Welcome to Mali, home of sand, poverty and forgettable Matthew McConaughey movies. If you don't remember hearing anything out of this North African nation in--well--ever, that's okay; most people aren't even aware of its existence. But thanks to the unpredictability of foreign policy, we may have to start paying attention.
In a nutshell, here's what's happening: In the past four years, the U.S. has been heavily involved in counterterrorism work in Mali and other Saharan countries, providing military training and equipment to their armed forces. These armed forces, theoretically, could then do our job for us, keeping out Islamic terrorists in these nations without requiring a direct military presence on our part. As so many things do, it probably seemed like a great idea at the time. So what's the situation now? Well, a revolt has broken out in the north, a revolt which is both gaining steam and has fallen under the control of said Islamic militants, namely Al-Qaeda and assorted other jihadist groups, which is always fun--especially since some of the army officers who received our military aid defected to their side. To make things worse, another of those army officers we just invested time and money training took it upon himself to overthrow the government and establish authoritarian rule. So the choice now is between a strong-arming tyrant in the capital and rebels proclaiming a mixture of democracy and radical Islamism. Is this ringing any bells?
As usual, there's all kinds of potential geopolitical ramifications at work. A success by Al-Qaeda and company in taking over Mali, or even in carving out a chunk of territory, would firmly establish Islamic terrorists in North Africa, creating a whole new front next to Libya and Egypt, which will become so much more stable as a result. As for what the U.S. has been doing in response, we've already pledged to send drones in to help out the government and the French, who have sent in a handful of ground troops and are being their typical effectual selves. Where our involvement goes from there is anyone's guess, but more importantly, the whole episode is another argument against such an involved foreign policy.
While I still don't like to knock Bush too much for how the War on Terror played out, it is undeniable that the goal of retaliation against our enemies became badly entwined with the dubious aim of "building democracy" in the Middle East. We saw it in Iraq, we've seen it in Obama's interventionist policy in the Arab Spring, and now it appears we may see some form of it in North Africa. The idea--under both Bush and Obama--has been to establish and safeguard democracy in the Arab world, partly because it's the "right thing to do" and partly because it serves our interests. There are any number of reasons why this has been coming back to bite us, but the main one is this: However popular it is or isn't, a democracy/republic/constitutional government can not simply be called into being one day. It's something that has to evolve over decades, even centuries. The West doesn't have such a form of government because of its religion or culture or superior technology (although those didn't hurt); it developed democracy after long periods of interaction and competition between elements of society. I can't write an essay on it, but the point is that you have to work with the political culture and structures you find, not simply create carbon copies of whatever the U.S. has. No one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems to understand that, and we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
Bottom line: I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea that we ought to end our foreign involvement in its current form altogether. In a fight between authoritarian rulers and Islamist democrats, what's the scenario where we win? I don't see a way out of it. Maybe these areas are best left alone.
41 comments:
T-Rav, I am reading a lot of interesting articles about the French vastly underrating the bad guys, not bringing enough troops, wrongly hoping that air power would have won the day, and having no exit strategy. This sounds like a real mess.
And the US is apparently staying out of it for now because they don't know how the French plan to win this and because they don't trust the Mali government.
This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I agree with your conclusion that this is just more proof that we really can't win in these places.
well, they do have some good music . . . the late Ali Farka Toure comes to mind. But, I agree, it is impossible for us to compete. I suspect this country is in deep poverty and the culture is warlord mentality (think Blackhawk Down.) The west is so far from winning hearts and minds, anything we do is flushing money we don't have down the toilet.
Andrew, given that Mali is a former French colony, I'm tempted to wonder if they didn't think of this as a neo-colonial excursion--intervene in the midst of their former subjects and show that they've still got it. Which they clearly don't. From the last reports I read, they can't even keep Al-Qaeda from threatening the capital from the rear.
Throw in that hostage-taking across the border in Algeria, and yep--we've got the makings of a disaster on our hands. Though who knows how much of one.
Jed, never heard of them.
I'm no expert in North African affairs, but that sounds about right to me. The way things are now, we'd have been better off not throwing any money at them to begin with. Hey, there's an idea!....
T-Rav said:
While I still don't like to knock Bush too much for how the War on Terror played out, it is undeniable that the goal of retaliation against our enemies became badly entwined with the dubious aim of "building democracy" in the Middle East. We saw it in Iraq, we've seen it in Obama's interventionist policy in the Arab Spring, and now it appears we may see some form of it in North Africa. The idea--under both Bush and Obama--has been to establish and safeguard democracy in the Arab world, partly because it's the "right thing to do" and partly because it serves our interests. There are any number of reasons why this has been coming back to bite us, but the main one is this: However popular it is or isn't, a democracy/republic/constitutional government can not simply be called into being one day. It's something that has to evolve over decades, even centuries.
