Mali Troops Stage Coup
From the Wall Street Journal: Mali Troops Stage Coup
Apparently a reaction to ineffective government response to the Tuareg uprising in the north, and possibly a reaction to peace talks.
More info here.
Didn't the U.S. Africom have a training mission there a few years ago?
Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-10-2013 at 06:06 PM. Reason: Add & remove Mod's Note
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
I pointed this out earlier - the severe limitations of an "AFRICOM" led approach to fighting terrorism.
A few salient points.
1. The Tauregs yearn for an independent homeland.
2. Many armed Tauregs are moving down south in the wake of Gaddafi's ouster.
3. This results in a better armed opposition against the the Malian military.
4. Malian troops (although AFRICOM trained) were not well paid or well compensated - this triggered a set of riots by the widows of Malian troops killed by the Tauregs.
5. The coup is a result of a set of very complex events.
6. AFRICOM will find it difficult to operate effectively here and the US stands to risk of inserting itself into the internal politics of a sovereign state if it sticks its neck in too much.
7. Al Qaeda loves to exploit these kind of situations.
...and why shouldn't they?Originally Posted by KingJaja
Because they are not a single homogenous group, but rather a series of affiliated tribes spread across several states. Even if they were to get an independent homeland, the lands that they traditionally inhabit are some of the least viable lands in the Sahel. They are heavily dependent on aid from the states that they inhabit and foreign (NGO) aid. Any new Tuareg state would just be another economic basket case that would require extensive aid just to survive, never mind grow.
Most of the Tuareg that I knew in Niger harbored no particular interest in an independent Tuareg homeland. They just wanted to be better integrated into the states in which they lived. I can certainly sympathize with that. The Tuareg have had it hard. They do not fit in well with either the black Africans in the south nor the Arabs to the north. Niger's previous president liked to use the fear of Tuareg insurrection as a kind of wag the dog ploy. If memory serves, Mali's president did some of that as well. For their part, the Tuareg have been associated with many things that have not necessarily endeared them to the general public in the states they inhabit, including smuggling and slavery. Those associations are, of course, exaggerated but they are not totally unjustified, but then there are not many ways to make a living where many of them live.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
More from the front lines...
Our correspondent says it is possible that the coup may falter, pointing out that the mutinous troops are poorly equipped, led by a mid-ranking soldier and they do not have the backing of all Malian forces.
The well-trained and organized Red Berets unit is loyal to the president and he is believed to be under their protection, our reporter says.
If those officers decide to push back, they could perhaps overturn the coup, he says.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
And the USA is a single homogenous group? Afghanistan (a country which the US seems to want to keep together at all costs) comprises a homogenous group?
In my Southern African travels I have noted the one 'thing' that really gets Africans angry is the smart solutions for Africa's problems thought up by so-called 'smart' people in the US with little or no experience or understanding of Africa.
If the Tuareg peoples (note the plural) consolidated into single 'homeland' would not be able to form a viable state (in your opinion) why would it be acceptable for their 'area' to be carved up among a handful of surrounding states where the Tuaregs would be 'looked after' like a parasitic minority by the (certainly not affluent) racially/ethnically/religiously (tick as applicable) different majority?
I don't want to question your sources, or your reading of the local situation as I don't know what exposure you had in Mali... I have none. I would suggest that as a general comment the 'research' carried out by foreigners before forming an opinion is 99% too limited and as such leads to incorrect conclusions being drawn.
(On this point I remember being told by a US female USAID worker that tribalism no longer existed in Mozambique. I asked her how she had arrived at that decision and she replied that her local driver (who she was screwing) had told her. For those who don't know there is a tendency among educated and semi-educated Africans to deny the existence of tribalism as this would somehow confirm the backward status of Africa.)
Last edited by JMA; 03-23-2012 at 10:38 AM.
Hey John !
Where to begin ? I'll start with a hopeful second to Slapout's desire to have the SWC 2012 quote of the year award:
Training a dictator's rogue military generally means (that training) will later be used against the very population it was intended to protect.
About 3 years ago the President of Mali was unable to abscond with funds for development and pledged a total struggle against AQIM (that, as you and I know got him the POTUS' blessings and OUR cash). He also declared, in the same sentence, that his troops were not equipped nor trained for the counter terrorism task at hand (that he picked and decided to perform).
Enter AFRICOM
I think we are around 6 million in the hole now (of the 20 M granted for the Sahel). Even AID came up with millions to rewrite history and disseminate US views on radio stations (talk about PSYOPS - civilian style).
So, what went wrong - where'd we fail ?
1. The Malian army used their skills and equipment against their own people (go figure). In theory we were to reduce the terrorist threat. This is barely nothing new for the region and someone back in DC should be shot for being ignorant of a 50-year long historical catastrophe and waste of money.
2. Then there's the pathetic belief that AFRICOM is screwing around in a generally peaceful and stable country (despite its history and failed military interventions in other African countries).
3. Our miscalculating where that developmental aid actually goes when governed by military -- benefiting only the military and politicians in said country, while the local population continues to starve.
4. Our involvement could cause resentment (locals misinterpreting our intentions (get all their oil and skedaddle).
5. In conclusion, the US Military are not a humanitarian tool in the POTUS' kit bag. The AID agencies know far better how to abscond with funds and diddle about for centuries with no visible sign of progress. We should start by contacting our congress and senate and have them all committed for atrocities now and in the future
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan, this is going to be repeated how many times before the US wises up?
Mark, Is this a trick question? I won't be alive that long to provide you with that answer
My fall back position then is ...
We should start by contacting our congress and senate and have them all committed for atrocities now and in the future
If you want to blend in, take the bus
The answer is for the US to sign the International Criminal Court (ICC) protocols and then sit back and let justice take its course
As best I recall a quote from a South African journalist sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, "There is nothing quite so frightening as an American politician is search of a quick fix to someone else's problem." I think "American" and "politician" restrict the applicability too much.Stan,
...
5. In conclusion, the US Military are not a humanitarian tool in the POTUS' kit bag. The AID agencies know far better how to abscond with funds and diddle about for centuries with no visible sign of progress. We should start by contacting our congress and senate and have them all committed for atrocities now and in the future
This seems like another good opportunity for us to let other people work out their differences on their own.
(As for the contribution any of our prior activities might have made to the current situation, 'when you find yourself in a hole, the first step in fixing it is to stop digging.')
Last edited by J Wolfsberger; 03-22-2012 at 04:57 PM.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
It is a legitimate aim (just like the Kurds), but it will result in the splitting of a couple of nations (Mali, Burkina Faso etc)....and why shouldn't they?
That is one of the problems of the political structure of the African continent - a lot of split ethnic groups. However France (who really matters here) wants none of that, so it continues.
Its funny isn't it. We have African leaders bleating over the problems caused through colonial imposed boundaries... but are then prepared to maintain them through war if necessary.
We have had post colonial boundaries changed for Eritrea and South Sudan... while there should have been more than 100 adjustments by now.
Failing to recognise the aspirations of minorities is a recipe for disaster (especially if there is a mischievous neighbour willing to sow the seeds of discontent, supply weapons and sanctuary).
Is AFRICOM still training the Congolese Army?
Hey Jaja !
Well, if you wish to word it that way, yes, they are still training there.
In reality, elements of the US Military are training Congolese soldiers, not staff members from AFRICOM.
While I get where you are coming from (especially based on my post above), there are instances or training that does not necessarily adversely affect the local population. Such as humanitarian demining.
There are probably more good examples, but success stories from the DRC are few and far between
If you want to blend in, take the bus
AQIM is extending its reach throughout West Africa. Both BH and AQIM have everything to gain from this linkage. The Nigerian people have a lot to loose by it.
AQIM is linked with the Malian rebels recently returned from fighting in Lybia. They were so well armed that the Malian military was unable to make any headway against them. The military says they were not properly resourced by the Toure's government in Bamako so they stood little chance of defeating the separatist rebels. That, at least in their statements, is the reason for the coup in Mali.
I realize it is difficult to make comparisons between any two situations in the world, yet I cannot help but wonder if the Nigerian military and police feel under resourced by Goodluck Jonathan? How angry are they at being a frequent target of BH, yet seeming impotent to put BH to flight? Surely some have paid attention to what has happened in Mali.
The Nigerian president has far too much support in the south for any security forces to take action against him. However, will the time come when the police say, enough is enough, we cannot carry on with such a lack of resources and simply walk away or go on strike.
Fight for Gadfy 1st, now become AQIM linked?
Chowing commented:The rebels in most reports I have read were mercenaries for Gadafy and fought against a coalition that included jihadists. Returning home before the end, along with heavy weapons - which the Malian army had nothing to compare. Film footage tonight showed "technicals" and lorry-mounted rocket launchers.AQIM is linked with the Malian rebels recently returned from fighting in Lybia.
So how do these men now become linked to AQIM?
Last edited by davidbfpo; 03-23-2012 at 08:43 PM. Reason: Copied here from the Nigeria thread
davidbfpo
"Linked to AQIM" is a phrase that needs to be approached with a lot of wariness and a lot of skepticism. Of course there are all kinds of "links" between and among numerous groups, but governments and rival groups will inevitably exaggerate and distort links to AQIM in an effort to get the US to start shelling out. Nobody's forgotten the days when shouting "communists" opened the US treasury, and people will be trying to see if the word "terrorist" has the same magical effect.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Yes probably.
The key issue here is that they will have logistics and supply problems for the weapons/equipment/vehicles they brought back from Libya.
A good field commander would tempt them to move around and fire off as much ammunition as possible until they run short or the vehicles break. (Their accuracy is not likely to be good, but the big bangs of HE are likely to scare the hell out of the rag-tag Malian army)
Then with a level playing field they close in for the kill...
Last edited by JMA; 03-24-2012 at 09:28 AM.
That is exactly what the reports are saying. They are fighting for the same cause in the northern regions. That is the linkage, not of ideology or even goal. They are taking advantage the destabilization that was in the region as they began to come out of Libya.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks