There is only one answer I can offer you.  In my humble opinion, neither you nor I (and by extension, neither the USA, former USSR powers, EU, Ethiopia or anyone else for that matter) ought to have any say whatsoever in what happens in Somalia except for the people of Somalia!  If they happened to prefer the Islamic Courts, then so be it.  Just like the Palestinians wanted Hamas and the Shiite population (and others!) in Lebanon prefer Hizb'allah, they are (or should be) entitled to have them as their leaders.  Whether they are acceptable to me or you or anyone else that does not belong to the particular population in question is immaterial.  ...Or do you follow the Bush doctrine that says democracy is OK as long as you vote for what I want?!?

And by the way, to what you say here:

I do believe that when one enters discussion on such a topic as you have addressed, political leanings are instantly visible. But it is not sensible if political leanings are allowed to blind us to the genuine needs of people affected. With that in mind, I ask,

My response is that you might want to heed your own advice.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

How many people in Somalia and the wide world stood to benefit from the threatened take-over of Somalia by the Union of Islamic Courts, which was truly representative of only a couple of Mogadishu Clans and aligned with Iran or at least captive to Iranian philosophies? I believe 'not many'.

In southern Somalia, I believe the answer is "many", thus there popular support. They replaced civil war with rule of law, and that is generally - almost no matter what law - perceived as beneficial. Now instead they have an ethiopian puppet regime that is not strong enough to ensure order.

If such a group controlled Somalia, would their stated intention of spreading jihad accross the borders of Ehiopia and Kenya, then be extended to Somaliland, Djibouti, Sudan and Chad? I think absolutely Yes!.

Sudan? Chad? No way, they were not even close to such powers. They would probably have battled Puntland at some stage and if they defeated Puntland maybe also Somaliland. I would however more guess that fighting with Puntland would have ended in stalemate. To see a strong faction in a civil war in a very poor country as being able to overrun their larger, richer neighbours is not very realistic. Conquering their neighbours neighbours? That is beyond unrealistic.

Bearing in mind that Somalia is Muslim and proud of it, why did the ICU wish to subjugate it? Was it to extend the influence of radical islam across the red sea and deep into East Arica? I think yes!

They wished to gain power and end the civil war by winning it. That can of course be seen as subjugating, but then the question arises why Lincoln wanted to subjugate USA?

Given that there are large reserves of oil in East Africa and Yemen, if a power aligned with Iran gained control of East Africa, how likely would it be that at some stage in the next decade, they would collaborate to deny the west access to sufficient quantities of oil to keep prices at bearable levels, especially as burgeoning demand exists from China, india and Korea? I believe that is an objective of Iran and some other anti westrern groups.

Aligned with Iran? Why would they, considering Iran is Shia and Somalia is Sunni?

In a circumstance of $100+/b oil, would ordinary people of Europe Asia and North America suffer? I belive millions would starve and some millions would freeze to death.

Well, then we better find some other ways to organise our socities then depend on oil, which after all is a limited resource. $100+/b oil is probably coming no matter what happens in Somalia.

What will bring prosperity and freedom from oppression to Somalia? Will it be development in which Somali populace have a strong share? OR, the ICU aligned to Iran and turning off the wells for their own political agendas?

Prosperity and freedom from oppression is very unlikely to follow from Ethiopian occupation either.

What one single factor will heighten the risk of nuclear attack in the Middle East? I believe access to uranium by Iran and aligned powers: Somalia has uranium!

Iran already has uranium. Can someone chim in and inform where it is mined?

I apologise for the length of this, but one last observation. East Africa has been dominated by several European powers, especially including USSR in recent decades. Did any good come of it for its populations? Absolutely not!

In fact, it has recently been used as a chess-board in the struggles between the US and USSR. And quite correctly it did not do them any good, much the other way around actually.

The first oil coming out of Somalia will be owned by Somalia and its Australian and Canadian partners. The US I think is comfortable with that because it will contribute substantially to the world's puddle of oil to which all will have access and it will create peace in a nation which is geologically and geographically crucial to peace in East Africa and the Middle East.

I think on the contrary that the local part will be owned by high Puntland officials. During civil war (which is likely to continue under new management) corruption is usually staggering.

I am not exactly "pro American intervention" per se. I am vehemently opposed to political and economic colonialism, especially in Africa and I hope the world will never again see the kind of resource theft it witnessed in several continents in the last several centuries.

But is not Ethiopia taking over in Somalia also a form of colonialism?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se