------
Prior to last year's coup, Mali was a democracy since 1991, so I don't think it makes sense to credit (or blame if you prefer) it being a democracy on Bush 2.
What started the Tuareg rebellion in Mali was the fall of Gadaffi. The Tuareg rebels who had fled to Libya after a failed rebellion in 2008 (the nomadic Tuaregs have been staging such coups for almost a century every so often) had been employed by Gadaffi during the civil war (he gave them arms, training and of course, battle experience). After Gadaffi fell the Tuaregs went back to Mali and continued where they left off and had a lot more success they they've had in recent memory (possibly ever).
They were smaller than the 7000 man Malian army (estimates vary, but the most popular seems to be 2000) but they had better knowledge of the terrain, more combat experience and better weapons.
In reaction to early miliatry losses, younger guys in the Malian army staged a coup whose big goal wasn't a power grab, but more support from the government to win the war. It was a stupid move.
Taking over a Western allied democracy despite the modesty of the coup stagers' aims severely disrupted Mali's relations with the outside world for a time (sanctions were imposed for a bit, though the US never completely cut off aid) and of course, there was a lot of confusion in the government. During the fallout of the coup (which quickly wound up ceding a lot of power to civilians and reinstating the constituion, though the soldiers haven't completely returned to the barracks yet) the rebels didn't call a time-out, but kept fighting.
I haven't heard anything about defections (which isn't to say they haven't happened), but by dint of military conquest, the rebels have successfully seized some arms the US had provided to the Malian army.
Of course, there is a bit of disunity on the rebel side as well. The latest Tuareg rebellion was kicked off by returning Tuaregs whose big aim was secession, but when the war was going well, Tuaregs from an even earlier failed rebellion (mid-90's) who had spent a lot of time around Al Queda started a separate rebel group with different aims (they don't want to secede, they want a Talibanesque version of Sharia for the whole country). A lot of non-Malian terror types ahve joined the Sharia law guys.
*Shrugs* I'm by no means an expert on the region, but international relations is something of a hobby of mine.
Democracy is a fine and good thing which I think tends to result in better outcomes than any of the alternatives (for reasons I'm sure I'll go into as this debate continues), but it isn't a panacea.
Even the US had an extremely bloody civil war several decades after its founding whose echoes are still being felt today.
T-Rav....Couple points:
1. Minus the vegetation, Mali is sure sounding like Vietnam isn't it? Former French colony that the U.S. steps in to advise and support the French when they run into trouble with the locals. Unlike Nam, who is playing the role of the Chinese in Mali?
2. Why must it always be the US who steps in to "save democracy" or some foolish thing like that? You are right about the time it takes to create a Western style democracy. It just ain't gonna happen in the MidEast in our lifetime. In Iraq, the Stans, Egypt, Libya, etc...
Why don't we hear of China, or Russia, or Japan stepping in to help these poor blighted countries out? Because they are focussing on their own internal problems at home, not trying to save the world for democracy/socialism/fascism..whatever.
I think it's because we have a standing Army and need to have something for it to do. It would be interesting to study up on the Founder's thoughts on the role of a standing Army in America. Anyone know what they thought of one?
here is a youtube link to a song from the grammy winning album "Talking Timbuktu" which was a collaboration with musician Ry Cooder. One of the songs was used in the movie "Unfaithful" with Diane Lane for her scene where she is seduced by the young frenchman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6IDmiKz7ic
Patriot - founding fathers had no plans for a traditional standing army in this country; most actually feared them. I can see why given the fact so many coups are performed by the military.
Anthony, thanks for the info. That more or less tallies with what I've been reading.
I may not have been clear. I wasn't suggesting that either Bush or Obama tried to create a democracy in Mali. Most of the ex-colonies in Africa became "democracies," at least on paper, after declaring independence. But many of those governments, like Mali's, have been unstable or even folded altogether, for the reasons which I was arguing: a democracy is, like you say, better than the other options, but just as it's not a panacea, neither is it something which can be created out of whole cloth. Both the African republics and the Middle East democracies we've attempted to establish or help establish in recent years are to some extent based on the premise that it can, and the results are very similar across the board. Is that a better expression of what I'm trying to say?
But anyway, interesting background info. I think there now have been a number of defections from army officers, based on what I've read, though if the army is only 7,000 men, it can't be that many.
