Ethiopia has however done this in the face of EU, Arab League and Organisation of the Islamic Conference condemnation.
Additionally - and for some, this factor will be damning - Ethiopia has been criticized editorially by the New York Times. On what ground? - Because it was a"unilateral pre-emptive attack" which"seldom solves anything" and because"Ethiopia's armed forces crossed an international border". Its advice? That"the Security Council must meet urgently to find ways to replace Ethiopian troops with a neutral international force and keep the violence from spreading to other countries."
It is true that violence could indeed spread and that action is needed. However, Ethiopia's"unilateral pre-emptive attack" comes after months of remorseless SCIC aggression against Somalia's lawful government, which has welcomed Ethiopia's help. In these circumstances, coming to the aid of a lawful government under internal assault can be called several things, but unilateral or pre-emptive are not among them. For the meantime, Ethiopia certainly seems to have"solved" something - preventing the imminent demise of Somalia's lawful government. And the proposal the New York Times advises the Security Council to adopt - inserting an international force - is probably a foredoomed idea whose possibility exists at all solely because of Ethiopia's"unilateral,""pre-emptive attack" and" crossing of an international border."
One suspects that the New York Times cannot welcome a non-Muslim victory over Muslim extremists and has plucked out its proposal of a"neutral force" (i.e., mainly Muslim) to preserve what Ethiopian arms alone achieved.