Why France (or someone) has to intervene in Mali

“It’s dirty job but someone has to do it” as the old saying goes describes exactly why France finds itself in position its does having to intervene military in Mali. France’s actions hopefully put an end to the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” stupidity that exists on the American Right. I don’t see a lot U.S. troops on the ground in Mali nor will we. Drones have pretty much replaced actual soldiers at this point in the GWOT. At least France has real soldiers on the ground ready to fight.

Of course, the first important reason for France’s intervention in Mali is cleaning up the mess it help to create when it insisted they other NATO nations intervene in the Libyan Revolution. Having been defeated, Col. Kadahfy’s Tuareg mercenaries simply grabbed what heavy weapons they could from the Libyan army arsenal and went back to Mali and Niger and Algeria and the other countries these nomads roam through and starting causing trouble. The revolt by Tuaregs to carve off northern Mali into an automous state of Azawad and the political upheaval it caused in Mali was the first blowback caused by the Libyan intervention. The second was Islamic terrorists groups using the chaos as it’s angle to take control of northern Mali and push aside the Tuaregs, who only wanted self-government not seeing their women flogged in public for wearing the wrong clothes.

The second important reason has to do with collective security in response to aggression. It’s no secret France moved as quickly and surprisingly as it did because a red line was crossed in their minds which left them no choice. When the Salafist forces moved with 250 miles of the Malian capital of Bamako, then French knew they had to get involved. Had they not done so, it is conceivable the terrorists could have drive their pick-up trucks all the way Bamako and taken over. There would have been nothing to stop them considering the putrid state of Mali’s military, which is nothing more than a police army which is better at abusing its own citizens than fighting the enemy. And if the such armed Salfists groups took over, it would be the first time that such a trans-national terrorist group had seized control of another country right from the native people’s grasp (the Taliban were Pashtun tribalists allied with Al Qaeda).

Mali may well be a nowheresville to rest of the world but in this case it happens to be a central nowhere which touches everywhere. A Salafist takeover of Mali would have put them right in direct contact with the vicious killers of the Boko Haram terrorist group in Nigeria and providing an even more direct threat to that nation,which is the most important in all of West Africa, and to Christian populations the further south you go in Nigeria and states like Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Chad, Benin, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cameroon, Gabon, Togo and the Central African Republic.  It would destabilize the entire region which is filled with artificial  states left over from colonial times whose in some cases governments hang by a thread. If Mali fell to such well-armed terrorists, then the same could happen to these states as well.

There’s no denying France’s economic and political interests in the region but ask yourself do you really want Niger’s uranium deposits in the hands of the Salafists? We can talk about economic competition with China imperialism, colonialism, racism, the ineptitude of the political elites in Mali and others who abuse their rule across Africa etc., etc. all we like but it’s besides the point. This is clearly a case where aggression has to be beaten back given the possible consequences of not doing anything. Indeed, if anyone is worried about the impression of white French troops intervening in one of its former colonies (although France has black soldiers too) should ask the southern Malians who cheered their arrival, knowing someone was actually fighting for and protecting them instead of taking advantage of them.

Yes there is the real possibility of blowback and yes intervention in such internal conflicts like Libya (and Syria, which all should stay out of) is bad news but the situation in Mali has gone beyond internal politics and now has become part of, not war against terrorism, but extreme Islam seeking to conquer and oppress. France has taken the lead, thankfully, (“It’s dirty job but someone has to do it”) for the West and other nations, including the U.S. should give their full support.

 

 

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

27 thoughts on “Why France (or someone) has to intervene in Mali

  1. Kirt Higdon

    OMG. I’d find it hard to imagine even Kagan or The Weekly Standard coming up with such ridiculous interventionism. Mali is the middle of nowhere. Its best known city, Timbuktu, is proverbial for being the world’s most distant place from anywhere. The dread salafists already have Timbuktu and I’m supposed to worry that they might take (horrors!) Bamako. The French Foreign Legion to the rescue – aided by US airlift capability and US spec ops troops. (A couple of the latter were killed in an auto accident in Mali a few months ago, along with the Moroccan whores who were accompanying them.) On the other hand, the news of the day is the openning of combat and spec ops positions in the US armed forces to women. As the evil empire’s armed forces increasingly become a socialist/feminist/sodomite collective, maybe we should just send all of them to Mali.

