Is Aidid Really an Ogre--or Is He Just ‘Our’ Ogre? : Somalia: The U.S.-U.N. view is not shared by many locals. Which side is to be believed?

Gen. Mohammed Farah Aidid is considered to be the most evil of all Somali “warlords,” according to the United Nations, the U.S. government and the media, yet a large number of Somalis seem to like him. Is there another side to this story that we have been missing?

Many Somalis see Aidid and Col. Omar Jess as heroes for helping to defeat oppressive socialist dictatorship of Gen. Mohamed Siad Barre in the long war of liberation. Many Somalis knew that the United States had supplied the dictatorship with weapons, lengthening the war and increasing the casualties. After Siad Barre fled Mogadishu in January, 1991, moves toward democracy were blocked by the international community, and civil war ensued. Aidid’s supporters claim that he has a democratic mandate from more Somalis than any other Somali leader. Has anyone tried to find out whether there is truth to this claim?

A few days after Siad Barre fled, a group of about 90 Somalis formed a self-proclaimed “interim government.” The plan of the liberation movements had been to hold traditional reconciliation conferences among the various groups and then national elections to form a democratic government. The “interim government” blocked that process. It named as prime minister the man who had been Siad Barre’s prime minister. For many Somalis, this proved that the “interim government” was an attempt to restore the old government. Yet the United Nations and the United States support this “interim government.”

The militias of Aidid, Jess and Gen. Ali Mahdi Mohamed cooperated with the U.N. peacekeeping effort last year by placing large numbers of their weapons and men into U.N.-monitored compounds. The troops still loyal to Siad Barre did not cooperate, and at the end of March they captured Kismayo. Jess had been prevented from defending his home city--which the U.N. force did not defend, either. After this, most of the militias stopped disarming.

The present conflict in Mogadishu is based on this dispute. The Somalis ask why only the militias that fought for democracy were disarmed, while those fighting to restore the dictatorship were not.

Now we see U.S. and U.N. forces doing their best to drive Aidid out of Mogadishu. From the Somalis’ perspective, this proves their fears that the United States and the United Nations are conspiring to reimpose a dictatorship--even if without Siad Barre as the dictator this time.

Somalis have been demonstrating in Mogadishu since January to protest the U.S.-U.N. effort to block the democracy they fought many years to get. It is strange that no reporters have bothered to talk to these Somalis to find out why they are demonstrating--and at great risk, in sight of the trigger-happy U.N. “peacekeepers.”

This brings back frightening memories of Vietnam, when TV reports of the war began to diverge from and contradict the official versions. Ultimately, Americans believed what they saw and mistrusted what their government told them.

The U.N. officials say that Aidid incited Somalis to demonstrate against U.N. troops in Mogadishu this past Sunday, and when shots were fired by the demonstrators, the Pakistani troops had to fire back. TV news programs around the world showed video reports of the demonstration. Viewers saw the first shots that were fired hit women at the front of the demonstrators. If nothing else, in the view of Somalis, this supports Aidid’s claim that U.N. forces have been killing women and children.

On Monday, U.S. officials presented a new version to the United Nations and the world media: that Aidid’s militia use a human shield of women and children when attacking U.N. troops; at the last minute, the women and children disperse, and the militiamen behind them open fire. This supposedly is what happened Sunday.

However, anyone who saw the live video coverage of the demonstration knows that this, too, is false: The demonstrators dispersed quickly when fired on, and there were no militiamen behind them.

Viewers must wonder, too, about the official version of the incident on June 5: that Aidid’s militia “lured” Pakistani soldiers into a “pre-planned ambush” where the Pakistanis were “mutilated” and “murdered,” a “scurrilous” and “cowardly” assault against U.N. forces. So far, no one has presented a single piece of evidence to justify these inflammatory words.

It looks like we are seeing a repeat of the propaganda fiasco of Vietnam, but at a much faster pace this time.