Patriot, as to your first question, I suppose Al-Qaeda, like I mentioned, would be playing the part of the Chinese in this case, using northern Mali as a base for infiltrating much of the Sahara region. They're not the only terrorist group in those parts, though.
As for the second, the reason they don't help out is because they're even less idealistic in intent than we are. Russia would be more than happy to intervene, as long as it gets to turn those countries into vassal states; same goes for China, and that's if it's stable enough internally to pull such a thing off; as for Japan, although they're not as weak as some people assume, I don't think they have the capacity, manpower or otherwise, to get involved on that level.
Maybe we do get involved so much because of our standing army. I don't know. As for what the Founders thought of such an institution, I would refer you to a study of the Jefferson administration and how close they came to eliminating the U.S. Army altogether.
Jed, here's your link: LINK
It may be telling that one of the only other Western states never in fear of a military coup, Great Britain, traditionally never had a standing army either. I suppose the fact that ours is a volunteer force is what makes the difference.
It IS Vietman all over again. We keep "training" the military in these countries and then, "their military" join terrorist groups. We need to stop doing this. It gets us into trouble everytime. And frankly, we either need to be ALL in or ALL out. These little "halfsie" support groups are not working with great prejudice and needlessly getting Americans killed.
Two things - I noticed that Obama has not taken any credit for this failed mission which I would think he had to okay, right? Oh, and Obama is not saying that he has Al Qaeda "on the run" anymore. Of course they never were "on the run", but hey, whatever got him elected, right?
Patriot and T-Rav, I think China doesn't get involved because they don't have the military ability yet to project power. They're getting there, but they don't have that power yet. So they instead prefer to just deal commercially with whoever is in charge at the moment.
What interests me in this situation is that it this turns south, and it sounds like it will, then I wonder what kind of reaction there will be in France? This strikes me as a bigger moment than people realize and that this could result in France either falling in upon itself and giving up militarily, or it could result in them deciding they need to build up. Either way, I suspect that they may be about to give up on the European "soft power" model.
Bev, I agree... you can't half-fight a way. You need to go all in or all out.
And the idea that al Qaeda is on the run is a laugh. They control more places now than they did before we invaded Iraq. And the Taliban will take over Afghanistan the moment we leave.
Back in the 80s when there was unrest in Latin America and in the Middle East (oh wait, that hasn't changed), we didn't seem to be trying to "fix" stuff, just support the stablest faction. As I recall, the US got a lot of flak over that policy, and talking heads continue to complain about that policy and its hand in creating the current messes. However, I'm thinking that it sounds pretty good. Don't prop up governments that are truly evil, but don't help knock down ones that are in place because they don't toe the democratic line. I know that got us the Shah situation in Iran, and it's not a perfect policy. But a little "realpolitik" might be useful. This fight against Islamism isn't quite the same as communism containment since communism requires centralization and some form of stability.
OK, now I am rambling... I haven't figured out how it would all work. But total withdrawal from the world won't work since the Islamists have shown that they are more than willing to come to the US and our very existence is offensive, and this "nation-building", while a great idea on paper and in "ideals" terms, isn't going so well either...
rlaWTX, The problem is, in a word, liberals. They simultaneously complain that:
1. We should not meddle in foreign nations.
2. BUT we should invade to stop human rights abuses. We should make these foreign governments treat their people better. We should support democracies in any way possible. And impose environmentalism, feminism, other forms of social welfare.
3. It's evil to let private companies operate in these countries... evil miners, evil oil companies, sweat shops.
4. BUT it's horrible that we let these countries suffer in poverty.
5. We should kill terrorists.
6. BUT we shouldn't be fighting "insurgencies" because those are just civil wars. And, we should never send group troops, except when we should.
So I don't take any analysis from the left about what caused the current problem seriously.
The nation building problem is a neocon dream that I think it ultimately a nightmare. There is no way to build a nation where the people aren't behind it. And as long as you are talking about places with corrupt or backwards cultures, it will never happen. You're just wasting lives and money.
BevfromNYC said...
It IS Vietman all over again. We keep "training" the military in these countries and then, "their military" join terrorist groups. We need to stop doing this. It gets us into trouble everytime. And frankly, we either need to be ALL in or ALL out. These little "halfsie" support groups are not working with great prejudice and needlessly getting Americans killed.
------
I suspect that training and drone strikes are going to become the new norm.
