The New Somalia?

I'm not sure what to think about the purported capture of Mogadishu by Islamist militants today. My first reaction is terror: an Islamist state with little to no centralized government would prove a petri dish for Al Qaidaesque terrorist training camps for the new generation of Islamists coming out of the street war in Iraq. But is some government in Somalia better than no government? Even if a new Islamist Somali state proves to be a thorn in the side of the U.S., would it at least promise an end to the anarchic violence that has gripped the Horn of Africa for years? If the Islamists are the best hope for the creation of a semi-stable Somali state, what are the ethical implications of opposing them because their newly-formed government simply proves a threat to our interests? Of course, we ultimately hope for a strong secular Somali government. But if the Islamists can create a working Somali state that can curb the ultra-violence of clashing warlords and factions and thus improve the lives (and life expectancy, now at about 48 years) of Somalis, on what ethical ground do we stake our claims for its illegitimacy other than on our own strategic interests? I'm still terrified by an Islamist Somalia, particularly since its so-called Islamic Courts allegedly protect Al Qaida terrorists. But the problem seems to go deeper than this: Islamism seems to offer clear promises to states torn apart by violence, corruption, mismanaged government, etc. It seems like we should be more interested in addressing the conditions that allow for the rise of Islamist governments than in simply giving arms and money to the factions battling the Islamists. But we saw where our good will got us in Mogadishu in 1993.