France at War in Mali: Hollande Announces French Military Support

[russ_watters]

France has committed a currently unknown quantity of ground and air forces to combat in Mali to help stabilize the country and quell an al Qaeda led uprising:

French President Francois Hollande announced that French ground and military forces were in the dusty, dangerous country to aid government forces.

"French military forces have brought their support to the Malian forces this afternoon to fight against these terrorist elements," said Hollande, speaking from the Elysee Palace in Paris. "This operation will last as long as it is necessary. I will regularly inform the French people about its course."

It was not clear how many French troops were deployed. But Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the French military has also launched airstrikes.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/world/africa/mali-france/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Near as I can tell, France did not inform, much less consult with the UN (or the US, for that matter) prior to this action. I like that. They saw a problem they thought should be fixed so they are fixing it themselves.

 

[rootX]

They saw a problem they thought should be fixed so they are fixing it themselves.

Should the UN be consulted if a country wants to help another country's legitimate government?

French ground and military forces were in the dusty, dangerous country to aid government forces.

 

[AlephZero]

Near as I can tell, France did not inform, much less consult with the UN (or the US, for that matter) prior to this action. I like that. They saw a problem they thought should be fixed so they are fixing it themselves.

I wasn't sure whether "I like that" was an ironic comment, or if you took this as an argument to support unilateral US foreign intervention without UN agreement, but your edit adding the final sentence ("They saw a problem...") seems to answer those questions.

But were you aware that
(1) Mali was a French colony until the 1960s
(2) The French troops are there supporting Malian troops, with the agreement of the Malian government. which is not quite "seeing a problem and fixing it themselves" IMO.
(3) There are about 6,000 French citizens resident in Mali, some of whom have been taken hostage.
(4) The UN has already approved foreign intervention by other African countries over this issue, though there seems to be some delay in the African countries getting their act together.

Your cnn link doesn't seem to say much about those points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20991719

 

[russ_watters]

I wasn't sure whether "I like that" was an ironic comment, or if you took this as an argument to support unilateral US foreign intervention without UN agreement, but your edit adding the final sentence ("They saw a problem...") seems to answer those questions.

The latter: not ironic.

But were you aware that...

Yes, though not quite as clearly described as in your BBC link. And I agree that it is not identical to some US actions.

 

[BobG]

France has committed a currently unknown quantity of ground and air forces to combat in Mali to help stabilize the country and quell an al Qaeda led uprising:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/world/africa/mali-france/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Near as I can tell, France did not inform, much less consult with the UN (or the US, for that matter) prior to this action. I like that. They saw a problem they thought should be fixed so they are fixing it themselves.

Technically, they responded to Mali's President's request for aid, making this a France-Mali issue.

On the other hand, while I guess it's normal for Western press to focus on Western officials, every article about this includes about one statement on the Mali President requesting aid. Not only that, this is essentially a civil war in Mali and President Traore is the interim President in what is essentially a toppled government that France (and other Western powers) are trying to restore. It's not quite like England asking for help from the US.

This is how countries take immediate action on their own. The UN will almost always condone the action after the fact (because the alternative is to condemn it and then admit it can't actually do anything about it?).

On the other hand, you don't take the issue to the UN beforehand unless you're actually willing to abide by their decision. Taking the issue to them beforehand and then just defying their decision is just slapping them in the face (withdrawing the issue just before the official decision is made really isn't much better).

If the intent is to compare what the French did to what the US did with Iraq, I don't think the contrast illustrates anything about right and wrong. Everyone knows how to do this. When a country dorks it up, it just indicates that the country's leadership is a little disfunctional; as if the person at the top doesn't know much about leading/governing and his advisors are trying to back each other into corners by playing on a naive leader.

 

[russ_watters]

This was not a reference to Iraq. We went to the UN before going into Iraq and a had a coalition! If anything, I was thinking about Libya and Syria.

[edit] Btw, a month ago Obama recognized the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representatives of the people of Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/us-syria-opposition/index.html

 

[Mentalist]

To the Syrian point, if the Syrian government is undergoing a civil war, why would the United States be opposed to the use of sarin gas as a weaponized means of stopping the combat? I know that it could be very harmful to the civilians but it would allow the Syrian government to alleviate some of the damage that they underwent because from what I read, they are being beaten back by the opposition.

