In response to Karl Hallowell’s question in this post, what does he think this means?

Ethiopia’s prime minister said on Tuesday that many international terrorists had been killed, injured or captured in the fighting in Somalia.

Meles Zenawi was quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde as saying that suspected terrorists from Britain were among them.

“Many international terrorists are dead in Somalia,” Meles was quoted as saying.

“Photographs have been taken and passports from different countries have been collected. The Kenyans are holding Eritrean and Canadian passport holders. We have injured people coming from Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, the United Kingdom.”

Let’s keep it coming.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s an analysis of the situation, with a description of the role of US Special Forces. Those are the kind of boots on the ground we need, with a lot more boots on the ground from regional allies. This was the key to overthrowing the Taliban as well. Unfortunately, it’s not clear who our regional allies in overthrowing the mullahs would be.

Joe Katzman has some useful thoughts on “the surge.” He’s skeptical, as am I, for many of the reasons he states.

He makes an interesting point that I hadn’t previously considered:

Iran is arming and supporting both Sunni and Shi’ite groups, using a script I explained long ago in “Iran’s Great Game.” What does your strategy presume to do about this? The Saudis have also been sending people over to help the Sunnis for some time now, and run martyr’s profiles in the Saudi press – and now they are publicly threatening to step up their support of Iraq’s Sunnis. How does the proposed strategy plan to deal with this ongoing activity, as well as the threat of more open involvement?

So what we really have going on (among other things) is a war by proxie between SA and Iran. From our standpoint, it’s similar to the situation that we faced in the eighties, when the war between Arab and Persian was more direct, and we aided Iraq not because we wanted it to win, but because we wanted both sides to lose. That’s the case here as well.

But it also points out that Israel is in an interesting situation, in which alliances are shifting in the sands of the Middle East, with clandestine meetings between Jerusalem, and Riyadh, Amman and Cairo, to figure out how to deal with the Shia menace in Iran. I suspect that Omert’s government has been given a wink a nod by those governments against what is now recognized to be a common enemy in Tehran. And of course, it also shows that the war we’re in is really a larger Middle East cold war that they managed to export to our shores five years ago.

Oh, also over at Winds of Change–are we being probed for an attack?

[Update about 10:30 AM EST]

Here’s another interesting thought on probes and “false alarms.”

People who were saying that Somalia had been lost to Al Qaeda a few months ago were premature. It looks like we’ve built a trap for them, and they’ve been caught.

Well, the comments drifted pretty far off topic in this post. Many of them would have been better directed toward this one, on the administration’s seeming unwillingness to recognize that we are in a state of war with Iran.

I’ll repeat my comment there, in response to the comment that we need boots on the ground to “win” a war with Iran.

Do we have sufficient infantry (today) to sustain a win over Iran?

We don’t need any infantry to “sustain a win over Iran” for certain values of “win.” Despite the nutty straw man comments from the trolls, I’ve never proposed invading, or conquering them, or even necessarily regime change (though that would be nice, and might be a side benefit of a more robust stance against them).

If the goals are to a) prevent them from getting nukes, b) discourage them from continuing to arm people killing us in Iraq and c) prevent them from disrupting Gulf shipping, that can all be done with airpower (and seapower) alone. Certainly Israel has no intention of invading or conquering Iran, or putting boots in Persia, but you can bet they have plenty of war plans, and they don’t expect to lose.

Melanie Phillips, like me, doesn’t understand why the administration doesn’t see the obvious–that we are at war with Iran, but not fighting back in any discernible way. They continue to go completely unhindered, and unpunished, as they frustrate our ability to stabilize Iraq, and provide the arms and training with which our troops are killed daily. We don’t need more troops. We need more clue, and a new strategy.

Here’s a chickenhawk:

I also appeal to my Muslim brethren everywhere to respond to the call for jihad in Somalia. I appeal to the lions of Islam in Yemen, the state of faith and wisdom, I appeal to my brothers the lions of Islam in the Arab Peninsula, the cradle of conquests, and I also appeal to my brothers the lions of Islam in Egypt, Sudan, the Arab Maghreb, and everywhere in the Muslim world to rise up to aid their Muslim brethren in Somalia through offering sacrifices, money, opinion, and expertise so as to defeat the slaves of America that it sends to death on its behalf.

I appeal to the Muslims everywhere to rush to support their brother mujahidin who are being encroached upon and are being fought by America and its slaves for they chose the law of Islam instead of the law of looting, plundering, theft, bribery, corruption, and treachery.

Like Howie, I wonder why they had to use a still pic of Zawahiri.

Lileks has some thoughts. He also comments on the vapid stupidities of the left in the matter:

This is not the time to lament the dictator, but of course that’s what many did. As his appointed hour grew nigh, the humanitarians of the world found a new champion.

“He held the country together!” Well, if President Bush gassed New York and California and outlawed the Democratic Party, he could impose the same sort of remarkable cohesion.

“He was a counterweight to Iran!” Yes. But perhaps it’s better to have a struggling democracy with American bases as the counterweight. If the U.S. had occupied Iraq in the 1980s, it’s doubtful that millions of Iraqis would have been sent to their death so Ronald Reagan could wear a military uniform and wave a shotgun for the cameras.

“We put him in power!” Hmm. How did that work, exactly? Right: We smuggled him into the country in Donald Rumsfeld’s steamer trunk with instructions to buy Russian weapons and a French reactor, then invade countries we really liked.

“He was relentlessly opposed to Islamist terrorists!” Except for those he paid and sheltered, of course. If he was sending money to people who blew up buses in New York instead of Jerusalem, people might have been more exercised.

“Grim” has some thoughts on strategy.

Bill Roggio, who’s back from Iraq, has a good roundup of the state of Jihad in the world at the beginning of 2007.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: