Iraq serves as a template for America’s foreign policy in tough neighborhoods. Up to and including Somalia. Here’s how Iraq and Somalia are similar and different, and what they may tell us about future foreign adventures.

The Bush administration has a kind of lethal consistency in its foreign policies - go-it-alone unilateralism, along with willful ignorance of local conditions, and a tendency to view everything through the lens of the GWOT. And a general skepticism about diplomacy when military engagement can be whipped out of the statecraft toolbox and waved about with good PR effect.

When applied to Iraq the results were disastrous. What happens when they are applied to Somalia or other countries like Iran?

Here are the similarities and a few differences between Iraq and Somalia as I see them. Both are mainly Moslem countries experiencing devastating domestic turmoil in that arc of conflict and chaos that spans the greater Middle East and its borders.

Here’s how they’re alike.
1. The administration sees both of them through the lens of the GWOT. (That’s “Global War On Terrorism’). America must get involved in Somalia because ‘terrorists’ might use the territory as a safe-haven from which to attack America or our buddies. Remember, Somalia is right across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia.
2. In both cases we go in with few allies. US activities in Somalia are being done with some side-conversations with the Europeans, but apparently not as full partners.
3. The administration is nervous about committing too much to ‘nation building’ and traditional foreign aid, and the money that does flow, flows slowly.
4. We and our few allies (Ethiopians) are trying to influence fighting in a tough neighborhood where local groups all have close, sometimes murderous ties to others in the region – Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritrean for example.
5. When the administration does finally come to diplomacy, they come to it late, having earlier decided that they don’t want to directly engage with really bad guys, only with the people who already agree with us. (Sort of how they treated the Democrats in Congress under their Republican reign, come to think of it.) Kind of a foreign policy of “A Day Late and a Dollar Short”

Of course, there are also important differences between the two hot spots.
In contrast to Iraq, in Somalia:
1. We are keeping a pretty low diplomatic profile.
2. We haven’t committed ground forces, and it doesn’t look like we will. Instead, we’re urging regionals to do the fighting (troops from Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal and other Africa countries.)
3. And back to basics – there is a lot of oil in Iraq, and a lot of sand in Somalia. Iraq is a prime piece of geo-strategic real estate, sharing long borders with the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Somalia has a less strategic position in the big scheme of things. So the policies will never be identical.

Let’s hope the administration can help that tattered country limp back toward something approaching stability. As Hamlet said, ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.”

But given the administration’s track record, I am not holding my breath. If those responsible for the administration’s Africa policy take a new more consultative diplomatic tack, they risk losing the support of their bosses on the 8th floor of the State Department and the E-Ring of the Pentagon. If they toe the line and take the same approach that tanked in Afghanistan and Iraq, then we get the same results. Let’s just hope the Iraq-Somalia strategy runs out of steam and cash before The Decider makes his final decisions about the really important problem on the horizon -- Iran.