would run many of the headline stories from International though. Fox News, which I also have, did little to no coverage of this conflict I have to admit. It is fortunate that many of the media agencies repeat their stories on the internet though, or it would involve much harder work to collect information for these articles. And it is often that the media agency covers what is in their best interest, namely local and national news. -- Permafrost 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Update Map

Is the map going to be updated showing which areas are controlled by who and where troops currently are? As of right now the latest map shows the ICU retreating to Kiamayo, which we all know has fallen. I can't find anything new on what's going on. Is Ethiopia taking over land? TGF? Clans? Warlords? Puntland? If someone can update it that would be great. 68.192.83.150 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the fall of Kismayo, there has been no major movement of troops reported; hence the maps have not been updated. We've been scanning for more advances, such as to Hobyo or towards the Kenyan border, but so far, nothing. --Petercorless 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the territories in the north actually mutinied, as they are primarily Abgaal territories and the Abgaal mutinied against the ICU when Mogadishu looked as though it was going to fall. I have changed the map accordingly. If they were still ICU controlled, there is no way Ethiopia and Galmudug would have just sat there and left it. --Ingoman 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Mogadishu, hasnt the TFG assumed control of it? ~Rangeley (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, clan militias rule the streets and there are a number of warlords firmly embedded in the city now that the ICU is gone. The TFG exerting more than de-jure authority over Mogadishu is going to be a difficult task. --Ingoman 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In pictures abd other news it shows TFG forces in Mogadishu. TFG soldiers have even reoccupied old government buildings. Even if there are sitll clans there, there's no fighting, and the TFG has control over it. 68.192.83.150 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's too soon to say Mogadishu belongs to the government. Mogadishu is a city of 3 million, and most of those people have weapons.--Ingoman 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that could more or less be said to be the case everywhere in Somalia. I would still consider Mogadishu to be under Government control, just as it was under ICU control earlier. People were armed, but they were not in armed conflict with the ICU, and they are not today with the TFG. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree: Mogadishu should be shown as controlled by the TFG. While there are still indepenedent warlords in Mogadishu, none of them are specifically airing their opposition or openly vying for control of the city. If the city was undergoing some form of armed cantonization and insurrection, that would be one thing. But for now, while peace holds, the TFG controls the capital. Likewise, since Defense Minister Hiiraale is in Kismayo, and since that was his capital when he was in charge of the JVA, I would assert control of Kismayo (and its approaches) to the TFG also. --Petercorless 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So it can be agreed that Modadishu and Kismayo are TFG/Ethiopian. To show that Clans still operate in these areas there should be troops of Clan colors on these areas to show this. 68.192.83.150 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One more vote to bolster Mogadishu being in the hands of the TFG is the particular noting in the WFP's recent report where they offloaded 4,500 tons of food from a ship in the port, and marked how the port changed hands from the ICU to a local sub-clan, and then to the TFG. The TFG is in control of key facilities in the town, including Villa Somalia, Villa Baidoa, the port, and so on. No, a few thousand government troops do not constitute utter control of a capital of 1+ million, but there's no one else's flag I'd put on the spot at this point. --Petercorless 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations / Sources (Links)

Please do not link to news.yahoo.com and to articles issued by Reuters (also at alertnet.org) or the Associated Press. They're existing only two or three months and then disappear and are therefore worthless, except for the claim of making an edit. The same problem is with newspaper websites which are using the original newsfeed of Reuters or AP, e.g. Washington Post (partly, can be easily recognised by the AP/Reuters logo near the headline), Forbes, CBS, partly CNN.

Safe links newspapers and other media outlets which usually publish AP/Reuters news without editing but keep them include BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk) Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Independent Online (South Africa). In the cases in which the original title of the news is still available a Google advanced search with the exact phrase might be successfull to find and restore those links. Links to BBC News articles are safe, they stay forever. Links to Washington Post articles which had been published in the print edition are also safe and can be recognised by date and pagenumber near the title and byline of the article! --213.155.224.232 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sudanese Tribune

Who are they, and why are they a reliable source? Do they have qualification beyond being a web site? -- Heptor _talk 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Sudan Tribune is a reliable source. It is a prime news source for events in the Horn of Africa and East Africa; especially for political issues not covered by other outlets. It does include commentaries and analyses along with news, but those writing them are generally well-qualified. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New article

I think we should need an article covering the ICU insurgency as part of this war. The post-Kismayo part is getting long. Any thoughts? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Sure, why not? —Nightst a llion (?) 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's already Disarmament in Somalia and Ethiopian troops are supposed to leave within 2 weeks (excepting training of Somali Government forces in non-hostile regions), so I'm not sure it's needed. Perhaps when Ugandan or AU or UN forces enter the region in a peacekeeping facility we can begin such an article. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I said ICU insurgency, not occupation. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WoT

