Madness in Mali

Those stats are from Wikipedia. I didn't check when they were last updated but usually when I've looked up something about this conflict all the data over there has been from very recent articles. I think there are Wikipedia updaters following this conflict more closely than we seem to be - or at least this seemed to be the case when the French went in, when I was looking up info on the size of the French deployment quite frequently.

That said, the estimates seem to start from the number of confirmed casualties for each side.

US dispatches 100 troops to Niger to support French campaign in Mali

The Obama administration is also planning to build a base in Niger for unarmed Predator drones to conduct surveillance on militants in the region.

Wonder how long they will stay unarmed.

Too long, probably.

I wonder if the French soldier who cosplayed as Ghost in Mali last month will be able to call in a drone if he gets a big enough killstreak on the islamists there...

edited 24th Feb '13 7:51:59 AM by RufusShinra

Leader of the Islamists reported dead.

If Mokhtar Belmokhtar ("the man so terrifying they named him twice," according the The BBC's Charlie Brooker) really is dead, this is a pretty heavy hit, especially if the Chadian claims are true.

On the other hand, Chad is practically a failed state under an effective single-party kleptocracy, so Miles Gloriosus-type boasting is not impossible. Then again, if any of the African troops in Mali could pull this off, the Chadians can - Qadhafi found that out the hard way in the Toyota War. Until the claims are corroborated by an outside source, however, take this with a pinch of salt.

60 vehicles? That has to hurt about as much as a leader...

Earlier on, the French were reporting that a major AQIM leader had been killed: this incident, or another one?

I'm not sure what you mean by "earlier on"? If you mean earlier today, it could have been Abou Zeid. If you mean earlier in general, I'll need a linky

Good stuff. That should help make the idea of kidnapping people for profit look increasingly unattractive.

Wonder if Mr. Marlboro's troops were among those beating Malians up in the streets for smoking?

Just for variety, I wonder if his replacement will be best known for drug smuggling or sex trafficking?

edited 3rd Mar '13 4:30:08 AM by betaalpha

France to Begin Mali Pullout in April

edited 6th Mar '13 2:45:26 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Sounds like France did its homework and had an exit strategy from the beginning.

"Okay, we just put down your rabid dogs for you, Bamako. Try not to make a mess of the Azawad again."

And...holy crap, four French military deaths in the whole operation. Nicely done.

edited 8th Mar '13 8:00:05 PM by Ramidel

French Forces Uncover Huge Weapons Stash in Mali Mountains

Compare and contrast how our massively bloated Military did Iraq, to how France handled Mali.

I think this shoots down the notion that we need a still stronger defense. If anything, we need to cut it.

Its rather hard to compare Iraq with Mali The two situations couldn't be any more different.

Also its still too soon to say things would not escalate. But yes, I do have to say that the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" stereotype is gone now.

edited 8th Mar '13 11:03:32 PM by Exterminatus

Watch your generalizations there. Bloated defense spending is one thing, but over here the question is method of intervention. And it's still too early to diagnose Mali as "mission accomplished"; there were a lot of Iraqi cities that looked like good places to live in August 2003. The key question is how the French handle the sectarian issues, particularly the lots and lots of Tuaregs who trust them more than they trust Bamako.

Well, France can say "mission accomplished" because they had much more limited mission goals to begin with. They weren't "exporting democracy to the world," they were "shutting down an Al-Qaeda-backed Islamist rebellion before Mali became the next Afghanistan." The latter? Done deal.

Not yet it isn't. There is a difference between a retreat and defeat...

Not yet.

They recently found a stash of weapons in the mountains in the North. This and the remaining pockets of resistance are signs of continued al-Qaida operations in the area.

You'd expect al-Qaida to try to stick around underground, and all signs point to them doing exactly that here, as they have in so many other countries.

The UN has a lot of work ahead if it wants to make sure there's never a major uprising in the North again. Not all of this will fall on the French but they won't get to declare their mission accomplished until the first stage of this process is properly done.

It seems that France has learned from our mistakes and is getting out while the getting is good. Still, the tendency to try to use this as some sort of statement on American military effectiveness is as off topic as it is annoying.

edited 10th Mar '13 5:55:26 AM by DeMarquis

Yeah, it helps that the French have a preexisting government (of sorts) and a bunch of regional allies that are willing to take over for them.

Still, I agree with some previous posts here: the "mission" will be "accomplished" only when a long-term deal will be brokered between Bamako and the Tuareg. There's a reason why French forces forbid Mali forces from going in the North (yes, this is their own country, but they are now forbidden to get in the warzone)... If it can be done properly, then, yes, it will be a success. Before that, it's a stopgap to avoid the worst-case scenario, nothing more, nothing less.

And please don't think this situation is a good point for reducing budgets. French defense budget is collapsing as we speak and it becomes harder and harder to retain independant capacities now. The ideal budget should be at 2%. We're under, like the rest of Europe.

What's the French expenditure in Mali as of now? Anyone got good data?

IIRC, it's under 100 millions (probably a few dozen millions tops).

From Le Monde (in french), an interview with France's Defense Minister: http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/03/11/jean-yves-le-drian-la-fin-de-serval-doit-coincider-avec-la-solution-politique-au-mali_1846084_3212.html

He apparently expects the territory to be relatively cleaned in three weeks, with security back in the area at the time (even if enemy forces still existing but unable to be a real threat then). The objectives of the op' are still the same (I actually like when a politician is clear about those), which are:

- stop the jihadist offensive - free the territory - allow the international resolutions to be applied (malian and african forces taking over)

Abou Zeid is "probably" out, but no direct confirmation yet.

The mission needs to end with a political solution in Mali, according to him, which requires two things:

- First, a presidential election, in July, for the future political leadership to have the required national and international legitimity. - Then, a work group for dialog inside Mali itself, which members should be known in around ten days.

That's it for the highlights of the freely available part of the interview. As said before, I think it's quite a good thing that the political leadership has clear goals for the military intervention, with easily-defined objectives and an exit strategy, while also having a plan for the political follow-up. Let's hope it'll work...

I expected it to be in the billions, frankly. Though I expect the French economy couldn't put that much up compared to the US. (It's rather hard NOT to compare America's Afghanistan to the Mali intervention)

Anyway, I want to ask, why is Chad helping the French when their president in in the list for war crimes?