What’s
Wrong Today:
The Global
War on Terror (GWOT) will never die. Any hope by those who thought it was over are
about to be dashed.
It’s now
officially back on the front burner, despite saying that we are ending the war
in Afghanistan, despite the death of Osama bin Laden. Here
is Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander, US Africa Command, or AFRICOM:
very dangerous situation, not only for the Malians, but for the region, and
more broadly for Europe and eventually for the United States…It’s clear to me
that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) aspires to attack in Europe and in
the United States.
His words
were echoed by Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And here
is PM David Cameron on Mali/Algeria and AQIM: (emphasis by the
Wrongologist)
scale but there are similarities. What we face is an extremist Islamist violent Al-Qaida-linked terrorist group – just
as we have to deal with that in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, so the world needs
to come together to deal with this threat in north Africa. It is similar
because it is linked to al-Qaida, it wants to destroy our way of life, it
believes in killing as many people as it can.
This is a global
threat and it will require a global response. It will require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than
months.
Exit
“traditional” al-Qaeda, holed up somewhere in the Pakistani tribal areas; enter AQIM.
In Gen. Ham’s words, AQIM is a threat not only to the country of Mali, but the
region, and if left unaddressed, a threat to us.
AQIM soldiers in Mali
You have just
not been paying attention to North and Saharan Africa, but the Pentagon has
been doing it for you. We now hear that the current civil war in Mali could potentially
throw the whole Sahara region into chaos.
Pepe
Escobar reports
that the six member nations of the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) will comprise an African army tasked by the UN to pacify and hold the
parts of Mali under the control of AQIM. As a part of this effort, the US is
sending the first 100 US military “advisers” to Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso,
Senegal, Togo and Ghana.
This African
mini-army adventure is being paid for by the West.
Students
of the Vietnam War will note that sending “advisers” was the first step of that
subsequent epic fail.
This French-Anglo-American
concern about Mali being the new
al-Qaeda playground is confusing, since we have just absorbed the fact
that the major playground is really Syria,
northern Lebanon and most parts of Libya.
Trouble may
have been brewing in the Sahara for years, but until France’s invasion of Mali
and the attack on the Algerian gas refinery made headlines, we were buying what Mr. Obama was saying about
10 years of war finally ending.
Can we stay
out of this? Maybe not. We are being driven by three connected strands.
First, from
Algeria:
In 1991, Algeria’s military junta allowed a free election and Algeria’s
Islamists won the first round vote for seats in the parliament. Its military, backed
by France, crushed the Islamic movement and arrested its leaders. As a result,
a civil war erupted between Islamists and the Algerian military.
Over
200,000 Algerians died. Entire villages were massacred.
After the
uprising was crushed, one Islamist guerrilla group, known as GIC, reformed as al-Qaida
in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). At that point, AQIM had little connection to
Osama bin Laden, but the al-Qaida name brought instant attention – a primary
goal of radical groups.
Second,
Mokhtar Belmokhtar.
Belmokhtar went to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and 90’s. He
returned to his native Algeria, minus an eye lost in combat. Then, along with some
of his fellow “Afghani,” sought to overthrow Algeria’s western-backed military
regime. After losing in Algeria, he began making trouble in the Sahara,
kidnapping westerners, robbing caravans and smuggling cigarettes.
Third, the
coup in Mali.
After Mali’s soldiers overthrew its government last March, its vast north was in
chaos. The Tuareg declared the independent state of Azawad. Assorted jihadists,
including some of Belmokhtar’s men, imposed Sharia law and Mali’s southerners
called on France for help.
Two months
ago, France’s President Hollande declared France would not again intervene in
Africa. Since granting independence in 1960 to the states that comprised former
French West Africa, France has
intervened militarily 50 times.
Al-Qaida in Mali
Mali is a
major supplier of uranium to France’s nuclear industry which provides 80% of France’s
power. French mining interests cover West Africa, which is also a key export
market for French goods and arms. France may also be aiming to control northern
Mali’s vast gold mines and latent oil reserves. Mali, along with Ghana, account for 8% of global gold production.
