Some Alternate Opinions on Mali

Here are a couple of articles on Mali. I’m not picking on Patroon, I just wanted to counterbalance his post below.

Here are Ron Paul’s thoughts. He wants to know why there has been no Congressional approval for our actions in Mali.

There is a reason why the framers of our Constitution placed the authority to declare war strictly with the Legislative Branch of government. They knew well that kings were all too willing to go to war without the consent of those who would do the killing and dying — and funding. By placing that authority in Congress, the people’s branch of government, they intended to blunt the executive branch’s enthusiasm toward overseas adventurism. The consequences of this steady erosion of our system toward the unitary executive are dire.

Here is Philip Giraldi’s take. He seems to generally concur with Patroon’s take on the causes and potential implications of the rebel war in Mali, but he reaches a different conclusion about  the wisdom of intervention.

It is an all too typical situation wrapped in Washington’s ignorance that is just waiting to become the next crisis. The White House knows almost nothing about the militants in Mali and even less about what happened in Algeria. General Carter Ham, who heads the Army’s Stuttgart-based Africa Command, admits that it is difficult to get reliable intelligence about what he perhaps conveniently refers to as the terrorist “safe haven” in Mali. The New York Times notes that Washington has only an “impressionistic understanding” of the militants involved. The perceived wisdom mandating the suppression of insurgencies everywhere coupled with the belief that all militancies tend to metastasize creates a U.S. interest in Africa that might not be credible. The fall of Timbuktu to extremists who have a local agenda does not actually threaten the United States and the ability of such groups to strike the U.S. is nil, so one might well plausibly decide that Washington has no real interest in Mali at all. Based on the performance of the Malian Army, one would also have to conclude that Africa Command is possibly not worth the time, money, and effort that is being committed to it in support of an agenda that continues to be somewhat opaque.

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

3 thoughts on “Some Alternate Opinions on Mali

  1. savrola

    The reason non-intervention has failed in the past is simply that its proponents were not serious about it or they tacticitly acknowledged that the purported enemies of the United States were evil, but that the U.S. had no obligation to fight evil.
    Therefore, Nazis, bad. Commies, bad. Mohammadens, bad.

    This destroyed the arguement, because as history has demonstrated, the Nazis and Commies were the less of the two evils, and the Mohammadens may yet prove to be the lesser of the two evils, as well.

    To make the arguement that intervention is not in American interests is always foolish, and has also been disproven by history.

    It’s amusing to note all these secessionist/seperatists who suddenly develop a fascination with the “national” interest, when it comes to foreign policy.

    And it’s not Jacksonian, either. Jacksonianism is by it’s nature confined to the Americas.

    America no longer has any “National” interest. It’s all fragmented between rival ethnic groups, and fat white men from the heartland don’t get a seat at the table.

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>