To the topic: Should France go through the UN if the Malian government has requested aid? I am not well versed (if at all) on these types of national matters and rules, but I am wondering if a government is requesting aid that a country that is powerful enough to lend its hand decides to help them, why not? Or, is there a reason why countries should follow the UN's protocols?

 

[lisab]

To the Syrian point, if the Syrian government is undergoing a civil war, why would the United States be opposed to the use of sarin gas as a weaponized means of stopping the combat? I know that it could be very harmful to the civilians but it would allow the Syrian government to alleviate some of the damage that they underwent because from what I read, they are being beaten back by the opposition.

To the topic: Should France go through the UN if the Malian government has requested aid? I am not well versed (if at all) on these types of national matters and rules, but I am wondering if a government is requesting aid that a country that is powerful enough to lend its hand decides to help them, why not? Or, is there a reason why countries should follow the UN's protocols?

Re Syria: Sarin gas is a banned weapon, but let's stay on topic. If you want to start a new thread, please feel free.

Edit: Sarin gas is outlawed under the Chemical Weapons Convention, but it looks like Syria never signed it -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_ConventionRe UN: I really don't know about UN rules on assistance between two closely-tied countries.

 

[rootX]

This was not a reference to Iraq. We went to the UN before going into Iraq and a had a coalition! If anything, I was thinking about Libya and Syria.

[edit] Btw, a month ago Obama recognized the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representatives of the people of Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/us-syria-opposition/index.html

In both Syria and Libya case, external governments wished to overthrow the then legitimate governments without thinking much about what will happen afterwards. Technically, I believe western governments supported terrorism in those states to the point that terrorists became capable enough to replace the legitimate government.

It's very different in the case here. French government is actually helping the government not overthrowing it.

 

[russ_watters]

Rootx, by who'se determination were the existing governments "legitimate"? And by what definition of "terrorism" were the rebels terrorists? While I'm sure the rebels aren't all saints, it is my understanding that by and large the revolutionary movements started as pretty standard grassroots uprising, with no inherent terrorism component: They grew out of the peaceful protests of the Arab Spring. I think you are falling for the common crackpot message that 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter'.

In any case, Syria vs Mali: In Mali, the internationally recognized legitimate government asked France for help and France assisted. In Syria, the organization we now recognize as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people (not yet really a government) has also asked for assistance.

 

[Borg]

I am also glad to see France assist the government. The national news was reporting last night that the Mali military is on the verge of collapse. From what I've read about the 2012 Malian coup d'état, it looks like the situation is quite a mess and in dire need of outside assistance (intervention, or whatever you want to call it).

It's amazing how easy it was for the military to overthrow the government and how easy it's been for the northern rebels to cripple that same military. This is really ironic since the coup appeared to have started as a result of the military's dissatisfaction with the government's management of the conflict with the rebels.

 

[BobG]

I am also glad to see France assist the government. The national news was reporting last night that the Mali military is on the verge of collapse. From what I've read about the 2012 Malian coup d'état, it looks like the situation is quite a mess and in dire need of outside assistance (intervention, or whatever you want to call it).

It's amazing how easy it was for the military to overthrow the government and how easy it's been for the northern rebels to cripple that same military. This is really ironic since the coup appeared to have started as a result of the military's dissatisfaction with the government's management of the conflict with the rebels.

Surprising, but not shocking in hindsight. This Tuareg revolt is different than the previous three Tuareg revolts.

1) Post-Libya, there are more weapons in the region. Weapons are neutral inanimate objects and they don't disintegrate after they've served their initial purpose. Suddenly, the Mali government has to fight an enemy equipped with modern weapons.

2) Tuaregs finally found an ally. Their revolt is an opportunity for Islamic groups to expand their influence by "assisting" the Tuaregs.

On the other hand, however surprised the Mali government may have been by the sudden success of insurgents, the Tuaregs had to be absolutely shocked by how things turned out. Their "allies" turned out to be much stronger than the Tuaregs and had a much different vision for Northern Mali than the Tuaregs did. In fact, at this point, the conflict essentially is as the French President describes it. The Tuaregs started the uprising, but are now minor players in the conflict. In fact, they may be rooting for the Mali government to win!

