Madness in Mali

Indeed. Gaddafi, for all his faults, had brokered a truce that seemed to work for both sides that collapsed the moment he died. So it'd either have to think outside of whatever box the last five or six peace agreements in the last half century have been formed under, some outside peacekeeping force stays for the long term, or this starts all over again....

I do wonder what the British would be doing if the conflict is already essentially over....

I think that helping train the local security forces was mentioned.

The bulk of what the British will be doing is training the locals, especially in countries that already have a close connection with the UK. This was mentioned in one of the articles linked recently. This is definitely not a short-term deployment, and the benefits will probably be long-term.

The troops that are to get Western training are going to be deployed in Mali. Again, I don't see that being a very short-term deployment, either. The training itself ought to take a while, though I won't pretend that I know for sure.

These troops from neighbouring countries will be part of the AU task force that is being organised by the AU and UN right now. You'll find some estimates of the numbers from each country in some of the articles that have been linked here recently. I think the total amount of committed troops from nearby African countries will be in the thousands, which doesn't sound like much until you look up estimates of the size of the forces involved in this right now; I saw some figures in Wikipedia's page for this conflict, and I seem to recall that they were properly sourced.

This conflict isn't essentially over. The main combat phase hopefully is. But the long-term effort to prevent a resurgence of these barbaric movements is just beginning. (I don't use words like "barbaric" lightly but I think it's fair to say that a more pejorative sense of that word can apply here.)

Britain still has heavy Commonwealth interests within the region. Nigeria, for example, still has pretty close relations with us, so it would make perfect sense for us to help train their military, and there's plenty of others.

Sierra Leone is another. After what we did there in 2000...

@Best Of - Military training isn't the same as establishing a military culture that isn't prone to coups. And to try would be to take on the putschists, who truely are stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

Also, you knew what I meant when I said the conflict was essentially over, seeing as I've kept bringing up the long term problems of this throughout the thread, so there is no need to correct me.

As for the peacekeepers, in the austerity-minded West, just how will this force be funded and run? The AU/ECOWAS can only do so much without said support.

The British help will be appreciated in ex-British colonies I'm sure, but what are they going to do in Mali itself?

What can an unstable military junta do against a foreign force that has already started meddling?

France has no obligation to listen to Bamako, and if the junta starts spouting anti-French propaganda, that makes it that much more likely that France will "declare a cease-fire" that effectively arbitrarily grants independence to the Azawad.

Actually, before I wrote my post I went through the new posts without really paying any attention to who said what, so I didn't notice who it was that said the conflict was essentially over. I know you didn't need to have that clarified for you. Anyway, it's entirely possible that new people are reading this thread without really knowing what's going on in Mali and hopefully my post will prevent them from getting the wrong impression.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:16:34 AM by BestOf

Well, on that note [1].

I am unsure whether to take this as a positive or negative. It's less than wanted but it is a start, the funds aren't all immediately needed and it demonstrates support from several sources. Plus official UN peacekeeping missions get funded by the UN so that might be an option when we address the Azawad issue.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:13:04 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

If they are really serious about solving the long-term problems, then there needs to be new elections, and a re-organization of the military under a constitution.

They don't need a new constitution. The one they had prior to the coup was just fine, it just needs better enforcement, and perhaps an amendment or two. Elections should only be done once there is a final settlement with regards to Azawad and the Tuareg, otherwise you'll see an ethnic version of the Egyptian elections occur for sure.

Agreed about the Army though....

@Ramidel - Yeah except if that happens and the Islamists take over again, France would be blamed right alongside Bamako for letting it happen. Perhaps moreso France, because the Bamako junta is criminally incompetant and thus are expected to take stupid decisions while France is expected to understand long term implications of such actions.

Of course, if the institutional/fundamental problems of this issue are solved before that happens, then the egg is on Bamako's face and rightly so at that point. But timing is everything and it'll take a couple of years to create everything...

edited 30th Jan '13 12:57:57 PM by FFShinra

Military culture, civil-military relations, et cetera, et cetera. I don't have the capability to sum up all of The Soldier and the State, but the basic takeaway is that the ideal would be for the military to wield no political power at all. Of course, that's like Max Weber's ideal of the state possessing a complete monopoly on violence—nice to aim for, not easy to achieve. Building good institutions in Mali, the surest way to prevent another coup, would be the work of a generation.

