This is my biggest gripe with Barre. If he gave up power after the war was lost, Somalia could of been better off. But then how do we explain what happened after he was chased out? From 1991 until now basically, it’s been worse off than his worst years.
Which decade has been the worst decade ever for Somalis/Somalia
- Thread starter Sigmundd
- Start date
Many different observes on the ground and witnesses at time could see that it was the traitors insurgencies fault.
They would launch invasions and attacks that just saw the civilian population suffer in the process from a counter measure.
Well the vast majority of observers point out Somali government was at fault by exasperating clan tension and abusing civilian population. Literally a 300 page report by UN I linked eariler has countless testimonies from Somalis and foreigners describing brutal gov policies which led to the growth of rebel movements.
Lol an Italian diplomat I.E Barre's supporters who lend him arms knowing full well he's using it against civilians. Italy and Egypt were the last supporters of Barre's dying regime. I can pull hundreds of foreigners testimonies of mass executions of civilians across Somalia.Another diplomat peace broker on the ground.
That's a very interesting view. Didn't Siad Barre promise Somali people of peace, prosperity and equality after 1969 coup? What happened? He waged a failed war that destroyed our army & economy along with influx of a million refugees. Instead of stepping down he used the refugees and his allies to abuse civilian population which led to armed uprising that eventually taken him out.
After this, do you blame the president who allowed all this to unravel before his eyes (and deliberately exasperated it) or do you blame the rebel groups who's existence is solely credited to his own foolish policies and blunders?
Last edited:
They didn't give him a way for him to step down, neither stability or a transition plan.
He could have step down and let become a power vacuum, where different fractions compete for power? Whilst leaving the country open to outside security threats?
Which is exactly what happened and his regime predicted as much
I didn't talk about organization, Those rebel groups were organized. I was talking about a governing plan or united vision. You know policies, reforms etc that they were going to implement and how they were going to progress Somalis and make their lives better. The Kacaan regime had all of that mapped out , spent two years working on it.
The Supreme Council was a mix bag of officers within the military, his vice president was Isaaq, his foreign minister was Isaaq, his other vice pres was Tumaal, his other ministry positions were from Hawiye and Majerteen and many other tribes etc
His parliament and cabinet was just a mix of individuals from different clans.
SOMALIA: STABILITY OF THE REGIME
There was no internal rebellion or opposition within Somalia after the Ogaden war, or loss of popularity.
But it did spawn ethiopian traitor proxy groups like SNM, SDF , USC whom were all based in Ethiopia or elsewhere abroad and they had no widespread appeal to the Somali populous outside their narrow base.
Last edited:
Who’s they? And why do “they” need to give a way for him to step down? Why can’t the government who’s job it is to figure that part out? Or was he only interested in keeping power for his own sake?They didn't give him a way for him to step down, neither stability or a transition plan.
He could have step down and let become a power vacuum, where different fractions compete for power? Whilst leaving the country open to outside security threats?
Which is exactly what happened and his regime predicted as much
That's a very good and fair question.
"In 1990 guerrilla leaders generally were disinclined to negotiate with the Siad Barre regime because they had become convinced of their eventual success. The prospect of defeating Siad Barre inevitably compelled them to focus on relations among their various organizations. A series of informal talks concluded in August 1990 with an announcement from the SNM, the Aidid faction of the USC, and the SPM that they had agreed to coordinate strategy toward the government. In September leaders of the three groups met in Ethiopia, where they signed an agreement to form a military alliance. Although cooperation among the major opposition forces was essential to a smooth transition to a post-Siad Barre era, the pace of events after September did not provide adequate time for mutual trust and cooperative relations to develop. The SNM, USC, and SPM fighters, who for the most part operated in clan-based enclaves, never participated in any joint actions. During the final assault on Siad Barre's forces, in December 1990 and January 1991, guerrillas of the Abgaal faction of the USC infiltrated Mogadishu, whose population was approximately 80 percent Hawiye, and successfully fought without the assistance of either the SNM, the SPM, or the Habar Gidir faction of the USC."