Yes, it's hard to imagine a worse mess than what Mali has devolved into - unless you imagine Rwanda or Darfur. This is Africa - same as the old - except worse.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

An army officer at the headquarters of Mali's former military junta in Bamako said "over 100" rebels had been killed, while a shopkeeper in Konna said he had counted 148 bodies, among them several dozen government soldiers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-mali-rebels-idUSBRE90912Q20130112

 

[rootX]

Rootx, by who'se determination were the existing governments "legitimate"? And by what definition of "terrorism" were the rebels terrorists? While I'm sure the rebels aren't all saints, it is my understanding that by and large the revolutionary movements started as pretty standard grassroots uprising, with no inherent terrorism component: They grew out of the peaceful protests of the Arab Spring. I think you are falling for the common crackpot message that 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter'.

My argument was incomplete but I took quite opposite stance to "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

Nonetheless, given how the situation has evolved in Syria over-time I will have to agree with you over:

In any case, Syria vs Mali: In Mali, the internationally recognized legitimate government asked France for help and France assisted. In Syria, the organization we now recognize as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people (not yet really a government) has also asked for assistance.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This could be a long drawn out war

Malian Town Falls to Islamist Rebels, France Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/france-mali-intervention.html

 

[jim hardy]

Panetta, traveling in Europe this week, told reporters that the military is also providing intelligence-gathering assistance to French forces.

MSNBC reported Monday that the White House is planning to announce increased U.S. military support for the French fighters later this week.

http://www.stripes.com/news/africa/us-military-could-be-drawn-into-mali-fight-1.203857


http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html

Let us pray .

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fee-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html?hpid=z1

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for the attack and said 41 hostages were seized, seven of them Americans. It said the attack was in retaliation for Algeria’s decision to allow France to use its airspace to send warplanes to neighboring Mali, where French forces have been conducting airstrikes and support operations since last week to aid Malian troops in their battle against Islamist insurgents.

 

[Astronuc]

The turmoil in the Sahara - Mali and Algeria, and probably Libya, has been evolving for several years, and actually seems to be a continuation of the instability from the last century or so.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/18/world/africa/mali-algeria-timeline.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/w...ts-strike-deep-inside-islamist-held-mali.html

 

[nsaspook]

The global war on terror has given nations an excuse for intervention to maintain the status-quo just by linking a mainly internal power struggle to Al-Qaeda. (the new 10 foot tall Commie) I hope the French well but see only trouble ahead for them as eventually most sides will see France as the enemy if the fighting continues.
The way to end this war is to address the real problems and one of them is the current corrupt, incompetent and kleptocratic government in Mali.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013119153558185275.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9ebaa02-6191-11e2-9545-00144feab49a.html#axzz2IRdw296L

 

[Astronuc]

Hostages Dead in Bloody Climax to Siege in Algeria
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/world/africa/algeria-militants-hostages.html

BAMAKO, Mali — The four-day hostage crisis in the Sahara reached a bloody conclusion on Saturday as the Algerian Army carried out a final assault on the gas field taken over by Islamist militants, killing most of the remaining kidnappers and raising the total of hostages killed to at least 23, Algerian officials said.
. . . .

Africa Must Take Lead in Mali, France Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/world/africa/africa-must-take-lead-in-mali-france-says.html

PARIS — With French officials saying confidently on Saturday that an advance by Islamist militants on Bamako, Mali’s capital, had been halted, France’s foreign minister told African leaders that “our African friends need to take the lead” in a multilateral military intervention in Mali.
. . . .
Once the situation is more stable, France wants African troops to do most of the work to wrest the north from the Islamists, as called for under a United Nations Security Council resolution passed in December.

French officials conceded, however, that there were disputes over how African participation would be financed and about the best way to transport troops to Mali. In Paris, French officials said the United States, while willing to help ferry African troops, wanted to bill France for the use of transport aircraft, which officials said would not go down well with the French. The Pentagon favors providing rapid help with transport and even with air-to-air refueling, but the White House is more reluctant, the officials said.
. . . .

Who pays, and how much seem to be some big questions. And then there is the issue of the various national governments, many, if not most, seem corrupt.

Troops from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And then there is the issue of the various national governments, many, if not most, seem corrupt.

Yeah good luck
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2011/results