Stars and Stripes: US Africom chief discusses military intervention in Mali

[Winehole23]

U.S. Africa command head Gen. Carter Ham met with Mauritania's president and an official says the two are discussing a possible military intervention, likely West African-led, in north Mali against al-Qaida-linked group members and their allies.

Tuareg rebels helped overtake Mali's north earlier this year after a coup in Mali's capital. Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and Islamist allies later took over the territory.


The official spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. No further details were available.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-africa-command-chief-in-mauritania-to-discuss-military-intervention-1.190997

[TeyshaBlue]

Hope. Change.

[boutons_deux]

"likely West African-led"

yes! and with US SOCOM guys "invited" as "advisors/trainers" only, like in VN. :lol

Imperial America knows no limits.

[Wild Cobra]

Hope. Change.
I just hope I have some change left when they are done.

[LnGrrrR]

I just hope I have some change left when they are done.

Well played WC! :lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

pull out, dont waste ur time in africa, if the black americans dont give a shit of their ancestors roots, so why should you all care??...

hence the reason why i dont take them serious let alone the UN council when u have these african nations with voting rights, all it takes is a few bribe money to get their shitty votes for a seat on the council....fkn fail..

[Latarian Milton]

it'd be fun to send an all-black army there imho, with vincent brooks being the commander

[Winehole23]

The African Union (AU) has lifted Mali's suspension from the bloc and said an African plan for military intervention to help the country reclaim territory from Islamist fighters would be ready within weeks.


The organisation suspended Mali's membership in March, days after mutinous soldiers staged a coup against then-President Amadou Toumani Toure, and said it would only be reinstated once constitutional order was restored.


The West African country, however, remains crippled by twin crises.
The leadership in Bamako is still divided after the coup that toppled the president, and the north of the country is occupied by armed groups.


Speaking in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, Ramtane Lamamra, AU Peace and Security Commissioner, said: "[The Peace and Security] Council (PSC) decides to lift the suspension of Mali from the activities of the AU.
"Mali is therefore invited to participate in full."


Lamamra spoke after a meeting of ministers of the AU's PSC which also endorsed a "strategic concept" that outlined measures including elections, and defence and security reforms, to help the return of law and order to Mali.
The document said the country's return to the AU fold would help establish an inclusive political authority.


"We are working ... to finalise the joint planning for the early deployment of an African-led international military force to help Mali recover the occupied territories in the North," Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, chairwoman of the AU Commission, earlier told the PSC.
"At the same time, we will leave the door of dialogue open to those Malian rebel groups willing to negotiate," she said.


Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said on Tuesday that Europe must help restore security in Mali and could lend support through military training to an African-led mission.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/20121024201834633430.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-pushes-algeria-to-support-military-intervention-in-mali/2012/10/29/fee8df44-21a3-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html?hpid=z11

[boutons_deux]

"the north of the country is occupied by armed groups."

and they're Muslims, installed strict Sharia law. Gotta kill them before they take over America and install Sharia in Oklahoma, Kansas, and other stupidly red states.

[Winehole23]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20991719

[Winehole23]

As French war planes bomb Mali (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/mali-crisis-militants-killed-french-jets), there is one simple statistic that provides the key context: this west African nation of 15 million people is the eighth country (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-30/politics/30095838_1_al-qaeda-qaeda-somalian-islamist)in which western powers - over the last four years alone - have bombed and killed Muslims - after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya), Somalia and the Philippines (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NB29Ae01.html) (that does not count the numerous lethal tyrannies propped up by the west (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/us-saudi-arabia-libya-freedom) in that region). For obvious reasons, the rhetoric that the west is not at war with the Islamic world grows increasingly hollow with each new expansion of this militarism. But within this new massive bombing campaign, one finds most of the vital lessons about western intervention that, typically, are steadfastly ignored.