  2. Kirt Higdon

    I tried posting this a few hours ago and it did not take. Let’s see if it does this time.

    OMG. I’d find it hard to imagine even Kagan or The Weekly Standard coming up with such ridiculous interventionism. Mali is the middle of nowhere. Its best known city, Timbuktu, is proverbial for being the world’s most distant place from anywhere. The dread salafists already have Timbuktu and I’m supposed to worry that they might take (horrors!) Bamako. The French Foreign Legion to the rescue – aided by US airlift capability and US spec ops troops. (A couple of the latter were killed in an auto accident in Mali a few months ago, along with the Moroccan whores who were accompanying them.) On the other hand, the news of the day is the openning of combat and spec ops positions in the US armed forces to women. As the evil empire’s armed forces increasingly become a socialist/feminist/sodomite collective, maybe we should just send all of them to Mali.

  3. Patroon Post author

    Who else do you know is Patroon on this website? I don’t have a twin brother.

    I would please me more we can discuss and debate this topic instead of questioning its authenticity.

  4. C Bowen

    What are we suppose to debate, Patroon?

    It’s one thing to argue, even and especially amongst non-interventionists, that the near-abroad needs an intervention, but Africa?

    We know absolutely nothing about the place–it’s a playground for evil forces. Let China handle it.

  5. Patroon Post author

    France has intervened in Africa many times in its former colonies in protection of its interest. Nearly all of the time those interests have nothing to do with the United States, so there’s no reason to get involved or back them as well. However, I feel in this case, there is a strong Western interest to back a repulse of the Salfists back into the Sahara Desert with the French and ECOWAS troops taking the lead for the reasons I mentioned in this piece.

    The Algerians may well have botched a hostage-rescue mission but I don’t think rescue was entirely their motivation. Their government sent a clear messaqe they would destroy any terrorist threat to their nation. If Malians were just as effective and ruthless, it wouldn’t be necessary to send in Western troops. Unfortunately that’s not the case. Indeed its the whole rottenness of the situation that has gotten France into this mess that sadly they have to take care of.

    Ronald Reagan used to say peace through strength prevented wars, not caused them because weakness was an invitation to conflict. Well I can’t think of a better argument against intervention in most cases than it does lead to blowback as it has in Mail. Thus, sadly, intervention has to be done for the consequences of not doing so could be serious in my judgement and certainly in France’s judgement as well.

  6. RedPhillips

    Patroon, if I wrote an article saying that the GOP was being intransigent on spending and should compromise with the Dems would you believe I wrote it?

  7. Patroon

    You could not write such an article because the GOP is not intransigent on spending. Only on the spending it doesn’t like or that which does not benefit its constituencies. When it comes to the military, cotton farmers and the TVA, it’s for lots of spending.

  8. Savrola

    I make no bones about supporting Islamic militants over the secular forces in third world nations.

    Islam brings Sharia Law and order to chaotic nations, and establishes conservative principles and values that genuinely stand athwart the decadent west.

    It’s the acid test of conservatism, to acknowledge that it would be better if the hardline Islamic regimes in Africa and the Middle East all had nuclear weapons and were able to defend themselves against the Western onslaught of decay and destruction.

    If you don’t support the forces of Islam gaining control in their own nations, you are not a conservative.
    It is that simple.

  9. RedPhillips

    “You could not write such an article”

    Umm … TAC has such an article or blog post routinely. The Republicans must give in on a tax hikes. The Republicans must not make an issue of the debt limit. Lest they be perceived as extremists. I guess I didn’t just mean spending. I meant spending, taxes, “economic” issues in general. If I wrote such a TAC style article would you believe I did it?

  10. RedPhillips

    Well Sav, except for the minor issue that Islam is a false religion that dooms the immortal souls of its believers.

  11. savrola

    There you go playing both sides, Red.

    No one is advocating Islam in the U.S. no one is advocating Islam in the western world.

    It is better for Christian nations to ally with Islamic governments against secular powers.

    This should be a no brainer for a Christian Paleo.

  12. RedPhillips

    But Sav, doesn’t the rise of Islam in a foreign country make the rise of Christianity there less likely/more difficult? I don’t support the advance of a false religion. I don’t support the advance of liberal secularism. I support the advance of Christian particularity. We should have a lot more missionaries around the world than we have soldiers.