The downside of fullscale invasions is that you get sucked in (bear in mind that we still have troops in Germany and Japan and that pulling them out even now would cause a lot of heartache among their neighbors) and its easy to get caught up fighting the local idiots who never would have been a threat (most of the goons we kill in Afghanistan and Iraq) while the international operators you were worried about move on to greener pastures.
But as you said, what is crucial is that the government has the wisdom not to get sucked into a full scale war if its small bet goes bad.
Bev, I couldn't agree more. Indirect rule ended up not working out very well for the British, and our watered-down version of it isn't anything to write home about, either. Either we launch an actual invasion/military operation/whatever you want to call it, or we don't get involved at all. That should be the policy, not the current one where we have just enough impact to leave our fingerprints on whatever happens but not enough to make a significant difference.
You say that about Obama like it surprises you or something.
Andrew, I think China is probably not nearly as strong as it appears to be. That's not to say it's weak, just that it doesn't have the internal order and efficiency needed to be a true world power. Maybe that'll change in the near future and maybe it won't. We'll see.
I'm with you on France and the whole "soft power" thing. If I had to guess, I'd say that Hollande would just give up on Mali if things continue to go bad, but you could easily make a case the other way (for example, his openly socialist policies might give him cover from the Left for foreign policy adventures). In the long term, looking at Europe's demographic crisis, I don't think they can return to the "hard power" model, even if they want to.
rla, it's a thorny situation, no doubt.
I don't think we can simply prop up authoritarian rulers, because, as nice a fix as that might be in the short run, people around the world have got it in their heads that "democracy" is a thing, and we'd eventually have more Iran-like situations on our hands. A possible way out would be to sanction rulers who are in reality fairly dictatorial, but insist that there be checks on their power or that they bring traditional elites into the government. That would at least give them a claim to being representative in some fashion and weaken the chances of future revolutions, and perhaps smooth the way for a transition to a more representative democracy down the road. It's not perfect, but it's what I've got.
T-Rav,
The larger point I was trying to make about democracy is that while (I believe) democracy is the optimal form of government, no matter the stage of the civilization or the quality of the constitution, stuff can still happen.
The US is as good, but 80 years after our founding we had a bloody civil war whose effects are still felt today and we've had multiple assasinations (to hear talk radio tell it, we're on the verge of another civil war).
Dictatorships don't ready people for democracy, they tend to either actively stir up trouble in order to buy themselves time (a lot of Arab dictators used to channel the frustation of their people against the US and Israel which is why civilians from allied countries have engaged in more and bloodier terror attacks than civilians from open enemies such as Iran) or they store trouble up for later (the Shah's Iran springs to mind as does Batista's Cuba).
In the case of Mali, the Tuareg's rebellion seems to be a neverending thing in which they only pause for breath (they are out of step with the rest of the country, poorer, more nomadic, more religious). Though most (okay, all) countries are adverse to losing pieces of themselves, I suspect some of the government of Mali's reluctance to part ways springs from the natural resources of the Tuaregs' land.
Anthony, I suspect that the training/drone strikes option is here to stay, at least for a while, because while it does often result in the worst of both worlds, it appears on the face of it to be the most low-impact, low-cost option, and that's what our politicians are interested in.
As for the democracies vs. dictatorship issue, hence my comment to rlaWTX above. A pure dictatorship isn't much of a solution, especially as they tend to pave the way for their own violent overthrow. Pure democracies do much the same thing, though, often enough. Where there's no tradition of popular democracy, a middle way in which strongmen rule with traditional elites as a balance or check on their power might be an acceptable alternative. Historically, this has led to a more genuine representative democracy; it just takes generations, if not centuries.
"I wanted to see exotic Vietnam... the crown jewel of Southeast Asia. I wanted to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture... and kill them."
I think our policy in general should start with the premise of staying out of other country's civil wars. It is not an absolute as occasionally it can be successful such as WWII European Theater and Korea. I also tend to believe that good economic policy will go farther in providing a stable government than military misadventures. Oil is tough because it is fungible but the technology to extract the oil has changed. Why is Iran in such an economically difficult situation? They are still extracting oil using pre-1970s technology.
I didn't so mind going into Afghanistan and blowing up a lot of things and throwing out the Taliban. Any country in our position should do that when attacked like we were. However, we should have smoked 'em, declare victory, and left a smoldering mess. Basically, don't f**k with us. Fear of retaliation can be just as effective as the retaliation itself.
I think the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Special Forces all play an important role in our defense. The first two as true defense and deterrents and the latter used on the ground but in and out. I would like to see a significant draw down of the Army. Focus some of those resources more into National Guard. I'm not a military expert but I did watch Patton a couple of times.
