PDA

View Full Version : France's OPERATION SERVAL - destination Timbuktu


Pages : [1] 2

airship
13th Jan 2013, 11:50
The French President François Hollande has decided to commit French military forces in the "reconquest of northern Mali "(a territory equivalent to the land surface of all of mainland France) and currently in the hands of terrorist elements affiliated to Al Qaeda...

So far (and unlike his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy's initiatives in Libya a few years ago), Intenational support for his efforts are comparatively feeble. A couple of transport aircraft from the UK, the promise of some intelligence support from the USA.

I was under the impression that the fight against terrorism (and Al Qaeda especially) required truly International efforts.

So why all the lack of support for President Hollande? Do the Americans and/or British think this is primarily just a manoeuvre for an extremely unpopular French president according to latest polls, and an attempt to draw attention away from his problems "at home"...?

PS. Some additional resources here:

Where is Mali and/or Timbuktu? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu)
What is a serval? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serval)

PPS. So, please don't confuse Mali with Somali...

Tankertrashnav
13th Jan 2013, 11:57
PPS. So, please don't confuse Mali with Somali...

Or indeed Sardinia ;)

(listeners to Cabin Pressure will understand!)

hellsbrink
13th Jan 2013, 12:01
Already being discussed in the "Africa" thread......


But...

What was the initiative in Libya by Sarkozy "a few years ago", since it was less than 2 years ago when the whole thing kicked off?

Why think that the "fight against terrorism" needs full international efforts when the Mali Government specifically asked the French for assistance and nobody else?

What "lack of support"? Hollande asked the UK for logistical help and it was given. He hasn't asked for anything else from anyone else, and neither has Mali. So he has the support he wanted and asked for to help fulfil the obligation he gave to assist Mali when they asked for help. Nothing more, nothing less, so why the nonsense about it?

And Somali are the people, Somalia is the country. Only an imbecile would confuse Somalia with Mali.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 12:01
currently in the hands of terrorist elements affiliated to Al Qaeda...



and when those pesky 'murricans do it.. it's imperialism war for oild etc etc..

and yet no mention is made of reconquest

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 12:47
Airship: what happened in Mali and Somalia, two african countries, was basically decided the same night by the same president for the same purpose: attack al qaeda by french troops and commando.


17 terrorists linked with al qaeda were killed in Somalia, probabely 100 individuals linked to al qaeda were killed in Mali more or less at the same time apparently.

al qaeda speciality is to invade a weak country and take control of it (Mali being a good candidate). Control of it means killing thousands of civilians and make women slaves according to sharia. al qaeda is a virus. If you let al qaeda take control of several countries, this is the whole world that is at risk. al qaeda is the modern nazi. (it didn't take long for Godwin point in this thread right? :ok: )

The fight against al qaeda in Mali is vital, Mali officially called France for help. Nothing to do with opinion poll concerning Hollande.

I hope I have answered your question, note I am not an expert, as such I could have completely missed some points on what's going on.

Sallyann1234
13th Jan 2013, 14:05
"reconquest of northern Mali "(a territory equivalent to the land surface of all of mainland France)

Rather like the UK trying to sort out Afghanistan then ...

airship
13th Jan 2013, 14:06
Only an imbecile would confuse Somalia with Mali.. Oh puhleeze, go get a life somewhere else, this isn't the usual anti-France / anti-EU thread that you're used to. :zzz:

However, your contribution: What "lack of support"? Hollande asked the UK for logistical help and it was given. He hasn't asked for anything else from anyone else, and neither has Mali. So he has the support he wanted and asked for to help fulfil the obligation he gave to assist Mali when they asked for help. Nothing more, nothing less, so why the nonsense about it?, is on-topic and wholly worthy of discussing, even from someone disguised as a Belgian chocolate-eater... ;)

Presumably, President Hollande didn't ask David Cameron "for any more than what would be given" - 1st lesson in politics, never ask the question when you don't already know the answer.

KAG wrote: Nothing to do with opinion poll concerning Hollande. We all hope so.

PS. All these types of "military interventions" should be marketing opportunities, as showcases for all the military-industrial complexes in the 1st World countries involved wherever. Increasingly over the past few decades though, that has rarely been the case.

What's the point of comparing a Boeing F-117 with an Iraqi air force which had already capitulated in the 1st Gulf war? What point comparing Dassault's latest Rafale with Islamist terrorists without any air force in Mali 2013?

I don't know about any of you, but I'm quite disappointed. Yet another war, when noone finds out how well our own expensive aircraft for example actually perform against "a worthwhile enemy's wares".

Presumably, France equipped with just a few of those GWI-era helicopters with night-vision capabilities and 30mm cannon will soon put a swift end to all those 5-10,000 odd terrorists. Temporarily at least, allowing Mr. Hollande some relief. Until the sons and daughters of these terrorists grow up, and in turn seek revenge...

Elvis Presley - In The Ghetto (Music Video) (1969) - YouTube

RJM
13th Jan 2013, 14:35
I read the OP as 'France's OPERATIONAL SURVIVAL'. Oh well.

hellsbrink
13th Jan 2013, 14:36
Nice to see you cannot reply to anything without insults, as usual.

As far as the rest of your words go, it isn't even worth calling drivel as you still ignore the matter of Hollande being ASKED to help instead of him deciding that he should somehow "show off" the capabilities of the air force. So if that is something that disappoints you then do the world a favour and go live in a cave with no access to tv, radio or internet so you can believe your fantasies in peace.

racedo
13th Jan 2013, 14:45
Now wasn't Gadaffi keeping a lid on AQIM before France intervened ......................

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 14:47
will soon put a swift end to all those 5-10,000 odd terrorists.Too optimistic to me.

I hope you are right though.

AlpineSkier
13th Jan 2013, 15:13
I only have a vague idea of the terrain in Mali, but isn't it much more favourable to a first-world army ? By this I mean that there are AFAIK very few villages, vast distances, lots of desert, so that groups of trucks/jeeps will be obvious to surveillance and there are very few locals that any rebels can pretend to be, especially if 100 km from nearest settlement.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 15:50
A few Rafale are attacking apparently.

shalo
13th Jan 2013, 16:27
BBC reporting that AQIM seems to be a lot more organised, and have far superior weapons and tactics than was expected.

This may yet turn out to be the next front in thé global war against jihadism (lets get serious, that is what we are fighting). I have no doubt that before too long our friends a cross thé Channel and or. Atlantic will be joining the party.

Just to respond to KAG and a few others who have questioned Hollandes reasons for getting involved. Yes IT was following a request from Mali, however we may ask ourselves whether he would have been quite so keen with higher approval ratings. I must admit to being pleasantly surprised, i didnt think he had the balls to do it.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 16:46
BBC reporting that AQIM seems to be a lot more organised, and have far superior weapons and tactics than was expected.That's what I tried to say in an other thread (not easy to run 2 different thread about the same subject, any possibility to make it one?).

The weapons mainly come from the Gaddafi former army (no I won't make an oxymoron a second time ;) )

We are in for a long nasty fight.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 17:54
and some irony...

Turkey demands answers over Kurdish activist's life in Paris - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/9798830/Turkey-demands-answers-over-Kurdish-activists-life-in-Paris.html)

Turkey has demanded an explanation from Francois Hollande after the French president admitted he met frequently with an assassinated Kurdish activist connected to a declared terror organisation.

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday demanded an inquiry into the Paris assassinations of three Kurdish activists linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party, PKK, which has been fighting for autonomy from Turkey since 1984.
He also wanted to know why French president, Francois Hollande, said he met regularly with one of the activists in a group that is listed as a terror organisation by the European Union, the United States, and others.

So it would seem that not only is France harbouring terrorists, defined as such by the EU, El Presidente is holding counsel with them.

*cough*

Lonewolf_50
13th Jan 2013, 18:18
I wonder how Mr Erdogan feels about Hamas, and his government's contacts with them? Huh?

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 18:24
ah but thats OK for *some* lonewolf as Hamas is anti-Israel and anti-US.


:hmm:

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 18:29
Lonewolf, please go ahead and follow the stuckgear lead: he wants you to say France and Hollande are baaaaaad.
This is only point with his googling activity those days.

Please give him what he wants, he has been trying for days already, or he will cry the whole night.

Dushan
13th Jan 2013, 18:43
KAG, do you really think one need sto Google that? And don't take this as French bashing. This is simply bashing a left-wing socialist who is in charge, wherever he is.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 18:51
Let me think: yes I do, and yes I do ;)

Dushan
13th Jan 2013, 18:54
OK:ok: Point of view and political orientation has a lot to do with it.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 19:03
Yes, true also.
Enough viewpoints to get a thread off topic, once more, when the poster we are talking about already started a thread with exactly the same post for subject: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/505164-hollande-merde.html

Many people would call that a troll, but JB mods are very flexible.

What was the subject again? Ah yes, France attacking al qaeda in Mali, I forgot ;););)

wings folded
13th Jan 2013, 20:08
This is simply bashing a left-wing socialist who is in charge, wherever he is.


Just a couple or so comments.

Socialists do tend to be left wing by definition. So a bit of flagrant tautoligy there.

Bashing left wing seems to be something you think you have every right to do, but you become incensed when the tendency is inversed.

Do not dish out what you cannot take back.

Dushan
13th Jan 2013, 20:54
Wings, dish out at your delight. Just don't froth at the mouth.

Temp Spike
14th Jan 2013, 05:05
Well Dushan, I would hate to place any historical blame upon a right wing socialist thus bursting your bubble. So I won’t mention Adolf Hitler.


However the French deserve respect for stepping up, while others slink away in shame.

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 06:08
TS

while others slink away in shame.

Who, for example ?

Dushan
14th Jan 2013, 09:25
Well Dushan, I would hate to place any historical blame upon a right wing socialist thus bursting your bubble. So I won’t mention Adolf Hitler.


However the French deserve respect for stepping up, while others slink away in shame.

Good to know. I won't mention Godwin, then.

RedhillPhil
14th Jan 2013, 11:15
The important bit is...is Cameron idiotic enough to commit us to "helping out our French allies in the international war on terrorism" AKA sacrificing even more of our young men and women in an exercise in futility?

Lon More
14th Jan 2013, 11:24
is Cameron idiotic enough to commit us to "helping out our French allies
Yes, it's already started with the use of two C17s, one of which has already gone TU in France. He has stated that no ground troops will be committed. Probably all this will change if someone takes a pot shot at the aircraft when landing as British interests will have to be defended

Andy_S
14th Jan 2013, 12:13
The important bit is...is Cameron idiotic enough to commit us to "helping out our French allies in the international war on terrorism" AKA sacrificing even more of our young men and women in an exercise in futility?

Simple answer - no. The Frogs seem happy enough to bear the brunt of this one, which I'm sure has not gone unnoticed.

If it had been Blair, of course........

PS. The Herc went tech at Brize Norton.

Temp Spike
14th Jan 2013, 12:45
Big fail, Dushan.

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 12:49
Lon

I imagine that the aircraft will be landing outside Mali, in Burundi maybe where the French have bases and which have been peaceable AFAIK for some long time. That gives no guarantees for the future of course.

dead_pan
14th Jan 2013, 12:54
Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday demanded an inquiry into the Paris assassinations of three Kurdish activists

I thought Turkey (or at least its 'deep state') was the prime suspect in these assassinations?

As for Mali, good on the French for responding so quickly and decisively to the country's request for assistance. The country would probably have fallen into the hands of those pyschopaths if they hadn't.

dead_pan
14th Jan 2013, 12:59
in Burundi maybeDo you possess an atlas perchance? Burundi is quite a distance from Mali.... (in fact I reckon France is closer to Mali than Burundi is).

The French are already in Bamako according to the BBC today.

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 13:02
I thought Turkey (or at least its 'deep state') was the prime suspect in these assassinations?

Turkish state or internal feud ? Lots of the latter in N Ireland at the time , for example. Plus the place was well secured but no sign of break-in, so the women must have been comfortable with letting-in their killer, hence the idea that they knew him/her/them.

Temp Spike
14th Jan 2013, 14:08
We AP, the United States, are the slink-away-ers.

IMO

panda-k-bear
14th Jan 2013, 14:23
So far (and unlike his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy's initiatives in Libya a few years ago), Intenational support for his efforts are comparatively feeble. A couple of transport aircraft from the UK, the promise of some intelligence support from the USA.

So why all the lack of support for President Hollande?

Oil in Libya, no oil in Mali?


So why all the lack of support for President Hollande? Do the Americans and/or British think this is primarily just a manoeuvre for an extremely unpopular French president according to latest polls, and an attempt to draw attention away from his problems "at home"...?

Are you implying he's taking a leaf out of Mrs de Kirchner's book? :eek:

wings folded
14th Jan 2013, 14:48
Quote:
So why all the lack of support for President Hollande? Do the Americans and/or British think this is primarily just a manoeuvre for an extremely unpopular French president according to latest polls, and an attempt to draw attention away from his problems "at home"...?

Are you implying he's taking a leaf out of Mrs de Kirchner's book?


My understanding, which may be flawed, is that Mali asked France for assistance, which Hollande was prepared to give in view of historical connections between France and this part of Africa.

Hollande's popularity ratings may be low or not; it seems highly unlikely to me that he would try to gain popularity at home by engaging in Africa, since he will recall the admiration in which Chirac was held, even by his political opponents, for his refusal to engage in Iraq.

I am not privy to the diplomatic activities surrounding this saga, but is it just possible that France answered the call from Mali, because France had received the call and others had not?

Andy_S
14th Jan 2013, 15:06
it seems highly unlikely to me that he would try to gain popularity at home by engaging in Africa, since he will recall the admiration in which Chirac was held, even by his political opponents, for his refusal to engage in Iraq.

Maybe not the best comparison, since in the case of Iraq the military action was against the incumbent regime rather than in support of it. The French were reckoned to have long standing ties with Saddam.

wings folded
14th Jan 2013, 15:27
Andy S

I see what you mean, but do you not think like me that Hollande's agreement is not likely to have been a diversion from domestic difficulties/ impopularity? But rather a response to a call for help?

Shack37
14th Jan 2013, 15:58
PS. The Herc went tech at Brize Norton.


Wasn't it a C17 (Globemaster) not a Herc?

hval
14th Jan 2013, 17:37
Canada will also be providing a single C-17.

The USA have offered drones, and are providing intel and comms links.

Germany are offering logistical and humanitarian support.

Belgium and Denmark are also providing transport support.

A number of African nations (including Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Senegal and Tog) are providing troops.

stuckgear
14th Jan 2013, 17:46
A number of African nations (including Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Senegal and Tog) are providing troops.

i think you'll find that Nigeria is providing some money secretly, on behalf of a deceased millionaire, but Mali will have to open an account first and put some money into it.

gracious greetings and all.

rgbrock1
14th Jan 2013, 18:50
Lieutenant, release the drones.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/6d/06/6d0649b2efc6360aa5a777fed9c3e21c.jpg

B Fraser
14th Jan 2013, 19:34
Burundi is quite a distance from Mali.... (in fact I reckon France is closer to Mali than Burundi is).

Perhaps a certain Irish chap could help out by leasing his 737s to the French and calling it Mali East. ;)

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 19:40
dead-pan

in Burundi maybe
Do you possess an atlas perchance?

Well,a European road-atlas 1:500 000. Is that what you meant ?:O

KAG
14th Jan 2013, 19:52
Canada will also be providing a single C-17.

The USA have offered drones, and are providing intel and comms links.

Germany are offering logistical and humanitarian support.

Belgium and Denmark are also providing transport support.

A number of African nations (including Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Senegal and Tog) are providing troops.Thank you! :ok::ok::ok:



Hollande is talking about sending an other 2500 troops.
Yep... Plan to send some more... It won't be enough. Either no troops like in Lybia, either a lot, Not in between. Again, I am not an expert, so who knows.
It will be a nasty war I think.

KAG
14th Jan 2013, 19:54
Malian Foreign Minister Tyeman Coulibaly said the situation had become "untenable" in the north. "Every day, we were hearing about feet and hands being cut off, girls being raped, cultural patrimony being looted," he told the French weekly Paris Match.

dead_pan
14th Jan 2013, 20:00
It will be a nasty war I think.

Maybe for the rebels. The north is vast and sparsely populated, not exactly a great place to try and hide hide from a well-equipped western air force.

KAG
14th Jan 2013, 20:10
Rebels: terrorists al qaeda linked practicing Charia on the Malian population?

dead_pan
14th Jan 2013, 20:15
I called them psychopaths earlier - maybe somewhere in between would be most apt. Either way, I hope your countrymen do their worst.

KAG
14th Jan 2013, 20:28
Well, I trust Hollande is well advised on African and terrorism matters, but after having spent years in Afghanistan and already lost many soldiers, I don't think 2500 troops will be enough.

He was fast to take a decision, good, but he has to hit hard(er) too, never underestimate the terrorists in Africa. I know I wouldn't.

racedo
14th Jan 2013, 20:31
I thought Turkey (or at least its 'deep state') was the prime suspect in these assassinations?

And you think that the police put the spouse of someone who disappeared in a news conference for show or because they likely to be the chief suspect who will want to throw the police off their scent.

racedo
14th Jan 2013, 20:34
Yes, it's already started with the use of two C17s, one of which has already gone TU in France. He has stated that no ground troops will be committed. Probably all this will change if someone takes a pot shot at the aircraft when landing as British interests will have to be defended

BBC News - Mali crisis: Situation 'serious concern' for UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21018382)

Two RAF cargo planes have been sent - although one is delayed in France - and UK technical personnel have been sent to Mali to receive them.

----

Eyes and ears on the ground needed and also done to gain some bargaining power in the Arms deal to follow in 2014.

Moi a cynic !!!!!!!!!! ....................Mais Non

racedo
14th Jan 2013, 20:37
The French were reckoned to have long standing ties with Saddam.

As did the UK, US, Germany and many others...............

racedo
14th Jan 2013, 20:44
Well, I trust Hollande is well advised on African and terrorism matters, but after having spent years in Afghanistan and already lost many soldiers, I don't think 2500 troops will be enough.


90% of the population live in the south and with the size of country it is pretty easy to isolate parts of it, especially with 24 hr drone cover.

KAG
14th Jan 2013, 20:48
90% of the population live in the south and with the size of country it is pretty easy to isolate parts of it, especially with 24 hr drone cover.I really do hope you are right.
However experience tells us sometimes an easy war last longer than initially thought because that and this reason not understood initially.

I wouldn't take it lightly.

Lonewolf_50
14th Jan 2013, 21:15
However experience tells us sometimes an easy war last longer than initially thought because that and this reason not understood initially.

I wouldn't take it lightly.
Correct. By the way, certain of the American press has been now and again covering problems with AQ in Mali, Yemen, and a variety of other places. A few people do pay attention. Just because it is news to certain Americans does not mean that AFRICOM and those in the Cone of Silence have not been paying attention. They have been.

Also some interesting bits, as usual, from Robert Kaplan.

Africa's Tuareg Dilemma | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/africas-tuareg-dilemma)
The Tuareg dilemma, in which these Berber semi-nomads have recently conquered the northern half of Mali and may even threaten neighboring countries, is not completely solvable. The modern European state system is an ungainly fit for what obtains in the Sahara Desert.

However, it is not out of the question that in the near future, through the building of better roads and more robust institutions -- things that come with economic growth and democracy -- governments in places like Bamako and Niamey can extend development deep into the desert, even as the Tuaregs are granted a reasonable degree of autonomy.
An independent Tuareg state of the Sahara might then exist more formally

The problem in Mali, where junior army officers have overthrown the elected government ostensibly because of its failure to control the Tuaregs in the north, is not only one of a dictatorship replacing a democracy. The problem is also one of fleeting central authority itself.

In his classic work on development theory, Political Order in Changing Societies (1968), Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington noted that many governments in places like Africa cannot simply be classified as democratic or authoritarian, because their most "distinguishing characteristic" is sheer "fragility," no matter who is in charge. They have few institutions as such, and it is sturdy bureaucracies rather than elections that truly define a system.

So Mali and its neighbors will totter on.

There may be elections in Bamako, or there may not be. Tuareg raiders may control the desert interior, or a battalion of southern-led soldiers from the capital may do so. The real fundamental drama will play out gradually, outside the strictures of media accounts.

This drama will be about how, and whether, Africa's recently impressive economic growth rates can lead to the creation of larger middle classes. It is larger middle classes that lead, in turn, to more efficient and vigorous government ministries, and to more professional militaries, so that hinterlands might be brought under control and artificially drawn borders made more workable. The Saharan countries, in this regard, are a more extreme version of the larger African challenge, as the desert has created the largest dichotomy of populations within the continent.
Africa's Tuareg Dilemma | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/africas-tuareg-dilemma#ixzz2HzVVo44U)

Dushan
14th Jan 2013, 21:19
Canada will also be providing a single C-17.

The USA have offered drones, and are providing intel and comms links.

Germany are offering logistical and humanitarian support.

Belgium and Denmark are also providing transport support.

A number of African nations (including Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Senegal and Tog) are providing troops.

How much are Madonna, Bono, Angelina, et al contributing?

racedo
14th Jan 2013, 21:27
However experience tells us sometimes an easy war last longer than initially thought because that and this reason not understood initially.


As a somewhat reader of the Old West the key to control was controlling the resources...........there it was water in many areas.

The area of Mali its relatively easy to control movement.............abscence of fuel make attacks of adverntures to take large towns pretty much unsustainable. Stop transportation of fuel and you limit adventures very quickly.

rgbrock1
15th Jan 2013, 14:07
Lonewolf wrote:

Correct. By the way, certain of the American press has been now and again covering problems with AQ in Mali, Yemen, and a variety of other places.

Not to forget Somalia. Mog is a place which deserves our remembrance.

airship
15th Jan 2013, 14:46
panda-k-bear wrote: Oil in Libya, no oil in Mali?

But lots of uranium reserves in neighbouring Niger. Presumably very important to France's dependence on nuclear power stations generating >75% of France's electricity requirements nowadays.

If airship is ever elected President, as "French President, I shall ensure that 90% of French citizens will forever be protected from the most carniverous 10% of the other French citizens. The 90% (of you) will never be considered as "vache au lait". That is to say, 90% of the French serving the remaining and most priviliged 10% as simple milk-cows. What are milk-cows you might ask? They are cows whose whole existence is to supply milk in unusual quantities. They're ****** (or at least suitably-inseminated each year) over their 7-10 year artificial lives, their calves being sold as veal as 6-12 month olds. When we (the cows) eventually get old, milk-yield failing), we (the cows) are sent to the abattoir after so many loyal years service to whomever.

By 2013, 90% of the French should also know whether or not they are part of this "vache au lait" culture, on the plus or minus side...?!

Noone here certainly, requires lessons from French pseudo-Socialists in power who manage to contrive a passage defying French ISF or punitive taxes on higher incomes... :yuk:

AlpineSkier
15th Jan 2013, 21:45
Frankreich droht ein langer Militäreinsatz in Mali - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/frankreich-droht-ein-langer-militaereinsatz-in-mali-a-877732.html)

Very strange behaviour for a cautious politician. In the article above Hollande says:

"Before we finish the mission and leave Mali, the country must be secure, have a legitimate government and voting system, and the terrorists must no longer be capable of threatening the partition of the country. "

Isolated in Europe, France appeals to Gulf for help with Mali mission - Europe - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isolated-in-europe-france-appeals-to-gulf-for-help-with-mali-mission-8452939.html)

Informative article in English reporting the same speech

Temp Spike
15th Jan 2013, 22:27
Well higher incomes should always be taxed higher because the reverse is ludicrous. You would think some people could manage logic as a practice when trying to understand elementary economics.

wiggy
16th Jan 2013, 00:17
Alpine

It's worth bearing in mind the UK's Independant newspaper has it's own agenda, which is generally one of being contrary to anybodyelse's POV, regardless of the logic.


FWIW this from the UK's slightly left wing Guardian:

Mali: who is doing what? | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/15/mali-who-is-doing-what)

Matari
16th Jan 2013, 02:02
Well higher incomes should always be taxed higher because the reverse is ludicrous. You would think some people could manage logic as a practice when trying to understand elementary economics.

Hmmm, could you kindly construct a coherent syllogism related to the above post about economics and taxation?

AlpineSkier
16th Jan 2013, 08:55
Hmmm, could you kindly construct a coherent.....

In the context of this JBer, think he would appeal on the basis of "cruel and unusual punishment "

AlpineSkier
16th Jan 2013, 08:56
Basil

Where do you think The Independent's general line differs from the Guardian ?

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2013, 13:50
FFS, the sophistry and skullduggery begins yet again (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323596204578244051858608448.html).

A U.S. decision about aiding France's military campaign in Mali has been delayed by complicated policy and legal concerns, administration officials said, including whether the support would facilitate French strikes against rebels who may not pose a direct threat to the U.S.
"Not pose a direct threat."
Mealy mouthed, motherforkintwofacedspeakwithforkedtonguepoliticans

Do we all of a sudden have to wait for another WTC to keep on going after Al Qaeda, after 12 years of continually going after Al Qaeda? Is this related to Hagel's pending nom? Is this related to budget? Given the low level of support offered in the "trial balloon" of late, WTF is with this crap?

President Obama, your staff are making you look bad. :mad:
Senior U.S. military officials voiced early support for the French request but some Obama administration officials have been more cautious, reflecting White House concerns about being pulled into a new conflict, according to U.S. and Western officials. "The devil's in the details," one administration official said.

French officials thought they had a firm commitment for the U.S. to quickly provide military support, based on private talks with the Pentagon in recent days, Western officials said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called the French campaign critical to fighting al Qaeda, saying an attack on the U.S. and Europe is the terrorist group's ultimate objective. But he didn't commit the U.S. to do anything in talks with the French, a senior defense official said.

