Mali mainly, 2012 coup, drugs & more

[Stan]

Didn't the U.S. Africom have a training mission there a few years ago?

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

[JMA]

Training a dictator's rogue military generally means (that training) will later be used against the very population it was intended to protect.

Stan, this is going to be repeated how many times before the US wises up?

[Stan]

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

[JMA]

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"

The answer is for the US to sign the International Criminal Court (ICC) protocols and then sit back and let justice take its course

[J Wolfsberger]

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

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.

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.')

[KingJaja]

...and why shouldn't they?

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).

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.

[JMA]

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).

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).

[KingJaja]

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.

If there is oil/possibility of oil within those boundaries then they are motivated to keep the boundaries. That's Nigeria's problem. As soon as the oil runs dry, everyone is out.

[Dayuhan]

The legacy of colonial boundaries has created all manner of mess, but going out and trying to preemptively adjust them would create even more mess... and who would do it?

There have been adjustments, and there will continue to be, as the people involved force them to happen. They will continue to be very messy, and they will likely go on a long time.

[JMA]

The legacy of colonial boundaries has created all manner of mess, but going out and trying to preemptively adjust them would create even more mess... and who would do it?

Dah... the countries who keep whining about the colonial legacy.

PS: certainly not the US.

[KingJaja]

Training a dictator's rogue military generally means (that training) will later be used against the very population it was intended to protect.

Is AFRICOM still training the Congolese Army?

[Stan]

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