Koshcat, I agree with that complete, especially the bit about Afghanistan. We should have smoked them and left.
I also think that economic development is the key to making each of these countries stable. But our foreign policy isn't really aimed at doing that.
On the point raised above about who we should support or shouldn't, I think we need a list of rules. If you want our support, then you need to have the following laws and institutions and then we can be friends. Otherwise, f-you... go rot.
Koshcat, I assume that's a quote from somewhere? :-)
I think what you describe is the default position of most Americans. On 9/11, I didn't hear anyone talking about making democracies out of Iraq or Iran, but I did hear a lot of talk about blowing the crap out of them.
An effective policy, I think, would start by developing our technology for extracting domestic oil resources (offshore drilling, ANWR, oil shale, etc.), then making it clear to the Middle Eastern countries we don't need them anymore. After that, they can play ball with us or not. Combined with a retaliation-based policy, I think that would make us infinitely more secure.
**News Flash**
Former Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin has been indicted on 21 counts of corruption. The counts include wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, filing false tax returns and conspiracy.
For those of you who may not remember, Mayor Nagin was the idiot who was running around New Orleans pre/post Hurricane Katrina yelling like a chicken with his head cut off and forgot to order the evacuation of hospitals and nursing homes and most of the city's large moving equipment and buses...
Of course "corruption" in Louisiana is pretty much "business as usual". Kind of like Chicago or NYC with a Deep Southern drawl...
You may now go back to your regular commenting...
Bev, Damn that Bush! This is because he doesn't care about black people... oh, wait.
Why do they bury the dead above ground in New Orleans?
-so they can vote easier.
For some reason, this "news" just doesn't seem new.
Andrew & Koshcat - Hah!! Yep, those voters who just won't go away for centuries!
- I am almost sure that Nagin will try and blame Bush for something. He HAD to take those bribes because of...well, I am sure he will think of something offensive. Maybe he should consult Lance Armstrong for a really good excuse. Like "You have to forgive me 'cause I'm a flawed human being". Yep, that oughta' cover most anything! I also see an Oprah appearance in Ray's future.
Bev, She's like the old Pope, who could hand out indulgences and forgive sins. She's Poprah.
Andrew!! LOL!! Poprah!!! I'm stealing that!!!
"Poprah" lol
Bev, except in Louisiana they don't leave dead fish on your doorstep. I've been to New Orleans; the thing would putrefy while still in transit, and that's just no fun.
Also, surely you know that there are Southern accents and then there are Louisiana accents, which I'm still trying to figure out.
The Poprah....in her church, there is no eternal paradise, but there are the keys to a brand new car under your pew.
T-Rav - both very good points. Yes, it is that hot and humid in the summer that fish stink faster than weekend guests!
And, I stand corrected and my apologies to "Deep Southerners" everywhere. The accent is actually "Cajun". Thank you for point that out.
The Poprah. Awesome.
By the way, if anybody wants to see a load of smug horsemerde, check out this article from some Frog about how France's policy of weakness and smugness is really a clever policy of non-weakness and not-so-smugness. It's full of strawmen and even those strawmen seem to give this guy problems.
Ultimately, he's claiming that France is not weak, even though it is, and it's actions are not random, even though they are, and it's involved in Mali because it's the cradle of human rights when it feels like it and is otherwise self-interested but in a humanitarian sort of way.
It's a bizarre article really, because what it ends up being is a defense of inconsistency and a smug attempt to slap down legitimate criticism. It's essentially doublespeak that concludes that the world is wrong not to treat France with the respect it doesn't deserve.
Froggie Speaks
Bev, apologies accepted! :-)
Although actually, New Orleans folks have an accent all their own. Some of them actually sound like they're from Brooklyn--I have no idea how that happened.
Andrew, bleh. Frogs.
The biggest problem with what he's saying, as I read it, is that he's reducing France to an ideal type--saying, "Oh, we the French have a particular understanding of the proper use of military power." No, some elite Frenchmen have a particular understanding, one developed in competition with other understandings from other Frenchmen.
And given the "success" French troops have been having in Mali, I have to seriously question the wisdom and/or timing of this article.
T-Rav, That's actually the same feeling I got reading it. His point is basically, "You should trust us because we have superior judgment and you aren't smart enough to see why we're always right."
As for the "success," my guess is that they will do well for a bit because insurgencies always pull back and let the bigger power over-extend themselves. Then the fighting will really begin. I will be very surprised if the French achieve anything except humiliation before this is over.
Post a Comment