"The USC's announcement of a provisional government in February 1991 angered its allies, who maintained that they had not been consulted. Other opposition movements, particularly the SSDF, felt that the USC had slighted their long years of struggle against the Siad Barre regime, and refused to accept the legitimacy of the provisional government. The SPM and the SSDF formed a loose alliance to contest USC control of the central government and ousted USC forces from Chisimayu, Somalia's main southern city. Violent clashes throughout March threatened to return the country to civil war. Although in early April 1991, the USC and its guerrilla opponents in the south agreed to a cease-fire, this agreement broke down in the latter part of the year as fighting spread throughout those areas of Somalia under the nominal control of the the provisional government. The provisional government was continuing to hold talks on power sharing, but the prospects for long-term political stability remained uncertain"
Mistrust between rebel groups and Mahdi faction within USC upset any room for reconciliation. SNM reclaimed independence, USC fought with eachothers & other rebel groups, Darood had a loose alliance to repulse USC and secure thier lands in the south, Digi - Mifileh were brutalized and crucified by all other rebel groups until Ethiopia intervened I'm 1998.
Last edited:
reer
VIP
if he stepped down many would blame him for handing his country to ethiopia through proxy.
anyway somalis cannot function without iron fist. the only parts of somalia with no buuq is AS territories because of iron fist. many somalis know that but wont admit. somalis understand the gun and when they are kept in check like saddam hussein. its why godane and their current leader had a more stable administration compared to sharif sh ahmed, hassan sheikh, farmajo etc.
you cant bring out your technicals and call for mucaaradnimo in jilib. but you can in mogadishu.
They described the conflict between rebels and the government and the civilian population suffering from the counter measure.
It wasn't Siad Barre that flamed clan tensions, you can see in the text i shared earlier, he gave concession to different clans when they appealed to him and try to answer to their various greviances.
It's the traitors who acted as proxy militias for Ethiopia that sought to draw the civilian population to their side, implicate them into the conflict and use their deaths/suffering as a propaganda legitimizing tool and create these tensions in process.
Neither the diplomat, nor the other witnesses and human rights watch that was working on the ground are on the side of Siad Barre. They represented their respective organizations and sought to be impartial peace brokers and bring relief. But they could see that much of it came from a defensive reaction by the government and the ones that provoked it was the militia proxy groups
He did bring peace and prosperity and equality and the first years was an example of it. He concentrated on developing the economy , he had no interest in going to war for Ogaden.
He continued the policy of persuing liberation of Somali territories through ''legal and peaceful'' means. He tried to negotiate with Ethiopian government and that failed.
When the situation in Ogaden deteriorated he was prompted to resurrect the WSLF His initial plan was to be indirect supporter and supplier of WSFL and not partake directly. But that didn't go as planned so the government had to intervene directly.
The army wasn't defeated in 1964 btw it resulted in a cease fire, ethopia initiated the border attack just to correct this text under but thats how the government saw it
The war of Ogaden wasn't a strategic one, but it was a noble one it was done to liberate people in Ogaden who were living under ocuppation in harsh conditions and being brutalitized by the regime.
Contrary to what others say it wasn't part of some irredentism, or greater Somalia claim. It was aimed at giving them self-determination to chose what they want for themselves, whether that's uniting Somalia, their own state like Djibouti, or join Ethiopia under a different condition.
I don't blame him, i blame the people who betrayed their own country and fought against their people in alliance with an enemy nation. I blame the ones that stood in opposition with no governmental plan or policy plan of action and only intention was to collapse the country and use suffering to legitimize their cause to claim power.
The economy and military could have recovered with time and treatment, if they created the avenue and space for it.
Last edited:
In @Idilinaa's logic, since Afweyne was reduced into a mere armed faction (SNF) why did he fail to reconcile with other rebel movements? Same reason why he later failed to reconcile with SPM over Kismayo. So your previous gov now tribal militia failed to reconcile Darood rebel groups and expect entire clan families to build a government from scratch. Make this make sense.
