Somalis divided themselves on the basis of clan. And destroyed their country. Sure we lost the Ogaden war every country loses wars and foreign governments fund this vacuum of instability we created for ourselves. That doesnt mean people go out and kill, loot and destroy each other based on their clans. You seem to be trying so hard to bring others into the blame but the first step to progress is accept personal accountability otherwise, we will never move on.. And the fact is Somalis destroyed themselves.
Somalis didn’t inherently divide themselves along clan lines, nor do they function that way today. In fact, across the Horn, Somalis often cooperate, support one another, and build across lineage lines. The idea that Somalis are politically hardwired to destroy themselves via clan is an oversimplified myth.
Groups like the SSDF, SNM, and USC failed to garner real domestic support. That’s why they were based abroad in Ethiopia and elsewhere and only rose through foreign weapons, funding, and political backing. They didn’t lead movements through popular legitimacy but operated like Al-Shabaab does today: through coercion, extortion, and manipulation.
There’s a peer-reviewed study that sheds light on this exact misconception using data from the Ogaden region an area that includes Somalis of various clans, including Isaaq:
Abstract. Since the 1980s, analyses of African political identities have emphasized identity manipulation as a governance tool. In the Somali Horn of Afric
academic.oup.com
Drawing on fieldwork and archival research, we show that political struggles over Somalis’ integration with Ethiopia orient around Somali clanship, but that clanship is not a mechanical tool of mobilization, as it is often portrayed. We suggest that genealogical relatedness does not equate to political loyalty, but genealogical discourse provides a framework by which various actors reinterpret contemporary events by collapsing history into the present to imbue clan, ethnic, and national identities with political significance.
Questioning the automatic relationship between clanship and political mobilization, our article focuses on what we call ‘clan-talk’: assertions that imbue Somali clanship with political significance by attributing collective behaviour and political loyalties to clan identity.We show how political actors deploy narratives and stereotypes about clan politics to legitimize claims to ethnic leadership as well as inter-ethnic alliances.
Key takeaways:
Genealogy ≠ Political loyalty: Just because people share a clan doesn’t mean they support the same political agenda.
Clan is a political frame, not a cause: Political actors use ‘clan-talk’ to justify their power grabs or conflicts , not because clan truly drives political behavior, but because it’s an easy narrative tool.
So when we say “Somalis destroyed themselves,” that’s a dangerously reductive take. Yes, internal accountability matters , but real destruction came when external powers empowered warlords and armed factions who then preyed on their own. The collapse was manufactured, not natural.
Real progress starts with clarity, not recycled slogans.