Madness in Mali

Well bad news sports fans.

Up until now, the Azawad was under the control of two militia groups. One being the secular, nationalist MNLA and the other being the Islamist group associated with AQ who cared less about tuareg nationalism.

Well, now they've combined their forces. In return for the MNLA agreeing to implement a radicalized sharia system in Azawad, the Ansar Dine support their right to secede. In practice, this means they combine resources and fighters as well.

Personal opinion: MNLA got the bad end of the deal and I don't see this ending well for them. On the other hand, Bamako has lost that much more probability of ever getting the north back under their control.

Yeah, that sounds awful. Shrines are getting damaged, sexes are getting separated and I expect things to get worse once the purges and religious persecution start, Ansar Dine consolidate their power and fanatic nutters gain the ability to shoot people with impunity.

Being forced to submit to Sharia law, especially if you're a female and used to an open society, sounds like a terrible fate. I know Sharia can take lots of forms but as this is set by force with the express purpose, IMO, of putting power into the hands of just a few people and keeping it there forever, it's going to be repressive as your average dictatorship. I only hope it doesn't get as bad as Taliban Afghanistan or Al-Shabaab Somalia.

Looks like that agreement I mentioned broke down quite quickly...

Yeah. I'm glad the MNLA are standing up against Ansar Dine about this, and so I hope are many others. Breaking away from Mali's government just to get trapped in a medieval Caliphate is hardly an improvement. Not that I trust the MNLA much either.

edited 30th May '12 12:41:05 AM by betaalpha

To their credit, the MNLA have kept their word regarding the parts of Mali they don't consider the Azawad. If they were megalomaniacs, they could have marched on Bamako by now.

That's...four factions in contention over parts of Mali? I just want to get this straight.

let's see. There are the Islamists, the Taureg nationalists, the Arab locals in the Azawad, and the government in Bamako (which, while formerly two factions between democrats and nationalists, have now basically unified behind the latter). So yeah, about four factions, though only three are of any significance.

Mali Islamist leader rejects independence

This confirms that Ansar Dine's demands (Mali to be kept single as a theocracy) are the exact opposite of the MNLA's (a separate, secular nation for the Tuaregs).

Yeah, that's not asking for much. He says later he will go to war against anyone who wants a secular Mali. Presumably he's breaking with the MNLA and trying to get recruits from Mali nationalists in prep for a war against the former.

So in the end the nationalists become the Islamists, and the MNLA become the bastion of tolerance. First there were four, then three, now two. Talk about a bait and switch...

Makes me wonder what ECOWAS is gonna do. There were reports earlier of Ansar Dine talking to the Nigerien president, negotiating on behalf of ECOWAS. Status Quo Is God indeed....

@FF Shinra: In other words, an Enemy Mine just broke down.

Though I don't think Bamako (or whatever's left of the military in Bamako) and Ansar Dine are likely to form an alliance any time soon, so count small blessings.

edited 18th Jun '12 4:12:47 AM by Ramidel

Not at all sure about that bastion of tolerance thing - these are soldiers who worked (and I assume oppressed people) for Gaddafi and I doubt they'll have much openness for discussion on rejoining Mali.

I assume you're talking comparatively, in which case: hell yeah I agree, they're more tolerant than Ansar Dine!

I don't see any discussion between the Nigerians and Ansar Dine going anywhere - the latter is too close to Al Qaeda to be given any chance of a being in charge - they'll be attacked just like al Shebaab in Somalia, and for good reason too seeing that Boko Haram members and many other militants have been cropping up in their territory.

Yeah I meant it relatively.

As for the talks going nowhere, maybe. Its a choice between secessionist civil war (Niger has its own problems with Tuareg nationalism) and threats to the status quo or keeping the West happy. The sharia law thing doesn't really enter into it since the alternative in West Africa (sans Senegal) has been tin-pot tyranny.

edited 18th Jun '12 12:38:48 PM by FFShinra

@FF Shinra: Sharia is indeed relevant. The difference between Islamist regimes and tinpot military juntas is that the former are an active threat to regional and global stability. Radical Islamist nations (southern Somalia under El-Shabaab, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia to an extent) have repeatedly shown the world that they don't just screw their own people over, but they're active training grounds for militant groups that want to burn everything down.

If ECOWAS has to pick between tinpot military dictators and the Sword of Islam, they'll back tinpot military dictators. Hell, that's a policy discussion America is having right now.

A piccy and info about the meeting between ECOWAS and Ansar Dine - oh, hey look, no women. I'm pretty irked that the only stated condition they imposed on this mysogynist, expansionist, antidemocratic, anti-nonmuslim group is that they sever all relations with terrorist groups. Not that this isn't a tall order all by itself.

Except ECOWAS doesn't really care about what happens outside of its particular group of nations. They care more about the borders remaining together, otherwise they wouldn't be negotiating with them as we speak while ignoring the Tuareg.

@Shinra: Yeah, but that's the thing. Ansar Dine is a regional cancer threat. Nigeria wants them to stop backing the groups that are making trouble in Nigeria. If Ansar Dine won't do that, Nigeria will back Bamako (the Tuaregs are problematic because one secessionist group sets a precedent for every other rogue gang).

It's not Nigeria talking to them. It's Niger. (Nigerien = Niger, Nigerian = Nigeria)

ETA- My point being, the nations actually worried about Mali aren't as worried about Sharia as the West is, and certainly not as worried as they are about secession. In short, Tuareg trumps Sharia in that particular region,

The only exception of this group (which, incidently, isn't part of ECOWAS) is Algeria, which has an almost fanatically secular military government in charge, and fears Islamist groups due to their civil war in the 90s.

edited 21st Jun '12 8:53:54 AM by FFShinra

Islamists proclaim full control of northern Mali

Although the MNLA have not been outright defeated, they certainly seem to be losing this. It's pretty much the worst-case scenario come true for the whole region and beyond. That Al Qaeda-linked militants could control an area the size if France is not going to sit well with anyone who, well, doesn't fancy being blown up by terrorists. Many groups, including the Islamists who took Gao, want to force Sharia on (and of course therefore be in control of) far more than just Mali. Who do you think will invade first?

edited 28th Jun '12 12:52:55 PM by betaalpha

France will not intervene directly (a change from their usual MO in Francophone Africa), but I think (along with the US) they'll give the money and the diplomatic push necessary to have ECOWAS finally do what they've been threatening to do ever since Mali lost the north: create a task force and take it back.

Of course, what happens after, what with the Malian Army having essentially disintegrated, will be very interesting.

Who in the region can actually claim to have the power (political, economic, military) to win against the MNLA? My understanding is that no one has really significant military assets there (which is another way of saying that what would count as moderate assets elsewhere would be significant assets there) and that the MNLA is not very strong militarily from an international perspective.

But it seems that someone in the area would have to be the one to beat them. The US isn't going to do it, and I don't think any European countries are gonna do it, either.

Best Of: The MNLA seem to be dropping out of the game - Ansar Dine and other Islamist groups are displacing them. Supposedly, although the MNLA are far more numerous they have a lot less experience in battle than the Islamist groups. Unless they turn things around the fight's only going to be with Ansar Dine and co.

This conflict is giving a safe haven to Al Qaeda elements - indeed it's probably putting some of them in control of territory and direct access to the coffers of sizeable towns. For that reason I wouldn't be surprised if the USA or Western powers did get involved at some point. It's either that or face much better funded, armed and trained Al Qaeda terrorists.

Well anyway, does anyone have any resources on how well armed the Islamists are, in relation to the regional powers?

No idea I'm afraid, but as the region becomes a safe haven and opportunity for Islamists to rule I expect their numbers and strength will increase until someone gets fed up enough to invade, or they start infighting and devolve into warlordism.

This is a good report that shows how Ansar Dine outmanoeuvred the MNLA to take their own rebellion away from them.

I would imagine that this region, considering how poor it is and how large almost unpopulated areas there are, would not be very militarised. I would be surprised if it turns out that the countries in the region are better armed than the countries of North Africa.

So from that perspective, the task of defeating the Islamists, should they become a formidable threat, should not be a Herculean one.

But I don't want to start thinking like that until I see some figures.

If this list of countries by military expenditure is any indication, my estimate is correct. Now, paramilitary organisations that aren't part of any nation's official military structures would not show up on that list, so the organisations we're talking about would be invisible in that article. Still, considering how and where they get their gear, I would imagine that they would be more or less on par with their neighbours, or that they would at most have a small advantage.

West Africa is among the least militarised regions in the world, which is no wonder considering how poor the region is and how much desert there is, and how sparse the population.

As a side note, I know that the article I link measure the size of the military in money, and that some regions get much more in terms of firepower for each dollar they spend than industrialised countries do. Still, I would imagine that the difference wouldn't be so great as to really upset the (admittedly minor) significance of that article.

edited 29th Jun '12 8:46:13 AM by BestOf

^ On the one hand, Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated how easy it is for guerrilla fighters to slip into the shadows when convenient (like, say, when soldiers are coming through in force).

On the other hand, though, that region isn't especially known as being fully observant of what western society thinks of as acceptable behavior in terms of interrogations and handling captured combatants (lawful or otherwise).