Madness in Mali

I detect sarcasm here, but I'm not really sure why. The RAF flew the (at the time) longest bombing raids in history (and probably still the most logistically challenging) at 8000 nautical miles using a single runway which had to support 11 tankers for 2 bombers. And whilst they did minimal damage, they hurt Argentine morale and convinced them to withdraw their most dangerous fighter aircraft to defend Buenos Aires. Not a bad contribution when your nearest airbase is 8000 miles away from the target.

Back on-topic, Islamists have vowed to destroy France. Like hell they will.

If they start that shit, I don't see the French holding back the inclination to point to their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triomphant_class_submarine fleet and asking the question "Do you want some of this?"

The big thing is Germany's stance in NATO. I briefly covered this in another thread, but, in short: the history of NATO can be divided into three phases.

• Phase I: Cold War. The threat was the Warsaw Pact (and the Soviet Union in particular), and Germany knew exactly what it had to do, as it would have been the main battleground. Hence the big Bundeswehr army.
• Phase II: 1990s. NATO shifted over to two missions: first, ensure a smooth transition to postcommunism for the Eastern European countries; second, do a bit of regional help and security whenever needed. Again, Germany was fairly comfortable here, since it was a big regional player, and aid to Eastern Europe was mainly commercial and political, not military.
• Phase III: post-Kosovo or post-11 Sept. 2001, depending on who you ask, which is when NATO switched over to more active peacekeeping roles outside of Europe proper. The US led the charge, obviously, but we're starting to see European NATO members step up as well, particularly in North Africa. And this is where Germany is uncertain.

Germany wants NATO to remain as it is, in the status quo of Phase II. The thing is, other NATO members don't seem to agree. Eastern Europe joined in for the security guarantees against Russian pressure; Med Sea Europe wants NATO to keep the peace in the Arab Crescent. Germany, not being part of either bloc, wants to go back to Phase II NATO, but the other NATO countries don't. It paid the price during Libya. I'm thinking that contributed to a shift in German policy, but just how big or how small it will be won't be known until we get the details.

re:achaemenid: Black Buck was impressive, everything else they did was not. The aerial radars that they promised they could cover the Invincible task force with never materialized, and that one factor alone cost the British several ships. All the fighting had to be done with RN Sea Harriers. I could go on. But what really gets me is how they then had the gall to successfully retire RN aviation...]

"Back on-topic, Islamists have vowed to destroy France. Like hell they will."

That reminds me of a certain someone who made the same threats less than 2 years ago and who now enjoys his retirement somewhere in a desert. Hopefully it will turn out the same with Mali agai.

"Germany is a bit like Japan; both have a line in their respective constitutions banning them from using their militaries outside of a purely defensive role. "

The interpretation of the Basic Law (the German consitution) is a bit more open regarding this matter. Although the Bundeswehr is limited to defending Germany, "defending Germany" includes since a court ruling from 1994 by the German Supreme Court peace maintaning in for Germany vital areas and countries. Because stability is always in Germany's interest, the Bundeswehr takes part in peace-keeping missions around so globe. One former defence minister is famous for saying "The security of the Federal Republic of Germany is being defended in the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan) too."

The real problem is however the deep-rooted anti-militarism in the German public, especially if it involves sending soldiers to foreign countries, and more especially if these countries are outside of Europe and the value and outcome for Germany is uncertaint. The mission in Kosovo e.g. is accepted because it poses little to no danger to the soldiers here and there is an impression that German soldiers are actually helping the people there (plus stabilizing the Balkan is in Germany's interest after all).

Sending soldiers to a country many Germans haven't heard of before (I didn't know Mali before to be honest) to help a reportedly very corrupt government is a completely different bowl of fish. It has been noted in German newspapers that Western intervention in Muslim countries seldom go smoothly and tend to make matters worse. Lybia is an exception and even there might still be an ugly aftermath.

