"The Bush administration has felt, has believed, that it had the authority and even the responsibility to attack al-Qaida cells that had threatened the U.S. or had a past history of attacks, wherever they exist," said David Smock, the vice president at the Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at the U.S. Institute for Peace.

The U.S. government has disclosed scant information regarding the strikes launched from a gunship operated by Special Forces Command. In the following days, reports surfaced of a second round of strikes launched from helicopters, although a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department would not confirm these reports. Nor would he estimate the number of civilian casualties or "collateral damage" that resulted from Monday's attack.

Commenting on the motive for the attacks, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Joe Carpenter said, "The target was what we believed to be principal al-Qaida leadership operating in the region."

A U.S. government official familiar with the region said that the United States did not conduct a helicopter gunship attack. He elaborated by saying that there are other militaries operating in the region that have fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.

Considering that the only other military in the region with such equipment at its disposal is the Ethiopian force, the government official's statement more than suggests that the United States gave tacit approval to the Ethiopian military to carry out the attack.

Experts speculated that the U.S. government granted the same unspoken go-ahead to Ethiopia for its invasion of Somalia on Dec. 24 and its continued occupation of Mogadishu, the Somali capital.

Regarding whether the United States was involved with the Ethiopian invasion, a Defense Department spokesman said, "The United States respects Ethiopia's right to protect its borders."

Then he added, "At the same time, it is important for peace and stability to solve problems diplomatically."

Many analysts speculated that indeed the primary motive for the military's strike on Monday was to target suspected al-Qaida operatives, specifically al-Qaida leaders responsible for the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. The Defense Department spokesman would not confirm the identities of the individuals targeted in the attacks, nor would he discuss the outcome of those attacks.

The DOD official would not divulge details, but CNN in Nairobi reported that a top U.S. official speaking to reporters on background said that the strikes from the gunship missed their intended targets.

"The three high-value targets are still of intense interest. We are still in pursuit," CNN reported the official as saying.

But analysts also said that the United States had other motives aimed at undercutting the presence of Islamist extremism, and that these aims spurred U.S. involvement much earlier than this week.

"The United States is trying to prevent the Islamic Court from having the capacity to retaliate against the invasion by Ethiopia, either by setting up a guerrilla operation or a terrorist operation," said Princeton Lyman, adjunct senior fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Asked to comment on the level of U.S. involvement on Ethiopia's invasion in December, Lyman speculated that the United States supplied "a fair amount of training, intelligence, probably also some equipment."

The U.S. military will likely work with partners to try to move a peacekeeping force into Somalia and allow the Ethiopians to pull out of Mogadishu, Lyman said.

"The Ethiopian presence just causes a great deal of antagonism in Somalia," he said.

Others indicated that the terms Islamist and al-Qaida could be conflated, and that in the case of Somalia, this fact helps justify the actions of both Ethiopia and the United States.

Some people in the United States cannot believe that nearly a decade has passed since the bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam and still no one has been held accountable, said a source speaking on background.

The level of lawless in Somalia creates a potential threat to regional security and U.S. interests, regardless of the presence of the most notorious international terrorist organization, he said. Therefore, neighboring countries -- in this case Ethiopia and Kenya -- see an opportunity to further their own security goals.

"We are entering danger grounds here," Lyman said. As the government discloses more information about the attacks, there will certainly be questions to ask, particularly in regards to collateral damage, he said.

He called the military's decision "a dangerous precedent to set."

"Other governments like to pursue their enemies abroad too," Lyman said.

Smock agreed.

"In this case, (the United States) had some cover because the Transitional National Government indicated that it had invited or sanctioned the U.S. gunship to take the action that it did," Smock said.

Asked about implications of the recent action on the likelihood of future tactical strikes, perhaps even in less lawless countries, the defense department spokesman was clear.

"This isn't a shift in policy at all. All of the elements of the U.S. government's abilities and power are focused on the war on terrorism," he said.

"We have made it clear since the beginning of the war on terrorism since 9/11 that when and where there is an opportunity to take action against terrorists, we will," he said.

Related Links
21st Century Pirates