The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

Losing Mali

The administration will not avoid further involvement in an African tribal war.

AMERICANS aren’t paying much attention to Africa right now. Eclipsed by the violent politics of the Middle East and the turbulent economies of Europe, the world’s second-largest continent often flies under our radar altogether. Which is why, when something very important happened in the western African nation of Mali last April, it made few headlines.

A rebel group, having seized control of Azawad, which comprises the northern half of the country, proclaimed its independence. That group, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA from its French-language acronym), had led the latest of a long series of rebellions in the wilds of the Sahel, where the Sahara gradually turns into subtropical Africa. The Tuareg, a Berber people with long-standing grievances in Mali, appeared on the verge of having an independent homeland.

The MNLA’s declaration was meant to announce the victorious conclusion of a three-month campaign against the demoralized recruits of the U.S.-trained Mali Defense Force. But the announcement was almost immediately upstaged by the ensuing power struggle. The self-described democratic secularists of the MNLA were pushed aside by a radical jihadist movement called Ansar Dine (“Defenders of the Faith”) allied to the al Qaeda franchise in northwestern Africa. But even this—the hijacking of a Texas-sized territory by avowed jihadists—barely registered outside professionally concerned circles.

It scarcely made headlines, either, when, in the midst of the U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting this past September, France vowed support for the Malian reconquest of Azawad. (The territory, with the rest of Mali, was known as the Soudan français prior to a wave of decolonization that between 1958 and 1962 put an end to France’s African empire.) But perhaps this lack of attention was understandable: It was difficult to sustain interest in a little-known African nation while catastrophes raged in Libya and Syria.

The U.S. State Department endorsed the French plan, with some misgivings. After the Malian army crumbled before the Tuareg assault, junior officers in Bamako, Mali’s capital, overthrew the government, citing the poor leadership of President Amadou Toumani Touré (“President ATT,” as he is known in Mali) in fighting the rebellion.

This complicated matters, as coups often do. The State Department’s view before the coup was that Mali was a paragon of political and economic progress, having rejected both the “khaki power” and the “African socialism” of its first post-independence regimes. State’s position after the coup was that regime legitimacy must be settled first, before the Tuareg question. Under pressure from international groups, the junta handed formal power to an interim government (now headed by a U.S.-educated astrophysicist) whose principal task would be to organize new elections. (The junta, however, maintained a de facto veto over its decisions.)

The long-term strategy of our Africa Command (AFRICOM) is to render African militaries more effective and professional—meaning concerned with security and humanitarian missions, not with political power. It would be an understatement to say the events in Mali came as a disappointment, but AFRICOM stayed focused on the long term, conducting a scheduled exercise in next-door Senegal in July. Dismay at the jihadist breakthrough out of the Sahara onto the borderlands of black Africa was muted.

Drawing up a counter-insurgency plan within six months of a state’s collapse is not, if you think about it, a poor performance—and on the American side, you have to hand it to AFRICOM for keeping its nerve. Concern for Mali is real, but so is a steady hand elsewhere, notably in East Africa, where our programs with Ethiopian and Ugandan militaries have stopped—and may have reversed—the spreading subversion out of Somalia.

But for American diplomats, Mali is a national tragedy, not to mention a flagrant foreign policy failure on many levels. It shows the inability to recognize a threat and be honest about it. It represents another domino fallen to the Islamists. And yet despite a quarter-million Malian refugees, the dynamiting and bulldozing of priceless treasures of African culture in Timbuktu and environs, young women machine-gunned for making eyes at their boyfriends, Mali at best makes the world news briefs, deep inside the paper.

Will something be done about Mali? In the African theater, the preparations are bound to take time. Africa is vast, diverse, and complex. Not a single country bordering Azawad wants a state next door run by jihadists who moonlight as drug smugglers. But bringing them together in a multinational force capable not only of defeating the rebels but also of ensuring the southwestern Sahara remains tranquil will be a remarkable diplomatic and military feat. If the French pull it off, presumably with our logistical and diplomatic support, the political and economic dynamic throughout North and West Africa will be decisively affected. Whether this dynamic will pull in the direction of democracy remains to be seen. But whatever happens, the Malian crisis will be, unavoidably, at the top of the administration’s foreign policy agenda.

The Operation

FOR NOW, the U.S. military is doing only the same thing it has done for years: train and advise our friends and allies. As an observer of one of these missions, I found myself on a C-130 bound for Mali on January 30, 2012—just days after the Tuareg went on the war path.

We were carried to Mopti, a town on the Niger River in central Mali, by the 53rd Airlift out of Little Rock AFB, a unit that traces its lineage back to the North African campaign of more than half a century ago. The Blackjacks can do anything from the air that you ask it to do. Its aircraft of choice is the C-130 Hercules, a venerable plane that was introduced in the late 1950s. The Hercules assigned to the Mali mission was a model built in 1974, which the commander, Col. Kelvin Anderson, pointed to as evidence of both the quality of American engineering and the meticulousness of Air Force maintenance crews.

The flight was long, but with no troops on board (they were coming on other flights), the craft soon became downright luxurious compared to commercial sardine cans. You plugged your ears against engine noise, the loadmaster and the riggers made sure everything was tight and secure, and time flew. Enjoy the wide Atlantic from 20,000 feet and a steady 300 mph. You can listen to music or read a book or discuss various matters with your mates—does God exist, should you marry your girlfriend, the reports on the outbreak of African tribal war.

The mission was routine, but that only means pilots and airmen trained for this until they knew every move by heart. Something unexpected can still happen. You cannot work too hard, you cannot be too careful, you cannot be too alert, you cannot be too good. Blackjacks—primus cum pluribus—first with the most!