First, as the New York Times' background account (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/world/africa/french-jets-strike-deep-inside-islamist-held-mali.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0) from this morning makes clear, much of the instability in Mali (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mali) is the direct result of Nato's intervention in Libya. Specifically, "heavily armed, battle-hardened Islamist fighters returned from combat in Libya" and "the big weaponry coming out of Libya and the different, more Islamic fighters who came back" played the precipitating role in the collapse of the US-supported central government. As Owen Jones wrote in an excellent column (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-war-in-libya-was-seen-as-a-success-now-here-we-are-engaging-with-the-blowback-in-mali-8449588.html) this morning in the Independent:

"This intervention is itself the consequence of another. The Libyan war is frequently touted as a success story for liberal interventionism. Yet the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship had consequences that Western intelligence services probably never even bothered to imagine. Tuaregs – who traditionally hailed from northern Mali – made up a large portion of his army. When Gaddafi was ejected from power, they returned to their homeland: sometimes forcibly so as black Africans came under attack in post-Gaddafi Libya, an uncomfortable fact largely ignored by the Western media. . . . [T]he Libyan war was seen as a success . . . and here we are now engaging with its catastrophic blowback."
Over and over, western intervention ends up - whether by ineptitude or design - sowing the seeds of further intervention. Given the massive instability (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-libya-islamist-bombing-idUSBRE9060I120130107) still plaguing Libya as well as enduring anger over the Benghazi attack, how long will it be before we hear that bombing and invasions in that country are - once again - necessary to combat the empowered "Islamist" forces there: forces empowered as a result of the Nato overthrow of that country's government?


Second, the overthrow of the Malian government was enabled by US-trained-and-armed soldiers who defected. From the NYT: "commanders of this nation's elite army units, the fruit of years of careful American training, defected when they were needed most — taking troops, guns, trucks and their newfound skills to the enemy in the heat of battle, according to senior Malian military officials." And then: "an American-trained officer overthrew Mali's elected government, setting the stage for more than half of the country to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists."


In other words, the west is once again at war with the very forces that it trained, funded and armed. Nobody is better at creating its own enemies, and thus ensuring a posture of endless war, than the US and its allies. Where the US cannot find enemies to fight against it, it simply empowers them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/mali-france-bombing-intervention-libya

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/15/is-mali-another-loss-for-counterinsurgency/

[Winehole23]

Today's big news (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/frances-hollande-sends-troops-to-mali/2013/01/11/21be77ae-5c0f-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html) is that "the Obama administration is considering significant military backing for France's drive against al-Qaeda-linked militants in Mali." According to the Washington Post, "the United States is already providing surveillance and other intelligence help to France and may soon offer military support such as transport or refueling planes." The article mentions that "its support for a major ally could test U.S. legal boundaries and stretch counterterrorism resources in a murky new conflict," but nowhere hints that Congress should make the call.

In the Wall Street Journal, Adam Entous and Julian Barnes report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323596204578244051858608448.html) that "a U.S. decision about aiding France's military campaign in Mali has been delayed by complicated policy and legal concerns."

Note these two paragraphs:


France has asked the U.S. to provide logistical support, including aircraft to move French troops and heavy equipment, and refueling planes that would allow French fighters to stay in the air longer. Paris has also asked the U.S. to provide surveillance assets, both drones and satellites, to intercept rebel communications and assess their movements, according to Western officials. Any U.S. support would be nonlethal, a senior Obama administration official said, adding: "They're not asking us to pull the trigger."
Administration lawyers are assessing whether providing support planes and intelligence that could be used in French targeting decisions would make the U.S. complicit in French strikes.
Isn't that something? If a small country or a non-state actor conducted air strikes in the United States, and the Russians provided that country or non-state actor with support planes and intelligence, do you think we'd need to consult lawyers to decide if it made the Russians complicit? I sometimes wonder if firing all the "administration lawyers" would be a blow to the rule of law or strengthen it by denying the veneer of legitimacy to transparently self-serving arguments.