  13. RedPhillips

    Patroon, to address the content of your article directly, one of the things that characterizes non-interventionism is that it wants America to act like a normal country and stop thinking it has some extra duty or responsibility on the world’s stage. Likewise, it desires that other countries act accordingly. So as an American non-interventionist, I want France to act like a normal country and not assume for itself burdens that aren’t its. Why would I want France to act as if it believes it has a duty beyond protecting France?

    Now I can see the idea that France has a responsibility for cleaning up a mess it created in Libya, but of course it never should have involved itself in Libya in the first place. But I don’t see that France has a unique responsibility to prevent point two, unless we are saying the West collectively still has an obligation to clean up the mess it made with colonization, in which case the English, the Dutch, etc. should be pitching in as well. But of course, there never should have been colonization in the first place.

    It seems to me that France is trying to step in and fill a vacuum left by a retrenching America. France was the primary player behind the mess in Libya. Why on earth would any non-interventionist want to encourage this behavior? America should mind its own business and France should mind its own as well.

  14. thaddeus

    Completely agree with Savrola.

    And this is coming from a person whom he’s called all sorts of names, so believe me, my support of his position is thoroughly considered.

  15. savrola

    The last we are capable of export to the ‘benighted savages’ is Christianity, Red.

    The west is not capable of exporting Christianity. Set your own house in order before worrying about those ignorant Africans.

  16. Patroon

    Sounds like some people around here need to read a little Srdja Tifkovic over at Chronicles to learn of the folly of “allying” oneself with Muslim governments or rebel groups.

  17. savrola

    Tifkovic’s is also a loyal Zionist, which makes his opinion questionable on a number of other subjects.

  18. Patroon

    I’ll let the idiocy of Savrola speak for itself.

    I’m a non-interventionist but not a knee jerk one. I don’t to tell France how to conduct its foreign policy, especially in Africa where they intervened on more than numerous occasions. In this case, in this special case with resignation, I feel the U.S should back the French and ECOWAS to prevent a Salafist destabilization of all of West Africa, which would eventually affect U.S. interests.

  19. Kirt Higdon

    It’s not a question of telling France how to conduct its foreign policy. The US is providing at minimum airlift and spec ops support, probably to be followed in due time by bombing (drone and otherwise). Worse yet, when the French find they’ve bitten off more than they can chew and pull out, the US regime will proclaim that we have to clean up the mess lest the salafists take over all that sand. Remember what happened the last time the US took over French problems? When it was East Asia rather than West Africa about to fall to someone?

    BTW, when Africom was fist set up as one of the US regional military commands (around the time of the 2008 election), I predicted we could count on a war in Africa. These military bureaucracies, like any other, have to give themselves something to do so they can get a budget boost every year.

  20. Kirt Higdon

    Update: Well, what did I tell you? A US State Department official by the name of (no joke) Yamamoto has advised that US involvement in Mali will last for years, while President Hollande of France has declared that France’s involvement is virtually over. Welcome to the sand trap.

  21. RedPhillips

    The absurdity of interventionism is summed up by the mere existence of something called AFRICOM. What kind of idiot country has a military command for an entire continent other than its own? Does AFRICOM answer to WORLDCOM? Does WORLDCOM answer to GALACTICOM?

  22. Kirt Higdon

    Actually there used to be a USSPACECOM to cover the rest of the universe outside earth, but it was merged with USSTRATCOM in 2002. Same universal mission though.

  23. savrola

    Mindless Islamophobia, it comes from quoting a Serbian Zionist.

    Are you going to quote Daniel Pipes next, Sean? Maybe Glenn Beck?

    No man who likes stadiums could possibly be an non-interventionist, when the rubber meets the road.

    Your statement shows a complete lack of foreign policy expertise.

    If we intervene in Africa, it will not be for our interests, but the Chinese.
    Just as the Chinese are already profiting from our war in Afghanistan.

    Moreover, you have this foolish, neo-con view of the “salafist” mohammedens as evil and implacable foes which in itself tells me you’re getting more liberal all the time.

  24. Pingback: Some Alternate Opinions on Mali | Conservative Heritage Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>