No argument there.

I like this ideal of the military having no political power whatsoever. It definitely should be done everywhere to the extent that makes sense. Egypt went a bit overboard with trying to achieve an illusion of this during the Morsi era, when they went so far as to deny soldiers the right to vote. Stuff like that is simply ridiculous and stupid, and I hope I don't have to tell you why I think so. But pursued with some common sense this sounds like a great idea and I think it is already implemented in many Western (and probably many other) countries.

Also, an army's political participation seems negatively correlated with its effectiveness - I heard a brilliant quotation about the Battle of the Imjin river: "The world's most political army met its least political one...and was severely mauled."

edited 30th Jan '13 2:12:11 PM by Achaemenid

@FF: The Tuareg are not going to be allowed their own independent state. If they can live with that, then a settlement is possible. But if not, then they simply have to decide if they want to participate in Malian elections or not. If not, waiting for them to change their mind serves no useful purpose. The important thing to to get rid of the Military clique in charge of Southern Mali as quickly as possible, so that an honest partner in negotiations with the Northerners can be found.

Agreed. It's an impoverished desert with no infrastructure and whose primary population are generally nomads. It's just not a viable state and as soon as the French leave it'd become a haven for the same groups that they're trying to drive out right now.

A significant degree of autonomy for the Tuareg might well be on the cards, but full independence is not.

How about something like the systems in place in South America for dealing with the natives?

Depends on what systems you mean. Native rights in South America have been responded to in quite a few different ways. Not all of them positive.

Depends on if you mean Brazil or Argentina.(hint, one's nice, the other's genocide)

French troops in Mali take Kidal, last Islamist holdout

Mali's interim president, Dioncounda Traore, says he is refusing to hold talks with Islamists. But, Dioncounda Traore says he would consider meeting with Tuareg rebel group MNLA if it drops its claim to Malian territory.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian suggested that ethnic Touaregs in Mali’s northern regions should have some autonomy, while saying France doesn’t want to “dictate” the nation’s constitutional settlement.

Mali plans July elections as it makes gains in battle against militants

Mali war pulls France's President Hollande out of polling slump

Malian Army, Islamist Groups Execute Prisoners

General: Cost of Canada's C-17 in Mali $18.6 Million

edited 31st Jan '13 6:11:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Fixed some of those links for you.

The Tuareg may not get independance (on paper), but there is no way "unity governments", "amnesty", "development funds", and all those other buzzwords usually used with African peace negotiation will get anywhere with them either. That was the paradigm that was used since the 60s and it clearly didn't work. Full scale autonomy is the least Bamako can do, at this point, if they want any semblance of stability.

Also, Azawad as currently defined may not be viable, but if allowed to fester, this rebellion will carry into Niger and Libya, and they're even worse off than Mali was prior to the conflict. And in the case of the former, they have a larger concentration/coverage than in Mali. That is hasn't yet spread is thanks only to the Islamists hijacking the conflict. But that doesn't mean it can't still happen. And thats not even getting into the fact that the Tuareg probably don't give a wooden nickel whether or not the world accepts them if they can have it in practice. Of course, for reasons stated by others and because of how this conflict has turned out, the West can't ignore such a situation, so this really remains on Bamako's head even if they "won".

In the end, Gaddafi's Death may well tip Africa further into chaos.

I saw some reports in an International Relationships class that showed he had an astonishing support system in place for the populace, not to mention his weapons trade and backing of certain regimes that, for all their faults, kept the Radical Islamists from running rampant.

And when a guy like that is considered something that would hold a place together...eugh.

Vetinari Job Security at its finest. He couldn't forcibly unify the Arab states (what, with trying to invade Egypt and all and getting his ass handed to him by Cairo), so he dumped pan-Arabism for pan-Africanism. But both were just so he could have more power and ensure that if he fell, he'd take the region down with him. And while he couldn't become the literal King of Africa, he did enough.....