By Dr. Dawit Tesfay
Post-War Military, Security & Transitional Justice Affairs Expert
Executive Charge
General Samora Yunus’s recent media appearance, in my assessment, is not a contribution to public discourse. It is an attempt at historical evasion.
I recognize a familiar pattern here. Former power holders, after years at the center of command, suddenly rediscover caution, restraint, and moral clarity—but only after the consequences of their decisions have already detonated across a nation.
Let me state this plainly:
Those who preside over decisive moments in history cannot later reposition themselves as detached commentators.
2000: The Victory That Was Deliberately Abandoned
By mid-2000, Ethiopia’s military had achieved what many armies only theorize about.
Defensive lines were shattered.
Enemy forces were in retreat.
Strategic momentum was firmly in Ethiopia’s hands.
This was not an uncertain battlefield.
It was not a fragile equilibrium.
It was dominance.
And yet, at the very moment when history demanded strategic courage, Ethiopia stopped.
Not because it lacked capacity.
Not because it could not advance.
But because its leadership chose not to finish what it had started.
I do not see the failure to secure Assab as a technical oversight. It was a defining strategic surrender, later reframed as restraint.
General Samora Yunus was not a bystander in this moment. He was embedded within the command structure that operationalized that decision.
The Excuse of “Following Orders” — A Convenient Shield
The most predictable defense is also the weakest:
“He was implementing political decisions.”
I reject this argument. It collapses under minimal scrutiny.
Professional military leadership is not built on silent compliance. It is built on strategic responsibility.
When a historic opportunity is squandered:
Silence is not neutrality.
Obedience is not professionalism.
Compliance is not innocence.
It is complicity.
If the command structure understood the strategic consequences—and there is no credible reason to believe otherwise—then the absence of resistance becomes part of the failure itself.
From National Defense to Political Enforcement
During Samora Yunus’s tenure, the military did not operate solely as a national defense institution. It became entangled in internal power structures in ways that continue to erode public trust.
Critics have long pointed to three realities:
The army increasingly reflected the interests of a ruling elite rather than a national consensus.
Promotions and influence appeared shaped as much by political alignment as by professional merit.
The institution drifted from being a unifying force into a contested one.
Whether one agrees or not, perception became reality for millions.
And in politics and security, perception carries power.
A military that loses legitimacy does not simply weaken—it destabilizes everything around it.
Assab: The Strategic Failure That Refuses to Disappear
I believe it is necessary to strip away diplomatic language and confront the issue directly.
The failure to secure Assab locked Ethiopia into long-term strategic dependency.
A nation of over 100 million became reliant on external ports.
Economic sovereignty was compromised for decades.
Red Sea leverage was surrendered without compensation.
This was not a minor miscalculation.
It was a generational strategic loss.
No retrospective justification can alter a basic truth:
A war that costs tens of thousands of lives but fails to secure long-term national interests is not a victory. It is a mismanaged triumph.
Now He Speaks of Restraint?
In his recent remarks, Samora Yunus emphasizes caution, warns against conflict, and speaks of public exhaustion.
Taken in isolation, these are reasonable positions.
But context matters. And context is unforgiving.
The same system he helped command:
Normalized centralized military power
Suppressed dissenting strategic voices
Enabled decisions whose consequences are still unfolding
This raises a fundamental question:
Why does wisdom emerge only after power disappears?
The Pattern: Power Without Accountability
In my view, this is not about one individual. It reflects a broader pattern of leadership.
A pattern defined by:
Absolute authority during critical moments
Silence when decisions carry long-term risk
Reinvention as a voice of reason after the damage is done
This cycle has imposed immense costs on Ethiopia—and on Tigray in particular.
Tigray’s Present Crisis Is Not Accidental
The current political fractures did not emerge overnight.
They are the cumulative result of:
Militarized politics
Centralized command cultures
The erosion of institutional independence
These conditions are not spontaneous. They are constructed—decision by decision, year after year—by those in power.
Military leadership of that era was part of that construction.
Final Indictment: History Will Not Be Managed
General Samora Yunus may attempt to reshape his legacy through selective commentary.
But history is not a press conference.
It does not bend to tone.
It does not forget outcomes.
No one can:
Claim credit for strength
Disown responsibility for failure
And expect credibility to remain intact
The record stands:
A decisive battlefield advantage left strategically incomplete
A military institution whose neutrality was widely questioned
A generation left to live with the consequences of elite decisions
Conclusion: No More Untouchable Legacies
The era of unchallenged narratives is over.
Titles do not shield legacies from scrutiny.
Rank does not erase consequences.
Time does not absolve decisions that reshaped a nation’s trajectory.
If Ethiopia—and Tigray—are to move forward, one principle must become non-negotiable:
No one who held power during decisive moments is beyond accountability.
Editor’s Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in articles published by Horn News Hub are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or editorial stance of Horn News Hub. Publication does not imply endorsement.