A leading lawmaker pressed the Obama administration to honor the French requests. "When confronting a shared threat, we should have our ally's back," said Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Thank you, Representative Royce.
Administration officials said the underlying issues require time to sort out as the administration assesses France's military goals and U.S. interests. France's main target in Mali, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, is designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
Maybe this designation is no longer of any interest. Let's reclassify them all as misunderstood teens in turbans. :mad: MUTIT. There, happy?
Obama administration officials say AQIM is a growing threat but, despite suspicion that militants linked to the group participated in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, don't think its leaders are currently plotting attacks on the U.S. homeland.
That doesn't matter. "Currently" is nebulous. Policy has to shape the future. If they are going after our allies, see Article V. Our interests in Al Q NOT spreading is consistent with 12 years of policy and ought to be considered the default.
The attacks in Benghazi haven't been traced specifically to Mali-based militants from AQIM, which operates across a broader swath of Africa. Officials say the U.S. investigation is continuing.
SMOKE SCREEN!

Temp Spike
16th Jan 2013, 14:07
LW

Let me remind you that President Obama is the most successful President since Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him for your own goofy reasons, but he has, and, is leading this country through all these republican created fiascos with the people solidly behind him. Your strongly biased and down right slanderous comments against him do not detract from his popularity one iota. President Barrack Hussein Obama is my President with whom I am well pleased. In short; big fail there LW.

MagnusP
16th Jan 2013, 14:32
Double order of popcorn for me, please. :rolleyes:

BenThere
16th Jan 2013, 15:06
Let me remind you that President Obama is the most successful President since Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him for your own goofy reasons, but he has, and, is leading this country through all these republican created fiascos with the people solidly behind him. Your strongly biased and down right slanderous comments against him do not detract from his popularity one iota. President Barrack Hussein Obama is my President with whom I am well pleased. In short; big fail there LW.

While I thank you for giving me my morning chuckle, TS, I have to point out that the fiascos facing us, unsustainable entitlements, unpayable debt, destroyed cities, godawful public education result, a dependent class fast approaching majority - all these things are Democrat in origin. Why weren't you taught that?

airship
16th Jan 2013, 15:27
As France engages her own armed-forces "on the ground" and almost "unilaterally", my own thoughts are that:

1) The "French forces" should do their very best in their mission (2013). Do their utmost to ensure minimum civilian casualties as best (and much better than any USA forces ever did), that they can. And achieve their objectives (a long-lasting peace or stalemate or whatever).

2) The French government should also investigate whether current foes are not really allies in the great scheme of this conflict. Or could be converted....

3) Over the next few years, throughout many EU countries, distinctions will be made "between pension and widow entitlements to servicemen" and mere paper-pushers and worthless politicians and others in the civil service, who endeavour to hide their own overly-generous pension entitlements or whatever, camouflaged and protected behind "pension and widow entitlements to servicemen".

So far as the UK and her 2 volunteered transport aircraft are concerned: :mad: So far as Germany and her 2 volunteered transport aircraft are concerned: :mad: At least the richest EU country Germany, might have an excuse - please excuse us, but we don't want to be considered as invaders. But how about just trying to behave normally Germany? Forget about us Brits, we're going to eventually quit the EU. The remaining Brits will have to apply for German / French / Belgian nationality instead, if only to ensure we get a pension...

Germany: send your Panzers into Mali and support the French before it's too late...?! :ok:

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2013, 16:36
TS, you need to read for comprehension.
In a previous post and discussion, I noted that the President was being circumspect (before this news story came out) in terms of his level of support and I noted my agreement.

There have already been numerous press releases indicating positive American support.

All of a sudden, this morning, some of his staff begin a very public backpedalling.

As I noted, his staff is making this mess.

Given that President Obama's Sec Def had already come out as stating that we are offering the French support, and even modified that offer with this morning point of "we need to sort out the details" it strikes me as outrageous that other members of the President's staff are making a public show of NOT supporting our ally.

The President and the Sec Def are the national command authority. I suggest to you that Secretary Panneta is not a loose cannon, and nothing he has done in his term has shown my estimate to be wrong.

So, the politicians speaking with forked tongue are those who are contradicting one of the two members of the national command authority.

This is part of the international information mess, and makes us, and our President, look bad in the image sense.

I fully expect Secretary Panetta to, as he says, get the details sorted out. What is "zero value added" is the suggestion that we won't act.

I have a hard time believing the President is behind that info mess.

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 18:10
and with breaking news right now islamists have taken british and amercian citizens hostage in Algeria, over France's action in Mali.

'Briton killed' and '40 BP workers held hostage' in Algeria attack - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/9806305/Briton-killed-and-40-BP-workers-held-hostage-in-Algeria-attack.html)

Americans among hostages taken in Algeria attack - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57564259/islamic-militants-take-western-hostages-in-attack-on-algeria-natural-gas-installation/)

con-pilot
16th Jan 2013, 18:21
President Obama is the most successful President since Franklin Roosevelt

And here I was thinking that you had no sense of humour. :p

Hell, I bet you think Jimmy Carter was a good President. :D

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 18:26
oh come on Con did you expect anthing from TS..

of course he has a point..

it depends on how success is measured..

http://the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Obama-Debt.jpg

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2013, 19:03
Temp Spike, stuckgear, Dushan, con-pilot et al (we Yanks, I guess):

this thread is about Operation SERVAL.

The issues regarding the U.S. in this thread have to do with our nation's support for an ally (or lack of it), an ally who is taking on elements of a loosely related series of Islamists who are making a play in Africa at the moment.

Specifically, Al Qaeda in Mali are being shown that their advance may have peaked. There are related In Africa Islamist groups and actions that may also relate to this thread. That kidnapping seems to.

I ask you all to please keep the US Politics hamster wheel crap in the US Hamsterwheel thread, and let's please confine our discussion in this thread to

the French Operation
Issues related to that and Al Qaeda in Mali, and fellow travelers.

OK?

The post I made up there is an expression of great frustration with our political process, and the damnably frustrating practice of unnamed "administration sources" in sending out confusing and inconsistent commuincation about US support to our French ally in this operation.

What got my goat and evoked my frustrated response was the "White House source" pointing out that as far as they knew, "AQIM not currently planning an attack on the US."

Sorry, that is irrelevant.

Sec Def had already come out with public statement of support to France, and the recent "no boots on ground" point. (Ironic, as a few years ago we had a bunch of boots on the ground in Mali: the Secial Forces training teams. I alluded to that in a different thread where we discuss Mali).

The US was involved for 70 days with allies in bombing Serbia, who never once planned to attack the US. So, based on past performance, that line offered up to the WSJG by "an adminstration source" is pure CRAP.

Maybe a couple of cnuts at the Wall Street Journal are making this all up, and they have no source and are taking the piss. It is in our interest to aid and abet the French as they help take down some Al Q :mad:'s.

Further comments :mad::mad::mad:

racedo
16th Jan 2013, 19:11
Let me remind you that President Obama is the most successful President since Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him for your own goofy reasons, but he has, and, is leading this country through all these republican created fiascos with the people solidly behind him. Your strongly biased and down right slanderous comments against him do not detract from his popularity one iota. President Barrack Hussein Obama is my President with whom I am well pleased. In short; big fail there LW.

You know I want to respond but laughing too much to do so.

con-pilot
16th Jan 2013, 19:12
I ask you all to please keep the US Politics hamster wheel crap in the US Hamsterwheel thread, and let's please confine our discussion in this thread to



Quite right, done deal as far as I am concerned.

wings folded
16th Jan 2013, 19:21
I was wondering what the buggery a graph of public debt in the USA pre and post Obama had to do with France answering a cry for help in Africa.

But then I realised that it was stuckgear who posted it.

If I start a thread on ingrown toenails, he will probably find a way to express his political views in response.

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2013, 19:32
In a mildly tangential sense, it may be related, though I am not sure.

The internal budget battles, and much other pissing and moaning, may be at play in some of the backpedaling. Not sure. (See my frustrated rant a few posts back).

In a similar mode, internal American considerations kept us on this side of the pond while you all played a bit with dear old Adolph, and previously with Kaiser Bill. :cool: And we stayed mostly on the sidelines in re Bosnia while Europe and the UN proved just how effective they were, 1991-1995, at peace enforcement. :rolleyes:

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 19:42
It is in our interest to aid and abet the French as they help take down some Al Q http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif's.



indeed.. it's been of wide interest to assist all countries that take on AQ and their various militant offshoots.

what been rather irksome is the partisan politicisation of the current action, when in the past and currently some decry certain countries from the same engagement.

i am as willing as you are to remove party politics from the subject as long as others dont make it a party politics matter.

Lonewolf, i agree with you; the islamists are a scourge that needs to be dealt with and making it political or race [sic] issue is frankly boring and it will get a political response.

to keep party politics out of it, some shouldn't bring party politics into it.

hopefully back to Mali & West Africa..

wings folded
16th Jan 2013, 19:48
to keep party politics out of it, some shouldn't bring party politics into it.


the irony is so irony that it has become surgical grade stainless steel

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 19:56
you obvously missed this post below then at which mine was a reposnse to; after posting a current article on a situational update.

Let me remind you that President Obama is the most successful President since Franklin Roosevelt. You may not like him for your own goofy reasons, but he has, and, is leading this country through all these republican created fiascos with the people solidly behind him. Your strongly biased and down right slanderous comments against him do not detract from his popularity one iota.

now if that is not bringing politics into the thread, then what the heck is?

so it would be *you* that is resorting to playing the player, not the ball.

wings folded
16th Jan 2013, 20:12
so it would be *you* that is resorting to playing the player, not the ball.


I have heard this from you before, and if I recall correctly, the moderators admonished you not me.

I have no interest whatsover in mounting personal attacks against you, but I do react when you make posts which are so abstracted from reality that some kind of response has to be made.

Otherwise, "Qui tacet consentire videtur"

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 20:14
so still playing the player not the ball...

or is it that you want the thread to be about *you* ?

funnily enough..... its not.

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 20:16
Somali militants 'sentence French hostage to death' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/9805355/Somali-militants-sentence-French-hostage-to-death.html)


Somalia’s al-Qaeda affiliate sentenced to death a French spy it kidnapped in 2009, following a failed attempt at the weekend to rescue him that was ordered by Francois Hollande.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02449/denisAlex_2449950b.jpg
French secret agent Denis Allex urged the French President to negotiate his release in a video shot by his Islamist militia captors

[...]

Officials in Paris are adamant, however, that Mr Allex was killed by his captors in the first minutes of the rescue attempt. Al-Shabaab has failed so far to prove that he is still alive.



as before, somalia is another boil than needs to be lanced.

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2013, 21:42
While this isn't about Mali, per se, wasn't there a suggestion a while back to partition Somalia? (EDIT: yes, secession of the North in about 1991. Not a done deal, it seems).
I seem to recall that there are considerable differences in the family and tribal affiliations, and ethnic / cultural groups. Maybe it's too big to be one country.
Somalia has a population of around 10 million inhabitants.
About 85% of local residents are ethnic Somalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_people), who have historically inhabited the northern part of the country.
Ethnic minority groups make up the remainder of the nation's population, and are largely concentrated in the southern regions.


I had posed an idea previous about "Maybe Mali as one country is a bad fit." Perhaps the Tuaregs need their own country. Tuaregania, or somesuch.

A variety of larger countries have been split up of late, to inlcude Czecholslovakia and Yugoslavia. Maybe a few other old lines on the map could use a revision.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 00:57
LW - It is not your perogative to split up the world as you see it. It is not even your country and here you are deciding their borders for them. Suffice it enough that your President is offering help in the matter. Rejoice in that and praise him before God almighty, thanking the almighty that your President is no longer an ape from Texas.


check chamber - clear!:bored:

West Coast
17th Jan 2013, 01:04
Yet you're the one who wants the western world all up in African business.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 01:10
To righteously defend the innocent as part of an international coalition equally sharing the cost in both blood and money.

NOT DICTATE SOVEREIGNITY


Big dif.

con-pilot
17th Jan 2013, 01:16
TS

Why do you keep bringing up Obama in your hero worshiping, sycophant way?

This thread is about the French and Africa. Let's stay on the subject, as you cried about in the other thread about Africa. :rolleyes:

galaxy flyer
17th Jan 2013, 01:28
You have to know your country is in a World of Hurt, when it's the French come to save you. Hollande is leading France's economy down the dead end currently populated by Greece, Spain and Italy; he needs to divert the population's attention. Let 'em eat cake, indeed.

Also, this invasion points up the wisdom of, " Kill 'em all, let God sort it out" styl of foreign policy. General Lemay was right about war being about killing the enemy until the survivors give it up.