Also, is this war a part of the War on Terror? We have U.S. warships and Ethiopia is in the coalition. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, but someone removed the template as the article didn't discuss the issue. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that a US SOCOM AC-130 just attacked what they claimed to be Al-Qaeda targets in Somalia, I added back in the Template:War on Terrorism. --Petercorless 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't justify it's inclusion... can any sources be found where someone says it is part of GWOT? Sfacets 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The attack was carried out under the task force stationed in the region which is acting under OEF-HOA. [17] ~Rangeley (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that it is included. The attacks could be something else altogether. Including Somalia without sources is Original Research... Sfacets 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but no. The task force is there as a part of the campaign, obviously when the task force acts within the campaign's parameters it is a part of the campaign. Its not like they have done something unreasonably different then the stated objective of their Operation within the WoT - infact they have done exactly what their stated purpose is within their operation. Your doubt that the task force's actions were carried out within the task force's mission are unfounded, and you are the one that needs a source. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is your definitive source "Pentagon: Somalia Part of War on Terror" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the War on Terrorism template should include Somalia yet. The ICU was a group created out of locals wanting security, not concerns outside their own country. The US claiming that there is Al-Queda members in the country has yet to be confirmed. Ironically, the US bombing has probably brought up anti-americanism that didn't exist before, but there is yet to have any confirmed terrorists involved. Mikebloke 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the US' assertion is true or not, that is the stated reason it has chosen to intervene. We might note the proof or lack of evidence, a la WMD assertions in the intervention in Iraq, yet realistically we must reflect the ostensible reasons the US decided to intervene, regardless of our personal POV of the validity of those reasons. --Petercorless 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Since conventional warfare has been over for a week or so now, should we rename this article? I think 2006 War in Somalia is the best option. The war ended by January 1, 2007, and fighting in this year is minimal. The occupation being separate from the actual war, and military operations since 01/01/07 have basically been small operations, limited to minimal guerilla warfare and capturing terrorists and the leaders of the ICU. Perhaps some would consider that enough, but renaming it to 2006-2007 War in Somalia could be done now, since it is highly unlikely conflict will continue for another 359 days into 2008. I think "2006" is all the years we need to write, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

conventional warfare ended also in Afghanistan and Chechnya, still they keep their names and are ongoing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Conventional warfare is over? Somebody forgot to tell the ICU and Ethiopian forces still battling in the far southern tip of the country in a very conventional fashion. --Ingoman 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Battle of Ras Kamboni added. --Petercorless 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think to be honest with ourselves, we should name this article "Ethiopian Invasion of the Islamic Courts Union", and then two articles should be created (or renamed) : "Islamist Insurgency in Somalia" and "Pacification and Disarmament in Somalia". --Ingoman 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not honesty, thats inaccuracy. You can only invade countries, and the ICU was not a country, it was a militia. Somalia's internationaly recognized government invited Ethiopia into the country to combat these militia. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. There was no country known as the "Islamic Courts Union." This remains a civil war between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government, along with its intrastate allies Puntland and Galmudug, and its external ally, Ethiopia, over control of the country. Hence why I prefer to still refer to it as part of the Somali Civil War. Technically, it is the "Federalist-Islamist Civil War in Somalia" but no one is calling it that. For our purposes, "War in Somalia" is sufficient as a name. --Petercorless 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

there is a strange thing in the ICU article. The box portraits it as a state.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that until the historians, pundits, media personalities and news desk editors of the world's fourth estate think of a unique name for this conflict, we should just keep the article named as it currently is. —ExplorerCDT 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Map Sizes

Because of the length of the article, and also to make the page look consistent, I am going to re-size all the maps to 300px. --Petercorless 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

I modified the title "Ethiopian occupation" to "Ethiopian military presence". While I don't strongly oppose the notion that it's an occupation, it's not clear from the definition (from Military occupation):

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"

and

"The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant...".

There's the question of what is legitimate power, and it can be argued that the TFG is in fact the legitimate government (since it is, and already was before the Ethiopian intervention, the largely internationally recognized one). Further it can be argued that the areas are ruled by the TFG, not the Ethiopian army. I think the question is centered on whether TFG is a "puppet government" instated by Ethiopia, OR, alternatively, whether the Ethiopians, not TFG, has the real power (and I don't think it's only about military power, but whether they actually grab the power and do what they want in spite of what the TFG says). Hence, I think the term "Ethiopian occupation" should be avoided. I have no objections to "the occupation of Mogadishu by the government" or "what is seen as foreign occupation". --SLi 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Presence." I had just wanted to get rid of the term "Post-Kismayo" because that did not seem like such a seminal event given the fall of so many towns to the TFG/Ethiopia. --Petercorless 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

US Involvement

German Der Spiegel is interpretating the action rather as an action in WaT then an engagement into Somalian policy. Der Spiegel Online, today, English version--213.155.224.232 13:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gunships Ethiopian, not US

As I cited on the Battle of Ras Kamboni page, the "third" US strike by "helicopter gunships" near Afmadow was said by a US military official to have been Mil Mi-24 Hinds, not US AC-130s. I am going to revise the maps with that as a credible reading of events, as the Ethiopians had attacked Afmadow the day before with jets. And, seeing how they even struck a Kenyan village instead of Dhobley, I can see how they might have also made a mistaken strike against a civilian target near Afmadow. In anticipation of heading off any controversy I wanted to up-front explain here my reasoning. --Petercorless 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Map has been updated to show the fall of Ras Kamboni and to attribute additional airstrikes were made by Ethiopia, not US. --Petercorless 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Long dash in article name

Why the article has been moved to a version including a long dash? That makes problems on non-US-english Windows installations. Please move back. --213.155.224.232 10:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also navigate to the article with a short hyphen also. It resolves to this same page. Try it. Short/hyphen: War in Somalia (2006–present) N-dash: War in Somalia (2006–present) --Petercorless 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a different issue, see modified Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors and the discussion there. --213.155.224.232 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

T-72's According to Jane's

Apparently the Ethiopians recently acquired 50 T-72 tanks from Yemen, according to Jane's, which I had cited in the article above the table: The Ethiopians have always been tough, mean Please don't blow away facts which I've already cited source for elsewhere in the article, unless you can cite a refutation. --Petercorless 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if one can find another source that contradicts or refutes what your source states (e.g. IOL), the principle of NPOV states that both sides be given appropriate weight. No facts that have sources should be removed -- unless it can be shown that they are not credible (e.g., Joey, a stereotypical 15-year-old who lives in his parent's basement in South Succotash, Indiana, who posts on his webpage that Faux Klingons aided the ICU, is not a relible source & his information can be safely deleted). -- llywrch 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the T-72s are what's being described as "recent" (i.e. more advanced), not the acquisition of the tanks from Yemen (this still may be the case, but the source doesn't specify). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian MiG-21s and Somali BMP-2

I removed the Ethiopian MiG-21s, all were phased out of service (info from a Ethiopian from the ACIG forum) I added the sole BMP-2 of the Somali government (captured from the Islamists) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.96.232 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the info is true, forums are not reliable sources. Read WP:RS--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Aidid and "Atrocities"

Snipped "The newspaper also accuses Aidid of committing atrocities against civilians in the Bay region." because the article in question was conjecturing Aidid would commit atrocities, not alleging he had done so. While there might be allegations he did commit attrocities in the Somali Civil War, this specific statement was the case of a misinterpretation. --Petercorless 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ras Kamboni has fallen

Time for a new map? —Nightst a llion (?) 09:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already updated my maps to show the Ras Kamboni falling. As far as the territory goes, I also think that, since Abdi Qeybdiid agreed to disarm his militia today, what we called "Galmudug" might be de facto gone away, with the territory coming under the TFG authorities. I have not seen any mention of Galmudug since the war started, other than by us Wikipedians. No news on Google. I'm also not sure what's going on with Hobyo and the coastal regions north of Mogadishu and south of Puntland. I'm tempted to actually join a Somali forum to ask a few questions, but then that becomes original research. :/ --Petercorless 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean your maps (I've seen you keeping them up to date ;)), but rather Ingoman's zone-of-control maps; the southwest can be considered Ethiopian/TFG now, I'd say, and Galmudug may indeed be gone. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that we put all the territory in Somalia that is presently attributed to "Ethiopia" to the TFG. Because the Ethiopians are not claiming it as their own. They are clearly stating that they are ceding all territory they are in control of over to the TFG, so it's not like they are planning on administering some provinces apart from TFG control, a la US/Iraqi administration, where the US has not ceded all military authority to the Iraqis in all the provinces. While de facto control might be there by the Ethiopians, they are holding it for the de jure authority of the TFG, not for themselves. The only powers I really see as truly separate now is Puntland and Somaliland. Those two have not negotiated inclusion yet in the TFG, whereas Abdi Qeybdid, as leader of "Galmudug", basically put their military in the hands of the TFG by his agreement to disarm today. --Petercorless 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at Google Earth ((and Google Map)why does it call the very southern tip of Somalia "Dar Es Salaam"? I assume the town/village at 1.38.18.42 S, 41.35.13.83 E is Ras Kamboni and the islands in that area are the ones in the news. Thanks for the work on this page. --Rcollman 14:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Insurgancy

It seems to me that the main war is now over, and that any fighting currently taking place is in the context of an insurgancy, there do seem to be attacks in the capital, although the somali government and the Ethiopians may well be covering up the existance of other attacks. --Boris Johnson VC 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree but we should be cautious as in the case of War in Afghanistan (2001–present) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Puntland

What's the situation with them have they announced to join the TFG or remain an autonomous area? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Puntland may or may not join, it really depends on whether Abdullahi Yusuf can succeed in establishing a Majerteen dictatorship, as Puntland probably won't agree to power sharing with other clans. --Ingoman 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

C/Y has enough power in Puntland that it's joining shouldn't be a problem, I think. It's only goal is autonomy within Somalia. He seems to be less of a player nowadays than Gedi, so a Majerteen-dominated government seems to be out of the question. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the Transitional Federal Charter, it is possible Puntland might join as a "State" which is a collection of regions, rather than simply fold under the federal government and devolve into separate regions. Puntland has not declared the same state of emergency, and has not made moves to disarm its own militias, as far as news reports mention. And, unlike further south, there does not seem to be any breakout of fighting in Puntland. --Petercorless 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)