Excellent analysis btw. "I'm thinking that contributed to a shift in German policy, but just how big or how small it will be won't be known until we get the details. " So far it seems that the German officials deemed their decision to vote against the resolution as a mistake. The recent consensus is that they should have shown solidarity with their allies and provide logistic support. Merkel and Co. however know that taking an active role during the intervention would have been unacceptable by the German people.

edited 14th Jan '13 2:11:22 PM by Zarastro

I think it's less western intervention and more Anglo-American intervention. The French did alright in Ivory Coast. Hell, what NATO interventions that France has been onboard with have actually gone belly up?(I would say Afganistan is debatable, but beyond that)

Well, Bosnia springs to mind.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,476501,00.html talks about their role in failing to prevent the Srebrenica Massacre, though, to be fair, the Dutch had a share of that shit sandwich as well.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1998/12/balkans-daalder goes into detail about how the war ended there.

And an analysis of the task ahead, here.

Reading up on stuff, I suspect that France will only stay long enough to blow up enough stuff to allow them to claim a victory, and then high-tail it back home, and it has nothing to do with the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey stereotype. The French economy isn't exactly booming at the moment, and the parties in control aren't, AFAIK, all that big on foreign interventionism in general.

The apparent Rules of Engagement don't help any. French aircraft can bomb the militants themselves, but not the routes that are used to supply their arms. Hollywood aside, it's logistics that ultimately determine the outcome of a war, and if you can't impair those of the enemy, you're not exactly on the path to victory, to put it mildly.

It doesn't help that the French apparently went in thinking "bunch of ignorant AK-toting assholes in pickup trucks", and instead got "trained soldiers with relatively modern arms from the Great Libyan Fire Sale". They even lost one of their helicopters to AQIM arms.

i think the rule against supply lines will die when they realize their fighting a trained force.

One of the key rules of counterinsurgency is that you must control the border, or you'll lose. Simple as that. The Taliban are thriving because they've got the Durand Line to hide behind; the PAVN forty years ago managed to develop a truly amazing logistical supply system, mostly by running through Cambodian territory. In this case, nobody truly has the resources to control Mali's northern borders. It helps where it's open desert, but even then controlling that would require a vast expenditure of men on the ground—and the only group in the area with those men are the Tuaregs.

It makes sense. About 40% of all ended insurgencies were ended because of police infiltration; another roughly 40% are ended due to a political settlement. Unless the Mali government can somehow persuade the Tuaregs to reject AQIM—which means making serious concessions, among other things—that border will never be in friendly hands, and AQIM will have home bases in neighboring countries, and in Tuareg territory, to base out of.

I don't see any way at all out of this situation that doesn't involve a ceasefire followed by negotiations.

Or, the only way that I do see this ending that doesn't include negotiations is the total surrender of the government's forces and Mali becoming Africa's Afghanistan.

Given the general stability of the Mali government, that's still a depressingly plausible scenario a few years down the line.

According to Le Monde, Algeria closed its border with Mali:

http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/01/14/pourquoi-l-algerie-soutient-l-operation-francaise-au-mali_1816946_3212.html (in french)

Quick Google Translate of the relevant part:

Also according to the same paper, the Tuareg could be willing to fight the islamists too (in exchange for a greater autonomy from the Mali government):

http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/01/14/l-armee-francaise-continue-ses-frappes-sur-le-nord-du-mali_1816762_3212.html

Quick Google Translate of the relevant part:

And finally, their report about UN support, also Google Translated:

http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/01/15/paris-a-le-soutien-de-l-onu-au-mali_1816984_3212.html

edited 14th Jan '13 10:50:10 PM by RufusShinra

Canada sends C-17 to Mali, but Harper says no combat for Canadians

Algeria shuts border with Mali

Niger holds security meeting over Mali conflict

Mauritania: Mali refugees face “alarming” malnutrition, mortality rates

U.S.: Mali support key to ending al-Qaida

Russia finds French operation in Mali legitimate

China calls for stability in Mali

Guinea will send 150 men into Mali

Senegal Will Send 500 Soldiers to Mali

Nigeria will send 600 troops to Mali

President Francois Hollande says more French troops are to be deployed in Mali to support the 750 in the country countering an Islamist insurgency.

Malian Rebels Take Town and Vow to Avenge French Attack

Things are starting to get interesting.

No, France has had some failures when dealing with Islamic nations.

edited 15th Jan '13 12:41:21 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Wait, China's actually supporting intervention somewhere?

I think Hell might have had air conditioning installed.

That, or the childproof bolts taken off the windows. I'm in as much shock as you...

I think it's the land/ businesses/ farms they've been buying up throughout Africa, though. This time, they have a stake: a rather large one. <_<

Go on... call me cynical. I don't mind.

edited 15th Jan '13 1:35:32 AM by Euodiachloris

& : totally that. This intervention is in China's interest too, so they obviously support it and forget all their talk about self-determination and non-ingerence...

Wow. The amount of international support France is getting is pretty amazing. I'm guessing this is the "once we're moving, we may as well pitch in" mindset, at initial glance; AQIM is deeply unpopular.

Besides, China can justify its actions by saying that France is helping out a sovereign country, having been invited in, so it isn't the same as Libya or Syria. China doesn't like Islamic insurgencies either.

Indeed, they have a small one.

It's nice to see that sometimes, even the UN can speak with one voice... Do you think we could get the approval of North Korea too? ^^

Still, it's a good thing that quite a lot of countries are offering logistic, medical and intel support for the op'. Thank you to all of them!

When folks start talking about being out of a country in weeks, one has to start worrying.

Imagine the reaction of the AQIM people when they discover that they are so hated that the entire world is pitching in to kick their ass. “O shit” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Think this will spur reform in the Malian government too?

Al Jazeera now has a page dedicated to the crisis. No live blog yet though. Ooops, I lie. Here it is.

Wow, it's all-in now. I'd definitely like to see more troop commitment from Muslim countries - those are the ones AQIM and like-minded groups will find hardest to spin as a 'crusade' against to new recruits and funders (though I doubt it will affect existing members much - they've already been killing fellow Muslims, trafficking drugs and kidnapping so they have the ol' denial and rationalization thing down pat).

I really have no idea. I'm sure the Mali government overall wants reform, and I'm sure elements inside it will push back at reform if it involves their being punished for their crimes.

edited 15th Jan '13 11:17:18 AM by betaalpha

We can hope, but don't hold your breath.

One of the toughest parts of counterinsurgency is recognizing it's a two-way street. Basically, insurgencies start up because the host government is doing something to earn the ire of some of its citizens. This isn't new, and sometimes the insurgents are a tiny minority that the majority don't agree with, in which case they never do better than "occasional nuisance" (see: Weathermen). But insurgencies continue on a regional scale if lots of citizens agree with the insurgents. To reconcile all those citizens would mean reforming the host government to address those grievances—and governments are notoriously difficult to reform from within, let alone from without.

One case where it worked (temporarily) was when the Americans in 2007 finally had enough of Maliki's sectarian bullshit and simply cut him out of the command loop when they negotiated with the Sunnis. Maliki was hopping mad, but he simply didn't have the clout back then to do anything about it without jeopardizing his own power. Now in Mali, the government is still under the sway of a bunch of putschists, who are mostly known for being resistant to reform. France is there as a guest of that government, at their invitation—hence, not in an advantaged position to tell them to shut up and put up with negotiating with the Tuaregs against AQIM.

That said, those are just the initial odds. Countries have been known to beat them, and if Mali manages to do so, so much the better. But those army officers lounging in the Mali capital are going to play some kind of role in the long run, and thus far it doesn't look like a good one.

Ninja'd. But yeah, making the same point.

edited 15th Jan '13 11:16:38 AM by SabresEdge