GF

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 01:51
Idiot conservatives. It is time the Europeans started picking up the tab for world police actions. What? You nimnods what to send only our youth and our money at the expense of our taxpayers? Unpatriotic and traitorous as you are, you probably even believe that we should continue to do so at the expense of our own people of unfortunate means. Probably under that crazy crank McCain. Ah but you cannot silence me , I am the future, you are the past. What is so interesting, is that you already know it.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 02:11
It truly amazes me the effort you neo-cons take in spreading lies against the democrats and our great black President. The manufactured phony graphs, website via website via website of unverified reports, lies omission, lies of obscuration, even lies as a general context! These have not served you well at all, but please, please continue this lunacy because we, the people, are long wise to it.

Two facts:

1. Republican President’s have asked for and gotten a raised debt ceiling many times more than any and all Democrat presidents since Truman. You fantasy God, Ronald Reagan did it 17 times! So you cannot possibly be serious about debt reduction. Which makes you liars from the git-go.

2. Conservatives ALWAYS, without fail, embrace liberal ideology albeit about ten to twenty years late.

So really, give it up. You are a joke. An anachronism. A dysfunctional band of confused lobby lackeys. Your desperate cause to create some kind of a corporate republic is dead.

obgraham
17th Jan 2013, 02:13
When you learn to express yourself in a coherent manner, Spike, perhaps some here will begin to take you seriously. Till then...

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 02:17
Many take me seriously. They just avoid your silly cadre and their bully tactics. Which I laugh at with great glee.

galaxy flyer
17th Jan 2013, 02:20
I don't want to send ONE American soldier, just one Minuteman missile. TS, wasn't it the enlightened liberal establishment, JFK, LBJ, Robert S McNamara, the Cold War CIA that led us into Vietnam? VN which killed more soldiers than all the post-Vietnam conflicts combined. Before that it was that Democrat hero Harry Truman who gave us 33,000 dead in Korea. Before THAT, FDR "kept us out of war", until he got us INTO war. Before THAT, Woody Wilson, another non-believer in Constitutional government, got us into WW I.

Nice record of killing Yankee soldiers the Demcrat party has.

The Total Democrat dead: 616,600
The Total in Iraq and Afg: 6,000

100:1 in favor of staying alive with our side

GF

Dushan
17th Jan 2013, 02:21
TS, I thought he was only half black?

con-pilot
17th Jan 2013, 02:21
Is this thread still about Africa, or has the insane rambling of TS completely hijacked this thread?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Dushan
17th Jan 2013, 02:23
I think KAG is going o get very jealous that TS is dancing with Wings.

galaxy flyer
17th Jan 2013, 02:25
TS

Quite serious, start with eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate subsides (farm, ExIm Bank, tax expenditures for business and high incomes), 20% of DoD, BATF, Depts of Commerce, Ag, HUD, Education, Veterans Affairs, and worst bureaucracy of all, HLS. Then, I'll talk about deficit reduction.

Before you rattle on about "earning" those old age benefits, I, and you, did no such thing, there is no "Trust Fund", no lockbox. It's just a big pile of IOUs that would be illegal if our employers did it. Th criminal gang of 537 spent the money bribing us with our own money.

GF

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 02:38
Raise taxes. Republicans have nearly destroyed us with their tax cut BS.

If taxes had been left alone as it had been under Clinton, we simply would not have this debt problem even with G.Dubya's wild borrow and spend-thrift presidency. Really, lowering taxes for the rich corporations didn't do squat for the economy, which was in free-fall, (common term now) under Dubya. Republican voodoo economics just does not work and furthermore we are the laughing stock of the world for it.

Might as well go back to the British Monarchy with an apology, and, beg acceptance as subjects of the crown, than to follow a republican. At least we would get decent affordable healthcare instead of this silly partisan divided healthcare crap we have now. Even though the Affordable Care Act is better that the nothing healthcare poverty program the goofy republicans constantly offer America.

galaxy flyer
17th Jan 2013, 02:41
Always with the "raise taxes", I'll bet you don't pay any.

GF

con-pilot
17th Jan 2013, 03:13
What happened to France and Africa?

Temp if you would shut up about Bush and Obama, maybe we could get back on tract.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 03:17
The hell I don't GF. Though I have found that greedy unpatriotic people always complain the most about taxes.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 03:21
Ah yes the bully double tag team match against the "liberal". If you want to talk about Africa, get your team to do the same.

You won't. You are all partisan politics. It's all you do, and with a fox news education, it's all you know.

con-pilot
17th Jan 2013, 03:40
Oh hell, I'm sorry, this thread is about you, Temp Spike, not anything else.

Sorry. :(

Please carry on, as I know you will. :hmm:

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 04:23
Counting the posts from you and your "team" ...I think not.

All it takes is honesty, and, respect con from you and your bunch. Then it will gladly be returned. Christ this shouldn't even be a political blog. You and yours make it that way. You cannot expect people whom disagree not to counter your propaganda rhetoric and hateful comments. Because you sure as hell don’t convince anybody.

obgraham
17th Jan 2013, 05:46
Since we have long since left the French and Mali behind, here's some evidence that things never change:

December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Temp Spike
17th Jan 2013, 06:42
Uh...the Brits are our friends now, lets not offend them.

Besides, these words mean nothing to the Brits or the French. They have their own great patriotic words because they are equally great nations as we. Historically, even greater.

So lets help each other in Mali.

AlpineSkier
17th Jan 2013, 08:15
Galaxy Flyer

. Hollande is leading France's economy down the dead end currently populated by Greece, Spain and Italy; he needs to divert the population's attention. Let 'em eat cake, indeed.

I think you are completely wrong. It makes as much sense as if you substituted "the USA " for France. Would the citizens of the USA get really upset if the US army started an air/ground action against militants in pick-ups ? Rightly or wrongly I think the answer is no and it is the same answer in France at the moment.

On Monday, Renault announced that is would be cutting its workforce in France by 10% over the next 3 years and there is a storm of protest about that and only just starting. Hollande is savvy enough to know that Mali just doesn't register against that, especially since the French state is the largest shareholder in Renault and has explicity approved this policy.

Please stop replying to that delusional TS about exclusively US politics that are unrelated to this thread

TheRobe
17th Jan 2013, 08:59
I'm suprised France has the money to field an army...so is there oil there?

Kind of interesting...I knew sooner or later we would get into Africa...we can be there for YEARS conjuring up all sorts of boogeymen.

dead_pan
17th Jan 2013, 09:22
I read somewhere that France is like a jilted lover when it comes to its former colonies - it can't quite let go and finds any excuse to return.

As I said before I think France are spot-on in assisting Mali. A nice little up and coming country with potentially good prospects for tourism, mining etc, pro-West to boot (well at least the black bit).

Re temp spike - its refreshing to hear a from a passionate Democrat - makes a change to the usual rhetoric (taxes, Medicare, gun control blah blah blah). No doubt he's given short shrift on the US politics hamsterwheel, hence the reason for him plying his views on this thread.

AlpineSkier
17th Jan 2013, 09:22
I'm suprised France has the money to field an army...so is there oil there?

If you read back a little way you'll find a comprehensive answer to that.

France is the former colonial power in these parts and has retained bases in numerous countries which are used for training, usually both by French forces to experience different terrain/climate and training of local armed forces when required .

Obviously also helps to increase French influence in UN if they can do some discreet arm-twisting/palm-greasing with the local ruler when they are on the spot and probably the only force guaranteed not to jump into the opposition camp overnight.

stuckgear
17th Jan 2013, 10:21
Algeria hostage crisis: France faces backlash for Mali - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/9808158/Algeria-hostage-crisis-France-faces-backlash-for-Mali.html)

This weekend, France was feting its President, François Hollande, for standing up to the Islamist peril in Mali and helping a country on the verge of total implosion.

Up to 75 per of the French (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france), according to one poll, backed the surprise military offensive to stop al-Qaeda-backed rebels advancing towards the capital.

The move was judged morally right and, analysts say, has abruptly transformed the Socialist president from “Mr Flanby” – a wobbly ditherer – into the country’s strong and decisive commander-in-chief.


But today, two headline-grabbing events have rammed home that the Islamist backlash against his intervention has begun in brutal fashion. They are likely to dent French national solidarity and fuel critics who say France has rushed headlong into a hornet’s nest with dangerously unforeseen consequences at home and abroad.

Intent on ending Françafrique – the term summing up France’s historically murky ties with its former African colonies – Mr Hollande had hoped to play a back-seat role on the continent.


But in the space of a week, he has become its top “gendarme”, launching France’s biggest special forces operation in years in Somalia and single-handedly – bar poorly armed and trained Malian forces - taking on the Islamists in Mali.

Today, global media is focusing not on Mali, but the ongoing spectacular hostage drama in Algeria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/9807580/Algeria-hostage-crisis-William-Hague-admits-he-doesnt-know-how-many-Britons-are-held.html), whose Islamist perpetrators have made clear is in direct retaliation for the French intervention, along with Algeria’s decision to open its airspace to Gallic fighter jets.
The second new development was the announcement this morning by Somali militants linked to al Qaeda of the “execution” of a French intelligence agent held since 2009.

The al-Qaeda linked Shabaab said they had "reached a unanimous decision to execute" their hostage to avenge those killed during last Saturday’s botched raid to free Denis Allex. Two French soldiers died in the attack.
But the group also cited "France's increasing persecution of Muslims around the world, its oppressive anti-Islam policies at home, French military operations in ... Afghanistan and, most recently, in Mali."

Veteran French figures have started wagging fingers at the potential risks.
“Now we have now moved into another phase of the operation, one which was not predicted...We are confronted with extremely high risks and we are alone. I fear that we have placed ourselves in a spiral that we will have great difficulty in controlling,” warned Alain Juppé, the former Right-wing prime minister.

Jean-François Copé, head of the Right-wing UMP party fretted: “We are extremely worried about France being isolated.”

Clearly by taking hostage numerous foreigners, not just French but British, Americans and Japanese, the Islamists in Algeria hope to internationalise the Mali conflict as part of their global jihad scenario.
Ironically, this could help France too, said Paul Melly, Associate Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House.

“I would be astonished if any other Western government, Britain, the US or other Europeans offered ground troops. But what has happened in Algeria will no doubt make the argument that this is a wider problem, that this really is a major strategic issue and we’re going to have to face up to it. That might happen.”

Lonewolf_50
17th Jan 2013, 20:23
IMO:

The decision to expand into Algeria justifies greater, not lesser, kinetic ops targeting any and all Al Q and even loosely associated groups, relentlessly.

How?

A variety of means.
And a few knives in the dark.
And a few "car accidents" hapening to those in the Ummah who fund these arse clowns.

stuckgear
17th Jan 2013, 20:38
the GIA have bouncing around in algeria for a while:

from Globalsecurity.org


Armed Islamic Group (GIA)


An Islamic extremist group, the GIA aims to overthrow the secular Algerian regime and replace it with an Islamic state. The GIA began its violent activities in early 1992 after Algiers voided the victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)--the largest Islamic party--in the first round of December 1991 legislative elections. Its founder, Mansouri Miliani, was arrested for his role in the attack on Algiers airport in August 1992, and executed in May 1993.
GIA conducts frequent attacks against civilians, journalists, and foreign residents. In the last year, the GIA has embarked on a terrorist campaign of civilian massacres, sometimes wiping out entire villages in its area of operations and frequently killing hundreds of civilians. According to officials in 2000, the rate of killins were at 300 a month. Over 630 people were killed in 2002.
Since announcing its terrorist campaign against foreigners living in Algeria in September 1993, the GIA has killed more than 100 expatriate men and women--mostly Europeans--in the country. The GIA uses assassinations and bombings, including car bombs, and it is known to favor kidnapping victims and slitting their throats. The GIA hijacked an Air France flight to Algiers in December 1994, and suspicions centered on the group for a series of bombings in France in 1995.
In 2002, a French court sentenced two GIA members to life in prison for conducting a series of bombings in France in 1995.
The precise number of members of GIA is unknown, but is probably fewer than 100.
GIA only operates in Algeria. Algerian expatriates and GIA members abroad, many of whom reside in Western Europe, provide some financial and logistic support. In addition, the Algerian Government has accused Iran and Sudan of supporting Algerian extremists and severed diplomatic relations with Iran in March 1993.


joining under the AQ banner makes perfect sense, yet another islamofacist group seeking the media spotlight to overcome a common enemy at which point the factions will fight between thmselves.

they are literally a scourge, every single splinter group.

KAG
17th Jan 2013, 20:44
Just after the Rafale Airstrike started, India has asked for more Rafale (for a total of 189 instead 126, $18 billions instead of 12, which is the biggest contract of all time) and some countries in middle east are showing a new interest for a few billion contract...

War is cynical at times right?

con-pilot
17th Jan 2013, 20:48
Well, good news for Dassault anyway, this keeps up, the military side of sales may catch up with the corporate sales. Used to be the other way round, by a lot.

War it seems, is good for business, even for France. :E


Got to sit in the cockpit of one of the latests versions of the Rafale when I was at the factory a few years back. Didn't let me fly it though. :(

Lonewolf_50
17th Jan 2013, 20:50
It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good ...

hellsbrink
17th Jan 2013, 20:51
Nothing unusual there, kag, especially since there isn't another way to fully demonstrate your "products" when you make combat aircraft.

Lonewolf_50
17th Jan 2013, 21:42
I have finally come to understand how some of the White House spokesmen have had to be tepid in their public statements of support for France and their operations in Mali.

It appears that we have a rule (code?Law?) that prevents us from supporting with arms any government that recently led a coup to take over from a previous government that we were helping.
(Not sure how recent that was, but I am not surprised that Congress has written such a rule. It isn't by itself a bad general position to hold).

Now, combine that with what I learned this afternoon, that the current (coup led) Mali government did indeed ask the US and France to help. In order to get relief from above rule, the Executive Branch needs to explain to Congress that it is more important to take on Al Q where we find it operating, or at least assist the French in doing so, than it is (for the moment) to stand as a pillar of virtue and "provide no aid to a government who has taken power via a coup."

Given that the House and the GOP will probably go along with helping out the French, and Sec Def has already tossed in "no boots on ground" as a limiting factor, I wonder how the Senate will view such a presentation of justification for waiving in part that rule, which I repeat was put in place for reasonably good reasons. Generally, we should not be supporting coup d etats. We should punish those who perform them, as was done to General Cedras in Haiti, for example.

If, however, the request for assistance comes from France, then the assistance to France is a great way to bypass assistance request from Mali's coup formed government. But it's also a bit transparent, since the French are there helping ANY government in power resist Al Q and it's associates.

Politics, what a bloody mess.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

AlpineSkier
17th Jan 2013, 21:47
Hey LW50

What happened to all that desire for transparency ? :

Nonsense aside , reality produces all kinds of situations that make rules look like a bunch of twisted spaghetti on a fork.

airship
18th Jan 2013, 13:39
KAG wrote: Just after the Rafale Airstrike started, India has asked for more Rafale (for a total of 189 instead 126, $18 billions instead of 12, which is the biggest contract of all time) and some countries in middle east are showing a new interest for a few billion contract... I wasn't aware that any firm and binding contract/s had yet been exchanged, just non-engaging "letters of intent" so far. What is your source KAG?

There are some aspects and recent developments of France's "Operation Serval" that I think might give us all some hope for optimism:

1) The French public (and elected politicians of most important opposition parties) appear to be behind this operation by a great majority. And not regarded as some sort of subterfuge by French Presiden FH ad/or falling poll numbers.

2) French (and other) ground-forces are involved a mere 4-5 days afterwards (so cannot be directly compared with any previous interventions in Iraq / Libya) etc.

3) The actual numbers of French military personnel recently reported to be at least 3,500 or so committed to the operation and "well-up" on the numbers originally reported even 5-6 days ago.

4) Some of the so-called "terrorist groups" (particularly many of the non-extremist Islamists- Tuaregs), whose own rebellion against the Malian government was usurped by the militants, resulting in the present situation are now saying that they might be willing to change sides and come back "on-board" as it were.

Whatever, my thoughts are with all those "on the ground and elsewhere". Thank you for your courage, do your very best to uphold our interests, those of France and modern human-beings. In return, I shall continue to pay all my taxes, with the view of assuring your existence if coming back wounded. Or else merely assuring that any family you leave behind will also be suitably looked after.

Lonewolf_50
18th Jan 2013, 14:29
Hey LW50

What happened to all that desire for transparency ?
WTF are you talking about, AlpineSkier? Was there supposed to be a smilie after that? All I saw was a colon. :confused: Confused, I am.

The desire for transparency is just that, desire, and it remains alive and well.

The actual transparency appears to be happening as the media dig and coax more info out of the various government organs who are involved in all of this. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are doing their usual dick dance over who has final authority over putting American military assets into a given action.

Nonsense aside , reality produces all kinds of situations that make rules look like a bunch of twisted spaghetti on a fork.
Aye.

Rules often create unintended outcomes at the most awkward of times.

BenThere
18th Jan 2013, 16:07
Always wondered about the decisions of sovereigns to go with one contractor or another to provide their air defense and fighter requirements.

The F-15/16/18 combat record against MIG/Mirage equivalents in actual combat is quite one-sided. So, too, are the air defense systems qualitatively documented to be unequal.

I suppose there's a connection to why Chavez went to Cuba for cancer treatment.

Lonewolf_50
18th Jan 2013, 16:53
Ben, why is that post in this thread? :confused:

con-pilot
18th Jan 2013, 17:06
Ben, why is that post in this thread?

Probably because KAG and I posted about Rafale sales to India. That my guess anyway.

BenThere
18th Jan 2013, 17:42
I was responding, as CP pointed out, to previous posts regarding Rafale's and combat aircraft procurement on this very page.

Threads tend to bob and weave at times. They can't be completely controlled, and the ROEs allow it in general terms. It's a stream of consciousness thing.

As the French air force is participating actively in this skirmish, and aircraft do have much to do with aviation, I defend my post as germaine to the topic of the thread.

jcjeant
18th Jan 2013, 21:18
Hi,

“I would be astonished if any other Western government, Britain, the US or other Europeans offered ground troops. But what has happened in Algeria will no doubt make the argument that this is a wider problem, that this really is a major strategic issue and we’re going to have to face up to it. That might happen.” The original Holland scheme was that Africans be on the ground, that France was to help from the air
So we see that this plan failed and under pressure of events (why did they wait so long for decide to help to teach an instruct Mali military forces when everything for the actual events occurs was in place for nearly a year ?) they send troops on ground ...
Why do European countries will send ground troops .. when it appear that the French government has been sighted and had a bad strategy

stuckgear
18th Jan 2013, 21:21
welcome to the thread jcjeant (good to see you down here from the upper forum threads)

while i wait for kag's response to your post i'll put the popcorn on.
:E

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 02:01
Just heard today that the total number of French ground troops deployed in Mali is 200. That's just about a company for goodness sake. What the heck are they suppossed to do with only one company of ground pounders? I might have to start leaning toward those here laughing at the French. I mean one company....!? Surely they intend to send more.

galaxy flyer
19th Jan 2013, 02:46
200 troops is 199 more than needed to surrender.....

GF

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 03:28
They are not going to surrender.

galaxy flyer
19th Jan 2013, 03:51
Really? That'll be a first, a neo-colonial, French military action that doesn't end in surrender. :E. Anyway, I take it, Temp Spike you approve of French intervention in Mali, but not US intervention in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan. Situational ethics.

GF

hellsbrink
19th Jan 2013, 03:51
Just heard today that the total number of French ground troops deployed in Mali is 200. That's just about a company for goodness sake. What the heck are they suppossed to do with only one company of ground pounders? I might have to start leaning toward those here laughing at the French. I mean one company....!? Surely they intend to send more.

Hmm.... Maybe because the intent is not to engage with the terrorists on the ground, for that is the job of the Malian troops, but is to defend and protect French citizens in Mali?

After all, if you had read the reports, etc, you would know that. :rolleyes:

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 04:08
GF
- it's pretty clear that Iraq was unnecessary. No weapons of mass destruction, all lies. Government lies. Republican government lies.

Afghanistan was meant to get Bin Ladden. It was a total failure until they finally got him last year. Mission over. No point in staying. Waste of blood, time and money.

Mali is different in that the counter insurgency is lead by a European country and in my opinion it’s about time. I merely wish to encourage this kind of European initiative because we are going to need all the help we can get in the not to distant future.

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 04:11
You should be friendlier hellsbrink. Rather than antagonistic and accusatory.

Really makes no difference anyway. Not to you, not to me, not to Hogan's friggen goat.

AlpineSkier
19th Jan 2013, 10:09
TS

From last night's French TV news. There are 1,900 French troops in Mali and so another 600 to come. Their graphics and commentary said that unknown numbers of SF (prob Foreign Legion ) operating at the pinch point against insurgents ( Mali narrows significantly about half-way which is where people make the mental division of N and S Mali ). Because of the large distances ( Mali twice size of France, Texas ? ;) ) there are still several towns occupied by rebels behind this line and attacks are being carried out with Malian soldiers supported by French. One town was retaken yesterday.

stuckgear
19th Jan 2013, 10:11
and one hopes that all the French forces deployed return home intact and that civilians caught in the cross fire remain intact.

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 10:37
No need to be so cynical when you perfectly and definitely know it won't be the case.

stuckgear
19th Jan 2013, 10:55
No need to be so cynical when you perfectly and definitely know it won't be the case.


what the hell is such a moronic statement like that ?

there's going to be 2,500 French troops in Mali, taking on fanatical insurgents, those french troops have lives, families and loved ones who are putting their lives on the line for the safety and sanctity of not just their own, but for others.


for sure, there may well be some that may not return to their lives and families intact, or at all.

there are civilians on the ground that will be caught in the cross-fire who want nothing more than to continue their lives without being subject to a vicious and spiteful fanatical base that really has no compunction for their well being.

your head is so far up your own ass, that you loose sight of reality.

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 11:00
Lonewolf:If, however, the request for assistance comes from France, then the assistance to France is a great way to bypass assistance request from Mali's coup formed governmentYes, France should ask assitance to the US, fighting al Q without the US definitely doesn't make much sense for many different reasons, the main one being that the tremendous US military fire power and capacity would make the outcome (pushing the terrorists out) of this war an easy goal.
I am surprised Hollande has not asked more officially UK help neither. It would have been much more efficient that way. One country alone mainly involved is not something we are use to see nowadays, and this is not something we should see.
However it would be wrong to say France is not helped at all right now by the US, UK, and a few other European countries, because it is.

I am happy to see that the French and Malian military are well coordinated too.

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 11:09
Temp Spike: Just heard today that the total number of French ground troops deployed in Mali is 200. Your source is not correct.


Concerning what you said on Iraq and Afghanistan, I receive you 5: definitely not the same kind of war, not to be mixed. You are 100% right. This deserve a whole thread of its own however.
Afghanistan war was completely justified and I support it.
Terrorism has to be fighted for obvious reasons, Bush got that one right.
Won't go further though, it would be off topic.

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 11:15
Wars and wars and rumurs of wars....

It's getting harder to tell the wars from the rumurs.

stuckgear
19th Jan 2013, 11:22
Wars and wars and rumurs of wars....

It's getting harder to tell the wars from the rumurs.


armed conflict and declaration of war are different things.

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 11:24
Are they? Fill the graves the same way.

stuckgear
19th Jan 2013, 11:24
Are they? Fill the graves the same way.


so do road accidents

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 11:32
Temp Spike: Wars and wars and rumurs of wars....

It's getting harder to tell the wars from the rumurs.
True, many different informations. We are totally dependant on information and it could be biased.

That's not because some journalist somewhere said some [email protected] that it changes anything: I am really happy to read your contribution on JB, it brings us some light here, actually it makes JB an acceptable and even interesting place at times thanks to people like you. :ok:

stuckgear
19th Jan 2013, 11:35
Temp Spike: [...]
I am really happy to read your contribution on JB, it brings us some light here, actually it makes JB an acceptable and even interesting place at times thanks to people like you. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif



pure gold !

:D:D:D

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 11:44
Kag - South Africans poking fun at Mugabe. The girl can wail. Anyway, I realize that Africans will be doing most of the ground fighting in Mali. Kenyan Army has done a fine job in Somalia so far and without western air support.

Freshlyground & ZA NEWS - Chicken to Change (OFFICIAL RELEASE) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=tdf2lBIe4Ac&feature=fvwp)

AlpineSkier
19th Jan 2013, 11:47
KAG

I would guess that Hollande hasn't asked for British troops as he suspects ( or has been told via diplomatic channels ) that there is a good chance that his request would be refused, which would not look good in the media and would cause difficulties for both governments.

On TV last night they also said that Britain is still heavily engaged in Afghanistan whereas France has pulled out (or at least stopped all fighting ops whilst pulling out ) and Mali is in the French sphere of influence etc etc.

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 12:01
Yes TS, just to echo your post: the Malian military just won one battle...
http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/01/18/l-armee-malienne-affirme-avoir-repris-le-controle-de-konna_1818883_3212.html


Alpine: that's a good point.

Temp Spike
19th Jan 2013, 12:02
Are you trying to make a point, "Stuckgear"?

racedo
19th Jan 2013, 14:00
Yes, France should ask assitance to the US, fighting al Q without the US definitely doesn't make much sense for many different reasons, the main one being that the tremendous US military fire power and capacity would make the outcome (pushing the terrorists out) of this war an easy goal.

If you want the area controlled by the rebels turned into a hell hole where it will always be rebels then bomb the hell out of it but why ?

North Mali is a massive area and will remain so. The remit of Malian Govt has always been debatable given the huge distance and poor infrastructure.

If you want to defeat an enemy then kill everyone you can find and then spend the next 30 years fighting everyone after that. Great you won a battle and the war continues.

If you wish win the war need to be selective then drive them back as some who will have joined the rebels will leave just as easily.

Remembering water / fuel / resupply is the key issue for rebels.

Dushan
19th Jan 2013, 14:20
Temp Spike:
I am really happy to read your contribution on JB, it brings us some light here, actually it makes JB an acceptable and even interesting place at times thanks to people like you. :ok:

Ah, I was wondering about Kumbaya on the other thread. Turns out it is here...

KAG
19th Jan 2013, 14:43
Remembering water / fuel / resupply is the key issue for rebels.Yes.
Apparently they spent months/years preparing themselves and I am quite sure some of their supply are well hidden in the desert.
What your say joins what I am thinking: that won't be easy.

The Malian army seems to be very motivated since the French support arrived though. That's very important.

racedo
19th Jan 2013, 15:46
Apparently they spent months/years preparing themselves and I am quite sure some of their supply are well hidden in the desert.
What your say joins what I am thinking: that won't be easy.

Yes and No.

Having supplies cached is easy, the hard part is that it becomes pretty hard to move quickly across vast swathes of territory when drones are overhead 24/7 awaiting convoys or movement.

Temp Spike
20th Jan 2013, 05:03
One wonders the number of drones the U.S. will commit. That’s a big piece of desert out there. I would like to see a few more assets from the U.S..

stuckgear
20th Jan 2013, 07:06
Under the Mali militants’ reign of terror: refugees tell of life under Islamist rule - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9813538/Under-the-Mali-militants-reign-of-terror-refugees-tell-of-life-under-Islamist-rule.html)

Dushan
20th Jan 2013, 13:30
Temp, why don't you volunteer to go? With your vast experience and unbridled enthusiasm I am sure Légion étrangère would love to have you.

Temp Spike
20th Jan 2013, 14:01
Wonderful idea. Then I take it they accept men of distiction.

hellsbrink
20th Jan 2013, 14:03
I hope you can use a firearm better than you can use a keyboard.... :p

AlphaZuluRomeo
20th Jan 2013, 14:40
Well, I trust Hollande is well advised on African and terrorism matters, but after having spent years in Afghanistan and already lost many soldiers, I don't think 2500 troops will be enough.
The question is: Enough for what? Reconquer the North and install a "righteous" power isn't on the French-only plan, AFAIK. That's the job for the African MISMA (and good chance for the poor innocent Tuareg-like people, there, I'm afraid).

Today, global media is focusing not on Mali, but the ongoing spectacular hostage drama in Algeria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/9807580/Algeria-hostage-crisis-William-Hague-admits-he-doesnt-know-how-many-Britons-are-held.html), whose Islamist perpetrators have made clear is in direct retaliation for the French intervention, along with Algeria’s decision to open its airspace to Gallic fighter jets.
Well, I for one don't buy what Islamist perpetrators have made clear. :rolleyes:
It's their interest to say so, but such an attack cannot be prepared from scratch in 1 or 2 weeks. Hence the attack was planned for a long time, long before Serval came live/public. At most, Serval op accelerated the attack launch. Nothing more. ;)

Just after the Rafale Airstrike started, India has asked for more Rafale (for a total of 189 instead 126, $18 billions instead of 12, which is the biggest contract of all time) and some countries in middle east are showing a new interest for a few billion contract...

War is cynical at times right?
Cynical, yes. Noteworthy is that the +63 aircrafts option was public since a long time (even during MMRCA contest, before Rafale was selected as L1 bidder, IIRC)

Really? That'll be a first, a neo-colonial, French military action that doesn't end in surrender. :E.
Ha ha ha. Far too coarse a method for the fish to bite. :p

Anyway, I take it, Temp Spike you approve of French intervention in Mali, but not US intervention in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan. Situational ethics.
If it's of any interest to you, GF: As Temp Spike & KAG, I do approve US intervention in Afghanistan, as legitimate (*), but I do not approve US intervention in Iraq, as it was illegitimate, and its justification based on "evidences" known as false (even at the time).

(*) however I do not approve the switch from short-term Taleban beating to long-term so-called Nation-Building, as Afghans have an habit to loan - for free, even better - foreigners to do (part of) their own wars.

Sorry, it's not always only about backing an ally (or not). It'is about not backing blindly an ally. And shared interest. ;)

Anyway, back to Africa:
If you wish win the war need to be selective then drive them back as some who will have joined the rebels will leave just as easily.

Remembering water / fuel / resupply is the key issue for rebels.

:D:D

hval
20th Jan 2013, 14:50
KAG,

I would add to Alpine Skiers comments reference UK military that the UK military is over extended as it is. The UK is unable to entertain fighting another theatre with its current commitments. I find this a shame.


Galaxy Flyer,

Your comments reference the French military show a lack of understanding & knowledge of the French military.

AlpineSkier
20th Jan 2013, 17:52
This may not be the right thread, but I wonder how much of the UK armed forces is currently "allocated" to a potential Falklands conflict and thus unavailable for anything else.

hval
20th Jan 2013, 17:55
The two guards on Marne barracks and the dog

AlphaZuluRomeo
20th Jan 2013, 20:42
A confirmation re:
Reconquer the North and install a "righteous" power isn't on the French-only plan, AFAIK. That's the job for the African MISMA

"L'objectif, c'est la reconquête totale du Mali. On ne va pas laisser des poches" de résistance, a déclaré dimanche le ministre français Jean-Yves Le Drian, qui a toutefois espéré que la force régionale africaine en cours de déploiement constitue rapidement le "relais" de l'intervention française.
(source: Le Monde)

Translation:
"The goal is the total re-conquest of Mali. Was not going to leave areas" of resistance, said on Sunday the French [defense] minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who, however, hoped that the African regional force being deployed would quickly "take over" from the French intervention.

racedo
20th Jan 2013, 21:45
One wonders the number of drones the U.S. will commit. That’s a big piece of desert out there. I would like to see a few more assets from the U.S..

Ah the US centric view.....

It may surprise you to learn that others have drones as well.

West Coast
20th Jan 2013, 22:07
Which nation friendly to the cause has the drone capability of the US?

Chrissakes, the poster simply thought the US addition to the effort could be more robust. Don't read more into it. Nothing from the post should have offended your sensitivities unless you wanted offending simply because it's the US that's mentioned.

I remember the outrage here when the US sent a rather large number of assets to the tsunami devastated areas a few years back. We somehow were embarrassing the other nations with the response according to posters here. Goes to show, too little, too much, it doesn't matter, haters will hate.

stuckgear
20th Jan 2013, 22:15
It may surprise you to learn that others have drones as well.


like this forum ?

AlphaZuluRomeo
20th Jan 2013, 22:45
It may surprise you to learn that others have drones as well.
Sure, but I think French military won't be against some more drones. As far as France is concerned, drones are a shortage. ;)
Atlantique 2 are used (from Dakar, I think) instead or in complement, but it's kind of a stop-gap, however efficient.

[edit] addendum for people able to read French, more on the topic here: Le mamouth: Des décisions (enfin) sur les drones (http://tinyurl.com/drone-fr)

BenThere
21st Jan 2013, 19:34
Why can't the US learn its lesson?

Weren't we taught that unless there is ironclad, physical evidence of WMD, which would be left in place for us to capture, there is no excuse for intervention?

stuckgear
21st Jan 2013, 20:23
irony..

Algeria hostage crisis: Most weapons used in attack came from Libya - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/9814510/Algeria-hostage-crisis-Most-weapons-used-in-attack-came-from-Libya.html)


Many of the Islamist terrorists shot their way into the In Amenas compound on Thursday using the AK104 model of Kalashnikov, which was typically used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi.

They brought F5 rockets that also surfaced in the Libyan war, said the security source.


The Islamists wore the same type of outfits that Qatar provided to Libyan National Transitional Council rebels by Qatar – yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as "chocolate chip" camouflage. The garments are copies of ones worn by Americans in the Gulf war.


The terrorists also employed 60mm gun-mortars used by France and Libyan rebels.


Other non-Libyan arms used in the Algerian (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria) terror attack included German and Chinese-made Kalashnikovs, classic rocket-propelled grenades and Russian offensive and defensive grenades.

The Algerian army had two missile-carrying Mi24 Super-Hind helicopters, armoured cars, and Russian-made T90 tanks.
For the assault on the gas facility itself, special forces used incapacitating gas, infrared cameras, heat-seeking cameras and "optical devices to be able to see under doors and through walls".

racedo
21st Jan 2013, 20:34
Stuck

Come on, you knew that would be coming.........................eventually.

AlpineSkier
23rd Jan 2013, 08:21
When I read of GB lending the C17's to France for this action, I did wonder if this kind of thing is done f.o.c. or whether there is an invoice athe end and was going to post a question to ask about this,

Then reading Le Figaro this morning, I possibly got an answer.

ww.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/01/23/01003-20130123ARTFIG00315-mali-la-france-met-la-pression-sur-les-etats-unis.php

The article says that the US has agreed in theory to lend transport aircraft but wants paying for this. It goes on to quote an unnamed French official who says this is absolutely unprecedented and Le Fig comments that this shows what pressure budgets are under.

Does anyone know on what basis this kind of thing is usually done and would it be different if it were a NATO action ?

stuckgear
23rd Jan 2013, 09:12
well frig, if they would have asked me i'd have set up a nice ACMI deal for them pretty cheap.




Stuck

Come on, you knew that would be coming.........................eventually.


oh of course. when i was spending time down in nowheresville algeria there were large numbers of arms including MANPADS coming through the porus desert border and that was with Ghadaffi.. now with the quantities of military equipment on the loose, you can be sure that much of it has grown legs. it's more than probably that some fo the weapons used by the AQ in offshoot in Mali has come from.... i'll give you three guesses.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Jan 2013, 11:50
AS,

I would be very very surprised if there is not a "bill" for services supplied somewhere amongst it all.

Never a budget holder as such but I know that the provision of services for just about everything we ever did had to be paid for by someone else's budget so in this case some one is defo picking up the bill.

AlphaZuluRomeo
24th Jan 2013, 17:52
USA finally won't present the bill to France, it seems.
A good point IMO. Shared interests and so on...

BenThere
24th Jan 2013, 20:51
Nice to see France stepping up to be the world's policeman as the US is in the processing of turning in the badge.

stuckgear
24th Jan 2013, 20:55
Nice to see France stepping up to be the world's policeman as the US is in the processing of turning in the badge.


world gendarme shurely!

Temp Spike
24th Jan 2013, 21:15
The euro-weenies need to share the cost is the point or start changing their flags to all red for the coming conflict. Thw wild arse muslims are merely practice for what is to come.

Ronald Reagan
24th Jan 2013, 21:43
The last intervention is working out well I see, just like the others!
BBC News - Britons urged to leave Benghazi over 'imminent threat' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21181742)

Temp Spike
24th Jan 2013, 21:59
But Libya's deputy interior minister Abdullah Massoud insisted the security problems in Benghazi did not warrant...

That's because he hasn’t been told about the planned Air Force carpet bombing yet.

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 07:36
France is between a rock and a hard place, the French have a very delicate and dangerous path to tread...

Muslims in France: On a mat and a prayer | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18530069)


On a mat and a prayer

A new debate reflects strains over the place of Islam in France

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/04/09/eu/20110409_eup004.jpgWall-to-wall carpeting
WELL before the start of Friday prayers, rolls of mats tied with string are waiting propped against the kerb. Perched on a plastic table on the pavement outside the Al-Fath mosque, a loudspeaker is ready to broadcast prayers to the street. As the faithful stream in from the Métro station in this grim stretch of Paris's 18th arrondissement, past shops selling Algerian football shirts and green-and-gold woven cloth from Togo, policemen guard roads that have been closed to traffic. When the prayers begin, the streets are packed with hundreds of worshippers kneeling on mats. The scene has become a symbol in a heated debate over efforts to reconcile an assertive Islam with France's secular tradition.

Lonewolf_50
25th Jan 2013, 13:36
Getting back on topic: the host nation forces in Mali, with whom our French colleagues will be working.

Not a pretty sight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/africa/mali-army-riding-us-hopes-is-proving-no-match-for-militants.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 14:25
interesting review of the situation in Mali lonewolf, though i have to admit it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. once all the whooping and cheering of the initial action is over (as per this thread) the harsh realities of military engagement remain.

there is no decisive magic action that will curtail the problem, it's a long, ongoing process. we here in the UK saw the militant Islam reaction to UK servicemen and indeed the non Muslim population.

such epitaphs as 'Europe your 9/11 is coming'..

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/01/05/toon1.jpg

http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/Muslim%20protest%20UK

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2012/9/22/1348316462814/Muslim-protesters-006.jpg

i am concerned for France in that action in Mali will result in the same kind reactions. Eitherway, if France is successful or not in removing the terrorist threat, either way will be taken as a springboard for pushing militant views.

airship
25th Jan 2013, 14:35
stuckgear, French cathedrals and churches remain mostly empty except for the Sunday. Yet ordinary Muslims have to content themselves in back-rooms or even just the open streets on a Friday.

Ever since the French held their revolution, and moving on to todays's French secularism, somehow separating the state from religious affairs, Chrches are still provided with public funds for their recontruction (if merely to the benefit of all the French towns relying on the tourists) etc.

Perhaps, France's government, should consider (especially in the new light of French Catholics / Jews / Muslims seeming ability to come together in the face of neo-Nazi extremists or whatever), that the French state in future (especially in these severe economic times), envisage using churches (reserved for Christians on the Sunday) being also used by Muslims on a Friday. And why not Buddhists and others on other days of the week, instead of merely opening and being available for use a 1/2 day of each day of the week...?!

Does it really matter whether it's a simple spire (or minaret) at the end of the day (of worship)...?!

Seriously though, I have a hard enough time coping with all the church bells "automatically-ringing" between 09H30 and 11H15 on a (weekend) Sunday here. My empathy for all French Muslims is somewhat also limited: that they do not wake me up at 5AM or whatever, whether or not on a normal workday or weekend etc.

Personally, I don't see any problem (nor would I easily condone anyone's contrary actions), with using French churches as mosques, or vice-versa, as we're all 1 happy family or at least condemned to be so for the near future. :ok:

Cacophonix
25th Jan 2013, 14:36
The Muslims aren't a bunch of funsters are they...?

Mali, has a great musical tradition despite the kill joys.

Musicians of Mali fight for nation's soul - Comment - Voices - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/musicians-of-mali-fight-for-nations-soul-8458723.html)

Sibiri Samaké - Music of Mali - YouTube

Caco

airship
25th Jan 2013, 15:35
Well, here we all are, 12 days after France commenced her uni-lateral military operations in Mali (and in spite of stuckgear's best efforts to hijack this thread for his own nefarious purposes)...

Even on the evening news broadcasts of major French TV channels yesterday 24/01, news of on-going events in Mali are very thinly reported. Or perhaps there is nothing to report really, as all the glory-seeking "war-covering" journalists and their employers don't really believe that this is an important conflict, worthy or their ever-diminishing resources...

Did the British ever manage to repair 1 of the 2 transport aircraft they so generously offered to the French forces in Mali? Presumably, the RAF had to take into account David Cameron's much delayed speech concerning the EU before trying to comply.

Where are (and where do) the Americans stand today (having persuaded most scepticals, including the French most recently, into supporting their own wars and operations post 9/11 in Afghanistan at least?

In Mali at least, the most important point today is to support the French forces (already committed) with reliable logistics: fuel supplies, foods and spares for their air and ground forces (not forgetting all the humanitarian aid - food, camps in safe havens, and medical personnel) whilst they pursue their objectives further into northern Mali.

Barack, if there ever was a good time for you (and the USA) to intervene in an International crisis, this is it. No Jews, no Palestinians involved, just "cheese-eating French surrender monkeys" and black-Africans... :ok:

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 15:56
and in spite of stuckgear's best efforts to hijack this thread for his own nefarious purposes

so, partaking of a thread is hijacking it is it and what would that neferious purpose be?

BenThere
25th Jan 2013, 16:05
Barack, if there ever was a good time for you (and the USA) to intervene in an International crisis, this is it.

Actually, I agree with you. But shouldn't you first have to go to the UN, try to cajole and buy off Security Council member nations, secure the abstentions of China and Russia (obviously not France), then fend off the withering criticism that you're only after the oil (in this case uranium). Then build a coalition of the willing, addressing each participants concerns and objections.

As the French government is Socialist, it shouldn't be as big a problem for you as it was for us.

Being a do-gooder is hard, but I hope France can pull it off. I'm enjoying being on the sidelines.

Too bad France has imported so many potential jihadis, eh?

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 16:07
anything there to back up your accusation airship or is it just hot air?

playing the player, not the ball seems the usual tactic.

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 17:20
no? nothing ? just the usual accusations and nothing to back it up then.

Lonewolf_50
25th Jan 2013, 17:55
I agree that the President ought to support our allies in this, and am not sure there is a need to go to the UN.

That is one possible path forward, however, a number of local (African) nations have already agreed to help out via a regional collective security regime, which is a nice step forward.

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 17:57
Malian/French troops progressing step by step towards the north...
This is definitely not easy, but it seems to be much faster than what I thought... Was I too pessimistic? Wait and see...

BenThere
25th Jan 2013, 18:05
am not sure there is a need to go to the UN

I agree with that, too. But that standard was held against the US when it wanted to apply its military assets in the interest of world order. Millions of Euros marched to assert their standards in France alone.

Can you see the karma coming around?

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 18:08
Now 2500 french troops are in Mali aswell with quite a lot of vehicules, materials, weapons, and moving towards the North.
African troops (1700 I have heard?) from a few countries around Mali have arrived too.
Malian government recovering some power on more and more cities.

Lonewolf_50
25th Jan 2013, 18:09
KAG, thanks for the update.

Ben, Monsieur Chirac might have some pithy comments on this state of affairs. :E Is he still among the quick?

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 18:13
KAG, thanks for the update.Well, that was not easy ;) : French journalists are not that interested about what's happening in Mali right now... That's all about gay marriage stuff in the news papers now...
They should take it seriously, because we could get stucked there for a long time if we don't pay attention and take it lightly.

BenThere
25th Jan 2013, 18:14
Chirac, and a plethora of French officials, of course, were on the take in the Oil for Food program.

Speaking only for myself, the general rejection by the majority of Western European people of the US in its effort to hold Iraq to account in 2003 is a very dark stain I won't forget.

airship
25th Jan 2013, 18:22
BenThere wrote: Actually, I agree with you. But shouldn't you first have to go to the UN, try to cajole and buy off Security Council member nations, secure the abstentions of China and Russia (obviously not France)...

Unless I've misunderstood, the UN have already granted their resolution for a military intervention in Mali. Please do wake up?! Or are you just waiting for the insurgents / terrorists to attack Pearl Harbour (as if 9/11 wasn't enough) before acting and committing your armed forces...?! In support of France and their armed forces in Mali...

PS. stuckgear, matey, when you finally learn to use capital letters, the sooner that everyone here might well treat your contributions as seriously as you might wish. Also, pay some attention to your mostly inflammatory religious content. Your overly-insistent complaints of "not being replied to" are becoming a bore to me at least (unsure about the rest of JBers) by simple virtue that they're mostly devoid of any real ripostes or content on the subject.

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 18:27
Benthere: maybe you wish to hear some explanation about that?

Iraq was not related to Talibans, or Al Qaeda, or 9/11, and didn't have mass destruction weapon, and the europeans intelligence services knew it.
How do you explain so many americans, including Sarah Palin thought 9/11 and Iraq were related, and how do you explain that the vast majority of americans thought there were mass destructive weapons in Iraq?

I am ready to say we could have been more supportive, but at the same time you will then have to admit it was hard to be supportive at that time when Bush didn't speak the truth, and we knew it, we told you. Actually time proved us right. You can at least admit the Iraq war was not flawless, the UK intelligence and the US intelligence were telling each other lies, and we knew it: that was weird to watch, we were not confortable. What would you have done if in our shoes? Sorry to be frank. And sorry for the off topic.

airship
25th Jan 2013, 18:41
Hey KAG, welcome back! I greet you with the traditional bise, on both cheeks?! I have "been holding the fort as best as I could in your absence". Unless I'm much mistaken, several of your posts have been severely moderated elsewhere. I blame that on your attitude to trop rapidly reply to mostly unworthy adversaires here...

Enfin, I believe that we have them "on the retreat" both in this and the EU Hamsterwheel threads. Control yourself KAG, better than others are able to, and "we shall overcome". So far as Mali is concerned, I reckon it's just a matter of weeks before we find the USA and/or GB vying with each other and attempting to take over the French lead in Mali...?! :ok:

Dushan
25th Jan 2013, 18:42
airship

Does it really matter whether it's a simple spire (or minaret) at the end of the day (of worship)...?!

Do you really think that the Muslims would think this way? Would they be OK with going into a church with crucifixes, icons, bibles, etc. and performing their prayers?

Dream on.

BenThere
25th Jan 2013, 18:43
Well, there's the small matter that WMD had been used on Iraqis by their government.

Also, the terms of the peace of GW1 were not complied with, and agreed inspections were obstructed. The defeated Hussein of 1991, with European complicity, reemerged as a viable regional threat.

That's all been debated to death. The fact is, though, that America's European allies, not so much their governments, but their people, rejected with prejudice the affinity we once had in the interest of enlightened world order, their former American friends no longer deemed worthy. That was made clear.

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 18:51
French journalists are not that interested about what's happening in Mali right now... That's all about gay marriage stuff in the news papers now...

that's a shame, it's a pity when much of the media is more interested in the kardashians than what is actually happening the world.


They should take it seriously, because we could get stucked there for a long time if we don't pay attention and take it lightly.

indeed, one hopes that that doesn't happen.

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 18:53
I could be wrong, I am not using google or anything, but if I remember well inspections had to stop because of the preparation of the war...

And I firmly desagree with you: we definitely have an issue about Iraq, true (and I believe we are not much more "guilty" than you in this story on different ways) but we definitely share your ideas and we are an ally.

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 18:57
PS. stuckgear, matey, when you finally learn to use capital letters, the sooner that everyone here might well treat your contributions as seriously as you might wish. Also, pay some attention to your mostly inflammatory religious content. Your overly-insistent complaints of "not being replied to" are becoming a bore to me at least (unsure about the rest of JBers) by simple virtue that they're mostly devoid of any real ripostes or content on the subject.


eRR, aIRSHip, i'Ve NoT oNcE cOmpLaINed aBouT nOt bEInG rEpliED to. tHAt iS aNotheR oF yOUr inVeNTioNs.

yOU lIkE tO inVEnT fACtS aNd maKe cLaImS aBouT oTHer pOSteRs BuT dONt haVE tHe caJoNeS tO bACk Up youR aLLegAtiOnS.


others seem to be able to read my posts OK. or are you the post police now?

player the ball, not the player.

hope you like the caps.

KAG
25th Jan 2013, 18:57
Hi Airship, always interesting to read your posts.

And like you said: if UK and the US want to join in, then they are more than welcomed :ok:

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 19:08
KAG,

your post #206 and Ben's follow up #207 can both be agreed with.

yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's, but it held weapons that were outside of the UN weapons mandate as set forth by the UN. in terms of both range and capacity.

he had also used these weapons on the Kurds in the north.


the key problem was that Tony Blair knowingly and deliberately adjusted the intel to present a case. Tony Blair also lied to parliament on an issue of national security.

now in all respects the action in Iraq was the right thing to do, in terms of the not only the failure to be in accord with the UN mandate following GW1, but to attempt to evade the UN itself.

right actions for the wrong reasons.. military action on another state built up on a deliberate lie, and presented to the US as hard evidence.. of course others would have a problem in supporting that.

the problem occurs when politicians build a house on the sand of deliberate lies and falsification.

of course the irony of ironies is that Tony Blair is the middle east peace envoy!

Lonewolf_50
25th Jan 2013, 19:18
I could be wrong, I am not using google or anything, but if I remember well inspections had to stop because of the preparation of the war...
KAG< the formal inspections stopped in 1998.
There is a decent chronology here. (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)

There was about a five year "blind period" where a lot of what was, or wasn't, going on in Saddam's varoius attempts to restore his chem, nuc, and bio programs left a lot to be desired in terms of clarity.

After Operation Desert Fox, it appears that a few of the inside sources simply disappeared.

angels
25th Jan 2013, 19:19
Just FYI -

*FLIR* french airstrike in MALI (http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/vbtube_show.php?tubeid=2396)

Matari
25th Jan 2013, 19:28
I'm very glad the French troops are in Mali. I would suspect that the Yanks and Brits are doing much more in the background than what is being told (and bravo to that, too).

I won't hold my breath for Airship to say 'the French showed up late', since the Islamists long ago took Timbuktu (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/461e8872-66d8-11e2-a805-00144feab49a.html#axzz2J1L1yhup). But better late than never, n'est-ce pas?

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 19:34
I'm very glad the French troops are in Mali.

likewise, and wish them godspeed.


I would suspect that the Yanks and Brits are doing much more in the background than what is being told


they are. US involvement there has been ongoing and UK have been providing logistics.

MaxRange120
25th Jan 2013, 19:36
A surveillance aircraft from RAF Waddington has been sent to Mali to support France's military action there, the Ministry of Defence said.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the Sentinel R1 aircraft "has proved its worth in Libya and on an ongoing basis for counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan".

Two British C17 transport aircraft have already been sent to the region.

BBC News - Mali: RAF surveillance aircraft Sentinel deployed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21200718)

AlpineSkier
25th Jan 2013, 19:55
Have just read an interview between Le Figaro and Ban Ki Moon where BKM welcomes the "courageous action " of the French but says that the UN doesn't want to get involved in a fight that some Islamic nations are already calling a Christian crusade against Islam so as not to damage its credibility !

airship
25th Jan 2013, 19:57
two british c17 transport aircraft have already been sent to the region. that's old news. did they ever fix the 2nd of the c17s which apparently simply "broke down" on day +1?!

ps. my lack of use of capitals in due respect to stuckgear who wrote: ...UK have been providing logistics. Golly gosh, he actually bothered to use the capital key when it came to "uk"...?! I'll have to sleep on that before replying. Bonne nuit.

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 20:03
Have just read an interview between Le Figaro and Ban Ki Moon where BKM welcomes the "courageous action " of the French but says that the UN doesn't want to get involved in a fight that some Islamic nations are already calling a Christian crusade against Islam so as not to damage its credibility !

damage it's credibility.. a statement like that does damage it's credibility.

read as we're too much a bunch pf pussies, so we'll let france take it on the chin..

what's the point of the UN again ?

stuckgear
25th Jan 2013, 20:05
ps. my lack of use of capitals in due respect to stuckgear who wrote:
Quote:
...UK have been providing logistics.
Golly gosh, he actually bothered to use the capital key when it came to "uk"...?! I'll have to sleep on that before replying. Bonne nuit.

StIll wItH tHe perSOnAl aTtAckS aIrshIp.

play the ball not the player.

racedo
25th Jan 2013, 23:08
I agree with that, too. But that standard was held against the US when it wanted to apply its military assets in the interest of world order. Millions of Euros marched to assert their standards in France alone.

Can you see the karma coming around?

There is a difference in overthrowing existing Govt and supporting existing Govt.

Matari
25th Jan 2013, 23:29
Let's not be too coy.

Plenty of existing governments have been overthrown, and with good reason. Need I list them, really?

TEEEJ
26th Jan 2013, 06:32
Airship wrote

did they ever fix the 2nd of the c17s which apparently simply "broke down" on day +1?!

The serials of the two C-17s were ZZ171 and ZZ176. See flight history from the 14th Jan.

ZZ171 - Royal Air Force - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/zz171)

ZZ176 - Royal Air Force - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/zz176)

2013/01/14__C-17A__LFOE Evreux BA105 (http://alfaviation.tonempire.com/t1567-2013-01-14__c-17a__lfoe-evreux-ba105)

racedo
26th Jan 2013, 10:07
Let's not be too coy.

Plenty of existing governments have been overthrown, and with good reason. Need I list them, really?

You mean like Libya

Well yes that worked out :mad: well............

Gaza has loads more weapons
Sinai Peninsula has load more weapons
Algerian terrorists have loads more weapons
AQIM has load more weapons
Ambassador Stevens murdered

Matari
26th Jan 2013, 11:23
No, not like Libya. I guess I should have listed them then....

racedo
26th Jan 2013, 12:29
No, not like Libya. I guess I should have listed them then....

Iran 53 ? perhaps

Afghanistan 1979 ? - course only money and CIA paramilitaries was used here to destabilise as nothing bad could happen from that, Russki's invade, CIA promotes Islamic Holy War, War ends and Islamic holy warriors return to their own country to forment Islamic war and Taliban arise in Afghanistan. Oh and US Ambassador killed in Afghanistan.

Sometimes doing abolutely nothing is best idea.

BenThere
26th Jan 2013, 13:14
The point that could well be argued is that the Afghanistan/Russian war went along way toward destabilizing the USSR, which collapsed not long after.

The USSR at the time was a much more potent and dangerous enemy than Islamic Jihad has the potential of becoming.

racedo
26th Jan 2013, 13:27
The point that could well be argued is that the Afghanistan/Russian war went along way toward destabilizing the USSR, which collapsed not long after.

The USSR at the time was a much more potent and dangerous enemy than Islamic Jihad has the potential of becoming.

USSR didn't drive airplanes into WTC.....

KAG
26th Jan 2013, 14:57
Last news: Malian And French military took back the Gao Airport from the djihadists, and they pursue their progress towards north Mali.
There are now 3700 french troops participating to the "Serval" operation, 2500 frontline.
The airstrikes continue (already 2 weeks of airstrike...), and the islamists have lost much of their material that has been destroyed.

con-pilot
26th Jan 2013, 17:12
Last news: Malian And French military took back the Gao Airport from the djihadists, and they pursue their progress towards north Mali.


That is good news.

chuks
26th Jan 2013, 21:45
I read in the papers, last week, about how the US military trained the Malians, when it all looked so very, very promising. Well, until, when push came to shove, many of them bugged out, with their equipment, to join the bad guys because they were fellow Tuaregs. I guess our guys made them take the Boy Scout pledge and figured that over-rode ancient tribal loyalties.

Then, out of the rest, it was one of our trainees who went and overthrew the Malian government. Well, Darn!

Remind me again, who got Osama bin Laden his start as a jihadist? It wasn't them Commies, was it?

I was impressed when a group of US military EOD specialists visited Lagos and did not blow themselves up, but perhaps they were civilian contractors.

racedo
26th Jan 2013, 21:51
Chuks made the point in an earlier post that in Mali the reason why you need to be careful in response to the uprising is that loyalty is fluid where person supporting rebels today, goes home and tomorrow he is supporting you. Piss him off and he stays on rebel side.

Dushan
27th Jan 2013, 02:46
they were fellow Tuaregs.

Volkswagens? You would think they would have Hummers.

Cacophonix
27th Jan 2013, 10:56
I suspect that the US is putting far more covert effort into the Mali imbroglio than is evident. Not least because of the interdependence between the cartels and the extremists in parts of Africa.

The cocaine trade first exploded in this region five years ago, as Latino cartels, faced with a saturated market in the US, sought new routes to get their product to Europe's borders. First the drug is shipped or flown across the Atlantic to lawless, corrupt coastal states like Guinea Bissau, then it is moved thousands of miles across the Sahara to Algeria, Morocco and Libya.

Revealed: how Saharan caravans of cocaine help to fund al-Qaeda in terrorists' North African domain - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9829099/Revealed-how-Saharan-caravans-of-cocaine-help-to-fund-al-Qaeda-in-terrorists-North-African-domain.html)

Gao, which sits on the River Niger in Mali's north-east, has long been one of the main drug transit points, where convoys begin winding north through the mountainous dunes of the Sahara proper. Notoriously, it was the scene of the so-called "Cocaine Air" incident of 2009, when an elderly Boeing 727 airliner was found abandoned in the desert near Tarkint, a sandblown village north of the city.

The United Nations Office for Drug Control believes the plane, carrying up to 11 tonnes of the drug, had been flown direct from Venezuela - one of an entire "fleet" of decrepit airliners pressed into service by Latino cartels. The incident prompted the UNODC to warn that terror-backed trafficking in West Africa was "taking on a whole new dimension."

Caco

AlphaZuluRomeo
27th Jan 2013, 12:48
(as per thread title)

"You have reached your destination."

airship
27th Jan 2013, 13:13
AlphaZuluRomeo wrote: "You have reached your destination." And in quite almost record time...

Which is perhaps most worrying?

Where have all the jihadists / Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists etc. disappeared to?! Without putting up any resistance or fight (hence the very rapid advance by French forces) etc.

Which might mean that they're hiding amongst the local populations (with their consent) or else exfiltrated themselves rapidly across the borders (from whence they could just as rapidly infiltrate themselves) again when it suits them...

There also remains the important issue of the current Malian government and its' apparent lack of any real eligibility to rule. Not forgetting all the reports of atrocities and abuses by Malian troops over the past few years. Or some perhaps justifiable claims of some of the Toureg, that the governments in the south have always ignored them, whilst the fat-cat politicians in Bamako got fatter and richer. And currently under French protection...?!

vee-tail-1
27th Jan 2013, 17:58
There is a debate relevant to this thread in Cardiff next month. Might be an opportunity for a bit of live eyeball to eyeball discussion for some :uhoh:

Question Time; ‘Responsibility to Protect’

Friends, members and affiliates,

UNA Wales, the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and Cardiff University cordially invite you to a very special roundtable discussion panel concerning the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and International Security on Tuesday 5th February 2013, Glamorgan Building Council Chamber, Cathays Park, Cardiff. Please find attached a poster with further information.

Hosted by Dr Peter Sutch BA MA PhD FRHistS of Cardiff University’s Politics Department and UNA Wales Chairman, the panel includes leading international authorities on International Relations and Law, including Dr Edwin Egede, Marc Pollentine and Dr Grant Dawson, alongside scholars from around the country, NGO and government representatives, and provides an exciting platform in a stunning setting to discuss and analyse the humanitarian crises facing the world today, including the Arab Spring, conflicts in Mali and the DR Congo and around the world.

To register, please e-mail [email protected] or phone 029 2022 8549.

Please feel free to contact UNA Wales’ Gareth W. Dunn ([email protected]) or Chris Thompson ([email protected]) if you have any questions or require any further details. Entry is free, and the evening to begin 5.30pm for a 6pm start.

In a world with conflict on almost every horizon, who can halt the violence? International coalitions? United Nations action? Do we all have the ‘responsibility to protect’?

Our very best wishes for 2013,

Faithfully,

UNA Wales

Gareth W. Dunn
'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) Campaign Intern

Chris Thompson
Education and Engagement Officer (WCIA)

Welsh Centre for International Affairs / Canolfan Materion Rhyngwladol Cymru
Temple of Peace, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3AP, Wales / Y Deml Heddwch, Parc Cathays, Caerdydd, CF10 3AP, Cymru
Tel / Ffon +44 (0) 29 2022 8549 / Fax / Ffacs +44 (0) 29 2064 0333
Welsh Centre for International Affairs: Home (http://www.wcia.org.uk)

KAG
28th Jan 2013, 04:06
Timbuktu has not been reached yet as far as I know...

KAG
28th Jan 2013, 07:43
My bad, apparently they did reach timbuktu.

Now that basically all the cities are under control again, the Malian army should keep this status and the French army should leave.
Most of the jihadist material, camps... have been destroyed, I do believe Mali doesn't need the French army anymore and take care of its business.

stuckgear
28th Jan 2013, 08:18
Most of the jihadist material, camps... have been destroyed, I do believe Mali doesn't need the French army anymore and take care of its business.

unfortunately KAG i disagree.

because the insurgents have dispersed and melted into the surrounding, it doesn't mitigate the problem. as soon as an overwhelming military threat departs, they will be back.

Mali needs the support to provide civil security to its citizens and its government [sic].. of course, if 'western' forces do remain, the insurgent threat will just push on down the road. it's a long haul and ongoing problem.

dead_pan
28th Jan 2013, 08:49
Given the international attention this operation has now received, I don't think the local forces will be left to their own devices once the insurgents have been dispersed. I suspect the French will leave a token quick-reaction presence to provide them with any support as and when they require. The insurgents are presumably now being squeezed from the north as well. Job more-or-less done I reckon.

Andy_S
28th Jan 2013, 15:59
Actually, I don't think it is job done. Not by any means.

While I don’t take anything away from the professionalism of the French armed forces, it has to be noted that a major contributory factor in their advance has been that the rebels / islamists / call them what you will have simply withdrawn from the towns they held and melted away into the desert. The fact that they no longer threaten to take over Mali is to be welcomed, but the awkward reality remains that they haven’t been defeated militarily. They’re still out there. That means that the French and / or African troops will either need to spend a lot of time tracking the rebels down and winkling them out of their hideaways, or adopting something of a siege mentality in the major towns and cities.

KAG
28th Jan 2013, 18:07
Andy s: I hear you 5. Actually I believe the French government is thinking the same way.
I just desagree. I think it is the Africans duty now that they have recovered the use of their country to find the jihadist wherever they are (because they are not only in Mali anyway, they are in all the surrounding countries, including Algeria...)

Lonewolf_50
28th Jan 2013, 18:29
KAG, if the military in Mali hadn't had some core internal problems, this wouldn't have been an issue to start with. Those core internal problems may have to do with the reality of differences within Mali in the first place.

I've seen this soap opera somewhere before, haven't I? :hmm:

KAG
28th Jan 2013, 20:43
David Cameron says UK will support French mission to drive Islamists out but insists forces will not engage in combat

AlpineSkier
28th Jan 2013, 21:38
Der Spiegel reports that the US is planning/considering a base for UAV/drones in the area - either Niger or Burkina Faso - to both support the French and increase surveillance on terrorists in that part of Africa generally.

racedo
28th Jan 2013, 21:45
I just desagree. I think it is the Africans duty now that they have recovered the use of their country to find the jihadist wherever they are (because they are not only in Mali anyway, they are in all the surrounding countries, including Algeria...)

Alheria took care of its own jihadists and returning Mudjas in the 1990's and while there are sporadic incidents they have pretty much hammered that nail down hard.

Well that is unless a Western Oil company pissed off at the price it has to pay decides to talking about regime change with the help of some Western Govts a la Libya.