Imagine all that gold falling into the hands of say, China. (More below about
China)
When the jihadists
proclaimed that they would nationalize Mali’s mines, France went into action.
They declared Belmokhtar to be Osama bin Laden of the Sahara. Mali became a
humanitarian mission. Then Americans and Brits died in the Algerian hostage
taking by Belmokhtar.
Now we are
tiptoeing into the conflict. Is it a tempest in a teapot? After all it’s only a
few thousand French troops.
- Does
it threaten the Ivory Coast, Chad and Central African Republic, where 5,000
French soldiers and aircraft are based?
- What
about Nigeria? There is an existing Islamist uprising in Nigeria and it worries
Washington, because we
import about 540,000 barrels of oil per day
from Nigeria out of our total imports of 8.8 million bpd.
What about
the possibility that Mali could become an even larger problem? We are not
focused on it, but China is Mali’s
largest trading partner. China’s Naval Military Research Institute
said this week:
systematically and gradually embarked on the re-colonization of Africa. For
example, Western powers instigated and supported the secession of South Sudan,
dividing Africa’s largest oil-producing country. Western powers also took
control of Nigeria’s oil producing areas through international court rulings.
In addition, Western powers directly deployed troops to depose Gaddafi’s regime
in Libya.
The
Chinese observe that American troops are stationed in 35 African countries and
they conclude that their strategy in
Africa is at risk: (emphasis by
the Wrongologist)
origin of natural resources [for China], and will soon become an important
emerging market for [our] industrial products. In order to ensure the sustainable
development of China’s economy, we should carefully consider bringing our own
strategic positions in Africa into play.
The
Military Research Institute concludes that China should actively participate in
any UN-authorized peacekeeping operations in Africa. Here is the close of their
press release: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
Council will likely agree to the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force after
the end of the war. We think we should
actively participate and send troops to participate in such peacekeeping
operations.
Duck, here
comes the grenade! We are now pawns in a geostrategic power play: The “West” will
tussle with China in Africa. Our client, ECOWAS is giving a hand to Mr.
Hollande, while the USA and the UK contemplate a return to the GWOT/ al-Qaida Long
War adventure.
Getting
into little wars is always easy. Getting out is not, as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
have shown.
Slow down
Mr. Obama, Mr. Cameron. STFU Gens. Ham and Dempsey.
Let’s
think and plan our next moves very, very carefully.
As a man of business, I like to cut to the chase. History shows us just how fraught these interventions are, and that, in the end, no matter what the different parties try, the matter will end up a mess. Perhaps the French and the Chinese can spend their treasure in Africa, but we should have learned the lesson that we really don’t have a clue.
Thus, we spent billions in Iraq and ended up with a plutocracy not all that different that under Saddam Hussein. Maybe less violent – but it’s still no fun living there. And Afghanistan, well it remains the graveyard of empires. So Africa – we ought to stay out. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To generals, every conflict looks like the place to intervene.
To a student of history, every conflict looks like…. a quagmire.
@ Terry: As a people, we buy into the myth that America is an exceptional nation, that we are powerful beyond belief, that we can truly “fix” local problems with just a little effort, since we know best.. You are right, history should have shown us by now that we must let go of that myth of exceptionalism. Every nation must pick its battles and today, like it or not, most of ours lay on the home front, not the global front.
Our government (Pentagon) surely must have known that the Libyan incursion would beget the strengthening of AQIM’s position in the Sahara. Our “leading from behind” did not change that. What happened to strategic thinking by the Pentagon?
We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a street fight in Africa because we think we must support our NATO partners. The distinction between a “War of Choice” and “War of Necessity” when it comes to North Africa must be the subject of an honest debate in DC, and a VOTE by both houses of congress.
at least leading from behind left us with fewer US dead. and remember, the press were nagging the president about doing something, so we did, its over. its shitty, but for us, we are mostly not there. (but now drones in Niger? )