Americans wondering why we're being asked to help make war in yet another country - already we've redirected $8 million to help France - should know that present troubles in Mali are partially rooted in the consequences of the last war Obama waged without Congressional approval.http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/a-broken-foreign-policy-establishment-turns-to-mali/267231/

[coyotes_geek]

France is a big boy. If they want to go shoot up Mali, let 'em do it on their nickel. Zero reason for the U.S. to be involved.

[ElNono]

Militants Seize Americans and Other Hostages in Algeria

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/world/africa/islamists-seize-foreign-hostages-at-algeria-gas-field.html?hp

here we go...

[Wild Cobra]

Militants Seize Americans and Other Hostages in Algeria

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/world/africa/islamists-seize-foreign-hostages-at-algeria-gas-field.html?hp

here we go...
I hope they don't expect the USA to break them out. Algeria has been a nation warned by the State department not to visit. Their employers can arrange to get them out.

[boutons_deux]

I hope they don't expect the USA to break them out. Algeria has been a nation warned by the State department not to visit. Their employers can arrange to get them out.

oilcos don't GAF about state department warnings. State departments and military WORK FOR oilcos.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope they don't expect the USA to break them out. Algeria has been a nation warned by the State department not to visit. Their employers can arrange to get them out.

No man left behind is not a motto in WC's world apparently.

[Winehole23]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/9978635/Francois-Hollandes-camel-eaten-in-Mali.html

[BradLohaus]

For obvious reasons, the rhetoric that the west is not at war with the Islamic world grows increasingly hollow with each new expansion of this militarism.

Arab Muslims stole North Africa's land 1300 years ago on their way to Europe. It's always been at least a cold war, at best.

[Winehole23]

I'm from Missouri, show me. There's a lot of time between 1300 years ago and now.

[symple19]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/9978635/Francois-Hollandes-camel-eaten-in-Mali.html

:lol

[boutons_deux]

The US Diaspora of Terror in Africa


about so many other areas of the continent that, since AFRICOM was set up, had been wracked by coups, insurgencies, violence, and volatility?

A careful examination of the security situation in Africa suggests that it is in the process of becoming Ground Zero for a veritable terror diaspora set in motion in the wake of 9/11 that has only accelerated in the Obama years. Recent history indicates that as US “stability” operations in Africa have increased, militancy has spread, insurgent groups have proliferated, allies have faltered or committed abuses, terrorism has increased, the number of failed states has risen, and the continent has become more unsettled.

The signal event in this tsunami of blowback was the US participation in a war to fell Libyan autocrat Muammar Qaddafi that helped send neighboring Mali, a US-supported bulwark against regional terrorism, into a downward spiral, prompting the intervention of the French military with US backing. The situation could still worsen as the US armed forces grow ever more involved. They are already expanding air operations across the continent, engaging in spy missions for the French military, and utilizing other previously undisclosed sites in Africa.

The Terror Diaspora

In 2000, a report prepared under the auspices of the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute examined (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=199) the “African security environment.” While it touched on “internal separatist or rebel movements” in “weak states,” as well as non-state actors like militias and “warlord armies,” it made no mention of Islamic extremism or major transnational terrorist threats. In fact, prior to 2001, the United States did not recognize (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm) any terrorist organizations in sub-Saharan Africa.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, a senior Pentagon official claimed (http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=44256) that the US invasion of Afghanistan might drive “terrorists” out of that country and into African nations. “Terrorists associated with al Qaeda and indigenous terrorist groups have been and continue to be a presence in this region," he said. "These terrorists will, of course, threaten US personnel and facilities.”

When pressed (http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/8801.htm) about actual transnational dangers, the official pointed to Somali militants but eventually admitted that even the most extreme Islamists there “really have not engaged in acts of terrorism outside Somalia.” Similarly, when questioned about connections between Osama bin Laden’s core al-Qaeda group and African extremists, he offered only the most tenuous links, like bin Laden’s “salute” to Somali militants who killed US troops during the infamous 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident.

Despite this, the US dispatched (http://www.hoa.africom.mil/pdfFiles/Fact%20Sheet.pdf) personnel to Africa as part of Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) in 2002. The next year, CJTF-HOA took up residence at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, where it resides to this day on the only officially avowed US base in Africa.