My personal opinion is that Somalis never experienced anything close to a modern state (sovereign country) at the beginning we had Somaliweyn to keep us united and when that failed (Ogaden War) we wanted change. There was no venue to channel that aspiration (no fair vote, no fair elections or clear path for isbedel) In the most egregious exhibition of power in Somali culture, Barre used sovereign tools and state apparatus to lay down his authority with excessive force, irrespective of the Somali people opinion. Somali culture is all about power so in response clans organized their own rebel groups that eventually toke him out. Experiencing first hand the far reaching consequences of a one man rule in Somalia, the Somali society fragmented in warring clans. Don't get me wrong, we always had tribal conflicts in the past that was quickly resolved and often times flares up every now and then but the sheer scale of Barre's atrocious massacres across Somalia made Somalis weary of any central government in the future. That's why at present you have Darood regions vehemently against any form of central government because the man on top is Hawiye. Instead making due with the current dis-functional federal system that proves ineffective time and time again. Barre's legacy runs very deep at present, contrast with Somalis in 1960 & 1967 who willingly accepted any president that came through polls regardless of his clan of origin.
My personal opinion is that Somalis never experienced anything close to a modern state (sovereign country) at the beginning we had Somaliweyn to keep us united and when that failed (Ogaden War) we wanted change. There was no venue to channel that aspiration (no fair vote, no fair elections or clear path for isbedel) In the most egregious exhibition of power in Somali culture, Barre used sovereign tools and state apparatus to lay down his authority with excessive force, irrespective of the Somali people opinion. Somali culture is all about power so in response clans organized their own rebel groups that eventually toke him out. Experiencing first hand the far reaching consequences of a one man rule in Somalia, the Somali society fragmented in warring clans. Don't get me wrong, we always had tribal conflicts in the past that was quickly resolved and often times flares up every now and then but the sheer scale of Barre's atrocious massacres across Somalia made Somalis weary of any central government in the future. That's why at present you have Darood regions vehemently against any form of central government because the man on top is Hawiye. Instead making due with the current dis-functional federal system that proves ineffective time and time again. Barre's legacy runs very deep at present, contrast with Somalis in 1960 & 1967 who willingly accepted any president that came through polls regardless of his clan of origin.
Up to that point we had a strong Xeer system & track record of smooth power transfer after elections. All he had to do is tell rebel groups and harboring clans that he won't take part in the next elections and invite them to participate instead of holding out in Ethiopia. To sweeten the deal offer generous monterey compensation for civilian life lost during the war and promise a real investigation (appeal to Xeer) You're telling me the same people who followed you to war against Ethiopia and fought bravely to liberate Somali Lands won't accept these terms? That would work by 1988. After 1988 no one would believe him as he lost the little credibility he had left.
Last edited:
In @Idilinaa's logic, since Afweyne was reduced into a mere armed faction (SNF) why did he fail to reconcile with other rebel movements? Same reason why he later failed to reconcile with SPM over Kismayo. So your previous gov now tribal militia failed to reconcile Darood rebel groups and expect entire clan families to build a government from scratch. Make this make sense.
My personal opinion is that Somalis never experienced anything close to a modern state (sovereign country) at the beginning we had Somaliweyn to keep us united and when that failed (Ogaden War) we wanted change. There was no venue to channel that aspiration (no fair vote, no fair elections or clear path for isbedel) In the most egregious exhibition of power in Somali culture, Barre used sovereign tools and state apparatus to lay down his authority with excessive force, irrespective of the Somali people opinion. Somali culture is all about power so in response clans organized their own rebel groups that eventually toke him out. Experiencing first hand the far reaching consequences of a one man rule in Somalia, the Somali society fragmented in warring clans. Don't get me wrong, we always had tribal conflicts in the past that was quickly resolved and often times flares up every now and then but the sheer scale of Barre's atrocious massacres across Somalia made Somalis weary of any central government in the future. That's why at present you have Darood regions vehemently against any form of central government because the man on top is Hawiye. Instead making due with the current dis-functional federal system that proves ineffective time and time again. Barre's legacy runs very deep at present, contrast with Somalis in 1960 & 1967 who willingly accepted any president that came through polls regardless of his clan of origin.
That person advocates for unarmed killing civilians under the basis they could have been rebels opposed to the government. They don't accept any massacres took place.
He didn't reconcile with any of them, SNM and SDDF were soundly defeated and pushed out by SNA forces , probably holds true with SPM and it was only the USC that manage to topple him through a war of attrition really after many repetitive failed attempts.In @Idilinaa's logic, since Afweyne was reduced into a mere armed faction (SNF) why did he fail to reconcile with other rebel movements? Same reason why he later failed to reconcile with SPM over Kismayo. So your previous gov now tribal militia failed to reconcile Darood rebel groups and expect entire clan families to build a government from scratch. Make this make sense.
My personal opinion is that Somalis never experienced anything close to a modern state (sovereign country) at the beginning we had Somaliweyn to keep us united and when that failed (Ogaden War) we wanted change. There was no venue to channel that aspiration (no fair vote, no fair elections or clear path for isbedel) In the most egregious exhibition of power in Somali culture, Barre used sovereign tools and state apparatus to lay down his authority with excessive force, irrespective of the Somali people opinion. Somali culture is all about power so in response clans organized their own rebel groups that eventually toke him out. Experiencing first hand the far reaching consequences of a one man rule in Somalia, the Somali society fragmented in warring clans. Don't get me wrong, we always had tribal conflicts in the past that was quickly resolved and often times flares up every now and then but the sheer scale of Barre's atrocious massacres across Somalia made Somalis weary of any central government in the future. That's why at present you have Darood regions vehemently against any form of central government because the man on top is Hawiye. Instead making due with the current dis-functional federal system that proves ineffective time and time again. Barre's legacy runs very deep at present, contrast with Somalis in 1960 & 1967 who willingly accepted any president that came through polls regardless of his clan of origin.
SNA still a mix bag officers of every clan, even the guy Somaliland elected Dahir Riyaale as president was part of the military fighting SNM . He was head of Siad Barre's intelligence service.
Somaliland government also included many officials that ex-members NSS and SNA officers from the regime that actively fought against SNM until toppling of the government.
Didn't punish a single one of them.
Somalia was full fledged modern sovereign state from 1960-1990 , it would have continued that way for another 30 years if the opposition allowed for a regime change.
So let me get this straight the Ethiopians who were also living under a similar dictatorship, i might say more repressive then the kacaan. Can topple the government and then stabilize it , implement their vision and policy agenda but Somalis couldn't?
You forget how military regime in the first place didn't replace the government through democracy . The 1960 attempt at democracy failed because Somalia was a new nation that lacked the infrastructure, institutions, and systems required for smooth governance in place and needed a centralized control to build it.
Believe it or not most succesfull modern day democracies today didn't start of as a democracy, they either began as monarchies or dictatorship, even the ones that made huge transformations like for example Singapore and South korea, started as one party dictatorships. Look at how impoverished and behind they were in the 1950s/60s, even a bit worse than Somalia at the time. Lower living standards, literacy 20% and lacking in industries and infrastructure.
Why did they work out? because dictatorships are often associated with long-term planning because leaders are not constrained by the short electoral cycles or the need to appease voters. This can allow for focused, visionary economic policies, especially when a country is in need of modernization.
A dictator can play a key role in unifying a country, particularly in cases where the country is ethnically, religiously, or regionally fragmented. By suppressing divisions and creating a sense of national identity, a dictatorship can lay the groundwork for future democratic governance
Over time, as the population becomes more educated and politically active under a dictatorship, they may demand greater participation and representation. This pressure can lead to democratization.
You saw that with the pressures they made for increased political participation and how he allowed for that , which indicates Somalia was heading to a more democratization. This was right after the Ogaden war btw
You also saw the gradual reforms that was talking place. All the opposition had to do was slowly facilitate this process or capitalize on the foundations created by the regime.
Last edited:
When i say they i am talking about the opposition which were mainly ethiopian proxy insurgencies.
Already answered this
The opposition is meant to provide a transitional plan not Siad Barre. When the Kacaan government formed , it was through a 2 year process of secret planning within the military and they didn't lead with violence , they ensured the peace, security and smooth transition when they attempt the coup attempt and it was welcomed. It all formed through organic impulses to redress the many ailments of Somali society at the time. They had everything mapped out, from their uniting vision, their economic plan, their administrative organization , foreign policy agenda etc and printed.
The 1960 government didn't provide this for them. There is no government in any time in the world that provides that governing plan for an incoming transition or a regime, they have to come to the table with it themselves.
Whereas the rebel groups didn't create or provide a single plan, nor did they deliberate anything related to governing. They couldn't even express a governing philosophy or ideology that differed from Siad Barre. They are failures and its on them. Manifesto kulaha that included zero plan or vision btw . You know school shooters and terrorists create manifesto's as well? Yeah lets mention a Manifesto group led by criminals and traitors.
No heads of state anywhere in the world steps down, when there is threats to his countries security. Right after the Ogaden war Ethiopia launched a combined invasion with the SDF which the Somali government defeated and other Ethiopian proxy groups like the SNM ,USC spawned launching attacks from Ethiopia.
That action actually cemented him more in power than not. During wartime leadership don't step down. During crises like war or security threats, having stable leadership is crucial for maintaining order, making swift decisions, and coordinating the country's response. Stepping down in such times could lead to political instability, confusion, or a power vacuum that might weaken the nation’s defense and response efforts.
And he did open up for negotiations and attempted to create avenues for reconciliation, they either refused or brought nothing to the table.
Even Isaaq elders accused them SNM of not bring any alternatives to the Siad Barre regime
I remember that you also mentioned Oman before as well. It was dirt poor in the 50s-60s until a Coup d'état removed the previous king and replaced him with someone who modernized the country and brought much needed sweeping changes. Pretty much the same thing was happening in Somalia minus having a monarchy. Even better, oil was discovered in the 80s so any economic woes Somalia suffered after the Ogaden War could have easily been alleviated.
Oman had only 3 schools and one tiny paved road.
Why Yemen is Dying & Oman is Booming: The Economic dichotomy between two related neighbors.
Yemen has been a poor country since it's inception and in recent times has plummeted to the very bottom and has the 5th lowest HDI. Poverty rate of 82.7 percent, Literacy rate of 54 percent. Nom GDP per capita of 608 USD. In contrast Oman has the 54th highest HDI , poverty rate of 10 percent...
www.somalispot.com
When they criticize Somalia for being a dictatorship at the time they don't realize that type of rapid transformation, can only happen through a very centralized control and long term planned approach like a dictatorship or monarchy can implement. That every successful democracy started out that way.
They decided on a single party dictatorship as the best model to move Somalia forward after reviewing the situation. The previous regime stalled development, they created so many different political and social organizations that sowed discontent among the masses, practiced maladministration and they were pre-occupied with funding their election campaigns then implementing long term policy changes.
So the move was correct and they bypassed all of that. By mid 1970s Somalia had capital surplus, progressive infrastructure, adequate food and high standard of education and medication.
They also had massive uranium reserves, which was highly expensive to mine right away though.
Surficial uranium deposits in Somalia|INIS
and there was all the power generation projects in the 80s , which would have created surplus capital . So you are right Somalia could have rehabilitated its economy.
And you combine this with a new railroad system that was being built in the 80s and you have a situation that facilitates economic growth.
Actually SNM was still active controlling the countryside and rural areas carrying out hit and run attacks, they had a whole conference in a village called Bali Gubadle after 88, SNA was limited to the admin regional capitals. SSDF also had various hibernate cells who came out of hiding after 91 and fought off the Islamist radicals in Bosasso and beyond but it's not here or there. The fact you see no need for reconciliation and holding elections to save the country going through such extraordinary circumstances shows you didn't have Somalia's interest at heart only Barre's continues grip on power. A truly sane and patriotic president would prioritize reconciliation and steps to hold nationwide elections if it means it would bring an end to an increasingly wide spread armed rebellion headed by disgruntled people with legitimate grievances. You had no problem citing the public support for his coup in 1969 but when the same people asked for change after 77 War suddenly their opinion doesn't matter and you have to resort to military solutions and scorched earth policies. Make that make sense.
No it wasn't. It was the 25th poorest country in the world out of 190 which is common because all African and Asian countries just got their independence and don't have much to work with. May I ask how the change could've come when Barre was busy arresting, jailing and killing all his political rivals? Not only that, he was grooming his son Masale to rule after him so clearly he didn't care about people's opinion of his government or the need for change of leadership.
All this word salad you keep conjuring falls flat on it's face. When you judge an individual, you don't take the good part and leave the ugly side. He had a good run the first 7 years, but we're going to judge him for the whole 20 years he's been in power. That's what accountability means. Don't judge the first 7 years or the last 13 years but for the whole 20 years. This is really simple I don't know why you keep running in circles and chasing your tail. His Ogaden war, refugees, political oppression, divide and conquer Qabyalad, human rights violations, dependency on aid, poor economy all together were a net negative to the Somali Nation. All the good work he put the first 7 years were washed away with the later 13 which resulted in the collapse of the Somali State. We're looking at the end result not the milestones. You can speculate all your want about the upcoming Utopia he was going to build after the defeat in Ogaden war all you want, it doesn't change the fact he derailed the Somali nation out of it's path for the next +30 years with his selfishness and greed.
Last edited:
I thought it was closer to 3.5 million.
They didn't control the country side in actuality, they lost every single time and just resorted to petty banditry in the outskirts after failing to invade to major cities and they would sneak into both the rural areas and country side, to hide amongst the civilian populous.
Here is Sillanyo even explaining this
''So that we can infiltrate and disperse them into nomadic and urban settlement''
They purposefully tried to bring the civilians into their war against the government.
I don't know how you can sympathize with people who purposefully tried to draw out the government to inflict harm on the civilian population and with people who did combined attacks and bombings with Ethiopia on the border towns and major northern cities.
The regimes approval or popularity didn't tank after the Ogaden war amongst the publics.
The Somali public's rebuke was never towards the regime, it was towards Ethiopia ,Cuba and Soviet who they blamed.
I can show you clips of Somalis taking to the streets in solidarity with the regime and with Ogaden and holding up anti-soviet, ethiopia and anti cuba posters.
When Siad Barre had returned from his car accident in the mid 80s hundreds of thousands of Somali came out to greet him on the streets holding green tree branches symbolizing rebirth.
I have also showed that there was never an organized resistance against the regime domestically. It was all organized abroad or by Ethiopia after the war , who invited disgruntled traitors so they could destabilize and seek revenge through them.
During the 70s and early 80s Somalia had lower levels of poverty than most other low income Sub Saharan African countries.
It also had higher literacy rates, higher access to education and health care.
Generating wealth and building viable industries takes decades. So you can't expect Somalia to be super wealthy country right away, especially before being able to tap into extra-ordinary resources like oil or gas or mining.
He didn't arrest or jail political rivals at all. He jailed and arrested people who either were corrupt, alied with the enemy, gave away top governments secrets or tried to sow divisions.
Believe it or not his son was not his successor it was Samatar, who is Tumaal and not even related him by blood. He was widely seen as his protegee.
How is it word salad or conjuring when i back things up with interviews, documents , testimonials from the time period in question. It's sound analysis
And you are right i don't judge him on the first 10 years alone. I also judge him on how he maneuvered and responded to things in the 10 years after the Ogaden war. Everything he did was trying to held the country together.
When he went into a war in Ogaden Somalia had many advantages, Ethiopia was embroiled in civil conflict, they were butchering eachother in the elite circles, was distracted with their conflict with Eritrea, the US terminated it's military support for Ethiopia. So Ethiopia was pretty much weakened at that point and he sought to take advantage of it.
How can you find fault with a man for going to war to liberate his own people? Especially since he had exhausted every peaceful diplomatic action before hand and Somalis situation in Ogaden was deteriorating.
How can you talk about aid or poor economy when the government diverted 1/3 of its budget from the surplus capital they had generated that was meant to ensure Somalia's 100% self-reliant but used it instead to save Somalis from the north from drought between 1974-1975.
How is that indicative of him being a bad leader? It's indicative of him putting his people first.
You can miss me with this MOD tribal and human rights BS the only tribalist i see is you people who sympathize with the tribal militia gangs who allied with the enemy to destroy the country and bring suffering to their own people.
Siad Barre never instigated human rights abuses, or ordered them to happen either. So you can't squarly blame it on him , human rights violations are common in most armed conflicts.
Forget the lack of plan aspect of these proxies. The biggest proof that you are the one spewing word salad is in the fact that in the aftermath of Siad Barre's regime, they didn't improve on any of these things. Did they improve human rights? Did they build governments that are exclusionary of all Somalis regardless of clan? Did they develop the economy and become richer less aid dependent economies? Did they create less political repression? did they create less refugees?
They SDF, USC and SNM did none of these things.
If their opposition to him was rooted in any of these diatribes, it would show in the results.
Last edited:
It was 4 million during the 70s, 5 million during the beginning of the 80s and 6 million during 90s.
Egal was at a Las Vegas casino while the coup was happening.
Trending
-
-
BREAKING NEWS Saudi ex-Muslim Terror attack in Germany kills 12 people during Christmas Festival- Started by TekNiKo
- Replies: 126
-