Page: 1 2 3   Last ›

About the Author

Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) |

MelvinNC| 1.4.13 @ 7:50AM

I first instincts would say, "F-ck em." I know my opinion is a bit course and not worthy of some who post eloquent and deep thought remarks, but maybe that is why I am not a diplomat.
Being a former infantryman I am sick and damn tired getting involved in little brush wars that we have no intention of winning, but merely keeping the status quo from spreading.
Another major fact is that I am also sick and damn tired of allegedly saving Nations and ungrateful residents who call me and my Nation a bunch of infidel S.O.B.'s, and then join the enemy that I and my fellow grunts are trying to save them from.
We're trying to save them, but from what, they don't want to be saved and we don't have the heart to stick with it. The residents know this and the enemy knows this. So that is the main reason the residents won't lift a finger to help themselves.

"So f-ck em." This remark is also to include the politicians who are the ones that are not dying and comeing back in pieces from some 6th world shit-hole.

OP4| 1.5.13 @ 2:12PM

This old Infantry Marine seconds that opinion.
Before WWII we fought our numerous "small wars" better in 2 ways.

1. The JAG's, Lawyers, and bureaucrats weren't invited. Marines and soldiers got the dirty work done out of sight and weren't second guessed.

2. Those Banana Wars at least made American businesses money and were not just a needless drain on the economy.

Those days are gone. Time we let the Third World sort itself out.

markenoff| 1.6.13 @ 3:45PM

Ditto. No oil? Who cares. Artificial borders drawn by European powers. Let them deal with it.

Tomper| 1.4.13 @ 8:16AM

Our muslim president will be no help.

Joellen| 1.4.13 @ 8:16AM

Why would the democrats do anything in Africa, when they refuse to bring order and peace right here in oh I dont know let's say CHICAGO!

Please, Mr. Kaplan, with all due respect, this administration doesnt have the moral authority to stop a fist fight within their own headquarters.

cicero| 1.4.13 @ 9:24AM

This appears to be just another event where we feed the locals so that they will be healthy enough to support their Muslim conquerors after the rape, murder, and pillage is over. If we were serious about winning this war against violent Muslim expansion, we would destroy every Muslim incursion into new territory. However, this would require that we use the power that we have,. and not try to buildd nations where none exist. The only viable strategy is to run them to ground where ever they appear, and kill them before they can kill those who do not submit to them. Perhaps burying them with a ham sandwich in their pockets would take some of the religious fervor out of the jihad. (Just kidding - but maybe not.)

Pecos Pete| 1.4.13 @ 9:25AM

Is Mali another Afghanistan? Yes indeed. Tribal affiliations and religions that our "statesmen" don't understand. Mali is not worth one American death, nor one American dollar, until our Lords deign to fight a war that requires winning instead of slowly giving way as they play their diplomatic games.

Mnestheus| 1.4.13 @ 9:47AM

Having eaten a ham sandwhich while flying over Mali. I fail to see what the fuss is about.

BShep| 1.4.13 @ 10:03AM

I do believe that my Middle Eastern policy can be easily applied to the continent of Africa.

In any conflict, arm the losing side until they become the winning side, then arm the other side until the conflict is over, and then send in the CIA to start the cycle over again. Eventually, they will run out of people to wage war and in the meantime they will leave us alone, win – win all the way around.

In addition, provide an AK47 and 250 rounds of ammunition to any female who asks. That will really make the males upset, especially the muslims.

If the above is too simplistic, then please, someone explain to me why I should care at all about this. I am sure not a one of them cares a whit about, say, the murder rate in Detroit or Chicago. While explaining, please use small words and type slowly so my poor brain can understand. BTW, do not bother with the “no man is an island” argument. I am not buying it.

wombat1| 1.4.13 @ 1:02PM

Since when was Mali ours to "lose"?

Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan? We can defeat any foe militarily, but that's it . Unless we are willing to stay 50 years, as in occupied Germany and Japan, there is no hope of transforming a nation's character. In this case, the situation is that much worse because there is, properly speaking, no such thing as a nation to work with, And not only are the people effectively living in about 500 A.D., they are willing to fight and die for the privilege of staying there.

But, as usual, any patch of desert or jungle can be declared "strategic" as soon as some gun toting nitwit can be found screaming "death to America". Then the good old circus begins again. "Advisors" and "trainers" give way to combat troops. Billions of dollars are spent on the military effort, which mainly consists of shooting ammunition into the blue and getting our troops ambushed. More billions go to the country building /pacification effort, which means transferring the money from the American taxpayer to Zurich via our " allies".

I vote we pass on this one.

The way to get out of trouble here is to keep out.

Stan Redmond| 1.4.13 @ 2:07PM

If we could somehow get the Mali citizens to vote democrat we would be there in a second.

Pecos Pete| 1.4.13 @ 2:30PM

Stan: In that case they would become the 58th state.

cicero| 1.4.13 @ 3:41PM

Since we' re not serious, and not willing to actually fight to win, I agree that we best stay home. However, if we are going to do that, we also should stop funding either side in these regime change/wars of conquest. If and when they come here, retribution must be severe and swift, with the end result being the totat destruction of those who attacked us or gave them comfort and aid. Not like last time, where we kicked the smot out of them, then stayed to build them up better than they were before they attacked us. Pakistan, anyone?, Iraq?, Afghanistan?,

air max en france | 1.5.13 @ 3:52AM

You can listen to music or read a book or discuss various matters with your mates—does God exist, should you marry your girlfriend, the reports on the outbreak of African tribal war.

More Articles by Roger Kaplan

More Articles From Feature

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/04/losing-mali

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT