Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Now that's an opinion.

What you call "fact" is impossible to prove for the time being, so where do you get the insight that it's a "fact" from?
First:
The possibility of a failure exist: it is a fact. If you have 90% to win, it still remains 10% you loose. It's basic math...
The "fact: it will happen" is an opinion and is for the time being impossible to prove.

My insight is that asking the UN or/an the AU to conduct a war or a stabilisation mission is a receipy for failure. And to come to that opinion, I have several historical exemples in the subregion: Darfur is one of them.

Now my point was that Mali is not Afghanistan or Iraq. The context in Mali is far different from those 2 exemples. This to say that engaged troops in Mali, at the moment, do not face the same risk.

Second:
The impact of a failure is always bigger than expected. There is a tendency to lower the strategic impact of a failure. In the case of Mali this will open a new transborder and transcontinental space to armed groups that western and eastern powers are not really willing to allow to exist. This will impact the force equilibrium in the subregion and increase destabilization in other weakened countries... (the domino effect does exist despite the fact it is over rated).

Does that mean that an half success is not enough (military success for France and Chad but complete colaps of the State in Mali after the French withdraw)... Never said that. But I disagree with the idea that a complete failure (no complete military success part from freeing several cities during few weeks and reinforcement of the radical Islamists because of a repression against Tuaregs by Malian State) will have a limited impact that will not go out of Malian borders.

Finaly:
What is your opinion Fuch?