WASHINGTON — The toppling of the Islamic Courts regime isn't likely to bring peace to war-ravaged Somalia, one of Africa's most impoverished countries, nor eliminate a haven for al-Qaeda.
As Islamist fighters in Mogadishu either fled the advancing Ethiopian-backed government forces or shaved their beards and discarded skullcaps to blend in with the fearful population yesterday, the long see-sawing of power in Somalia seemed to have tipped in favor of Washington, which supported those who toppled the regime.
But analysts fear that the White House's recent interventionist interest in a place best remembered by Americans for the violence and humiliation depicted in "Black Hawk Down" may actually boost Islamic extremism, not limit it.
"It's a lose-lose situation," said Karin von Hippel, co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The military victory won by Ethiopian troops on behalf of the weak transitional government has "created a power vacuum and may lead to the return of the warlords," said Dr. von Hippel, who has worked in Somalia for years.
While U.S. officials have vilified the Islamic Courts Union as a radical, terrorist-harboring regime, the Islamists also brought a degree of security not seen for the past 16 years.
The Islamic fighters' stunning departure from Mogadishu may have spared the capital another brutal bout of bloodletting, but it remains doubtful that Ethiopian forces will be welcomed with open arms, or that a transitional government propped up by outsiders will actually prove capable of governing. "As usual, the Somali people will wind up suffering," von Hippel warned.
Even President Bush's administration, which actively supported its Ethiopian ally's decision to intervene in Somalia, seemed taken aback by the speed of the victory and the risks associated with yet another power transfer.
"We don't believe that the ultimate solution to the situation in Somalia and the ultimate way of achieving everyone's goal in Somalia, which is to have a functioning stable government for the Somali people, can be achieved in the long run through violence," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.
Critics of the administration argue that by seeing the world only through the lens of the struggle against Islamic terrorism, Washington repeatedly fails to differentiate between jihadists and religiously conservative Muslims, missing the possibility of negotiated solutions.
"Washington's new Somalia policy is not just self-defeating: it is inflammatory," said Matt Bryden, project director for the International Crisis Group's Horn of Africa section.
By aligning itself so publicly with Ethiopia and the transitional government headed by Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi, "Washington appears to have designated the courts as a strategic adversary, elevating Somalia from a simmering regional problem to a global issue. The courts are now likely to attract support from a far broader range of anti-American and anti-Western interests than they have so far, and the flow of foreign funds and fighters to the (Islamic courts) seems bound to increase dramatically," he wrote in a commentary this month.
While most analysts believe the Islamic courts did include members who were openly sympathetic to al-Qaeda's limited presence in Somalia, they also contend that the Somali movement brought a semblance of order and normality to the south, which had been ruled by feuding clans and rival warlords.
Yet "unless all the different actors are brought together" — including the United States, the African Union and the United Nations — "there can be no solution," von Hippel said.
That seems unlikely. Earlier this month, the U.N. Security Council authorized another peacekeeping force. But no one has offered to send troops into Somalia, save those already fighting to advance their own interests.