As CJTF-HOA was starting up, the State Department launched (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Africa-t.html?ref=magazine&_r=0) a multi-million-dollar counterterrorism program, known as the Pan-Sahel Initiative, to bolster the militaries of Mali, Niger, Chad, and Mauritania. In 2004, for example, Special Forces training teams were sent (http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=27112) to Mali as part of the effort. In 2005, the program expanded (http://web.archive.org/web/20070115212856/http:/www.defenselink.mil/news/May2005/20050516_1126.html) to include Nigeria, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia and was renamed (http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/6155/trans-saharan-conference-focuses-on-expanding-part) the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership.

Obama’s Scramble for Africa

The US-backed war in Libya and the CIA’s efforts in its aftermath are just two of the many operations that have proliferated across the continent under President Obama. These include a multi-pronged military and CIA campaign against militants in Somalia, consisting of intelligence operations, a secret prison, helicopter attacks, drone strikes (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/24/us-drone-strike-kills-4-in-somalia/), and US commando raids; a special ops expeditionary force (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/) (bolstered by State Department (http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/us-hackers-take-cyber-war-to-alqaeda-sites-20120524-1z7rs.html) experts) dispatched to help capture or kill Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony and his top commanders in the jungles (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-centralafrica-rebels-uganda-idUSBRE9320QW20130403) of the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo; a massive influx of funding for counterterrorism operations across East Africa; and, in just the last four years, hundreds of millions of dollars spent arming and training West African troops to serve (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world/africa/west-fears-for-malis-fate-after-french-forces-leave.html?pagewanted=all) as American proxies on the continent. From 2010-2012, AFRICOM itself burned through $836 million as it expanded its reach across the region, primarily via programs to mentor, advise, and tutor African militaries.

In recent years, the US has trained (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-13/world/35457783_1_somalia-al-qaeda-qaeda) and outfitted soldiers from Uganda, Burundi, and Kenya, among other nations, for missions like the hunt (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-centralafrica-rebels-uganda-idUSBRE9320QW20130403) for Kony. They have also served as a proxy force (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-24/world/35282573_1_shabab-somalia-somali-americans) for the US in Somalia, part of the African Union Mission (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/world/africa/somalia-thousands-of-peacekeepers-have-died-during-mission-un-says.html?_r=0) (AMISOM) protecting the US-supported (http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Transcript/7260/transcript-us-policy-in-somalia--no-direct-support) government in that country’s capital, Mogadishu. Since 2007, the State Department has anted up about $650 million in logistics support, equipment, and training for AMISOM troops. The Pentagon has kicked in an extra $100 million since 2011.

The US also continues funding African armies through the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership and its Pentagon analog, now known as Operation Juniper Shield, with increased support flowing to Mauritania and Niger in the wake of Mali’s collapse. In 2012, the State Department and the US Agency for International Development poured approximately $52 million into the programs, while the Pentagon chipped in another $46 million.

In the Obama years, US Africa Command has also built a sophisticated logistics system officially known (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175574/) as the AFRICOM Surface Distribution Network, but colloquially referred to as the “new spice route (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175567/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_america%27s_shadow_wars_i n_africa_/).” Its central nodes are in Manda Bay, Garissa, and Mombasa in Kenya; Kampala and Entebbe in Uganda; Bangui and Djema in Central African Republic; Nzara in South Sudan; Dire Dawa in Ethiopia; and the Pentagon’s showpiece African base, Camp Lemonnier.

In addition, the Pentagon has run (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-21/world/37905284_1_drone-bases-unarmed-predator-drones-surveillance-drones) a regional air campaign using drones and manned aircraft out of airports and bases across the continent including Camp Lemonnier, Arba Minch airport in Ethiopia, Niamey (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/world/africa/in-niger-us-troops-set-up-drone-base.html?pagewanted=all) in Niger, and the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean, while private contractor-operated surveillance aircraft have flown missions out of Entebbe, Uganda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-expands-secret-intelligence-operations-in-africa/2012/06/13/gJQAHyvAbV_story.html). Recently,Foreign Policy reported (http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/01/mapped_the_us_militarys_presence_in_africa_this_sp ring) on the existence of a possible drone base in Lamu, Kenya.

Another critical location is Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-13/world/35462541_1_burkina-faso-air-bases-sahara/3), home to a Joint Special Operations Air Detachment and the Trans-Sahara Short Take-Off and Landing Airlift Support initiative that, according to military documents, supports “high risk activities” carried out by elite forces from Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. Lieutenant Colonel Scott Rawlinson, a spokesman for Special Operations Command Africa, told me that the initiative provides “emergency casualty evacuation support to small team engagements with partner nations throughout the Sahel,” although official documents note that such actions have historically accounted for just 10 percent of monthly flight hours.
While Rawlinson demurred from discussing the scope of the program, citing operational security concerns, military documents indicate that it is expanding rapidly. Between March and December of last year, for example, the Trans-Sahara Short Take-Off and Landing Airlift Support initiative flew 233 sorties. In just the first three months of this year, it carried out 193.

AFRICOM spokesman Benjamin Benson has confirmed to TomDispatch that US air operations conducted from Base Aerienne 101 in Niamey, the capital of Niger, were providing “support for intelligence collection with French forces conducting operations in Mali and with other partners in the region.” Refusing to go into detail about mission specifics for reasons of “operational security,” he added that, “in partnership with Niger and other countries in the region, we are committed to supporting our allies… this decision allows for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations within the region.”


http://www.thenation.com/article/174847/us-diaspora-terror-africa#axzz2Wh1YrncF

The MIC gets whatever it wants, no matter which party is in power, to keep sucking down taxpayers' $100Bs

[RandomGuy]

Like it or not Africa's oil makes Africa's problems... ours too.

Don't like it? Quit using oil.

If you aren't willing to do that, pony up the money for Africom to bulk up.

Spend it one way, spend it another.

Renewables that don't require us to use oil are the only real answer that makes any economic sense.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think Africom exists for oil, but only to go after Muslims, and to keep them from over running weak countries

(but really, it's nothing but wealth-sucking make-work for the MIC).

[RandomGuy]

I don't think Africom exist for oil, but only to go after Muslims, and to keep them from overrrunning weak countries

(but really, it's nothing but wealth-sucking make-work for the MIC).

Pentagon's New Map

[BobaFett1]

Like it or not Africa's oil makes Africa's problems... ours too.

Don't like it? Quit using oil.

If you aren't willing to do that, pony up the money for Africom to bulk up.


Renewables you libs cry about them but the technolgy is not 100% there to make the economy run. If someone can up with better technolgy and no scams like Solyndra than you can go for it,.

Spend it one way, spend it another.

Renewables that don't require us to use oil are the only real answer that makes any economic sense.

[BobaFett1]

Renewable technology is not there yet to make economy go.

[BobaFett1]

I'm from Missouri, show me. There's a lot of time between 1300 years ago and now.

true that

[RandomGuy]

Renewables you libs cry about them but the technolgy is not 100% there to make the economy run. If someone can up with better technolgy and no scams like Solyndra than you can go for it.

Solyndra represented a rather small % of the overall money spent. Look it up, and don't take my word for it. If your metric is to never have any company ever go under that might accept a research grant, you will act to hinder the market rather than encourage it.

We don't need some "100%" solution, and no one is really advocating that in the short term.

Even a modest renewable target for electricity and a slowly declining dependency on oil would be enough to start us on the road of insulating ourselves from the price shocks that come with dependence on depletable finite commodities like oil, which was ultimately my point.

It might surprise you, but renewable costs have been coming down, and look to continue that trend. The overall costs are approaching market costs for hydrocarbons. Asia and Africa moving up the energy damand scale will make hydrocarbons more and more expensive over time as 3,000,000,000 human beings suddenly find themselves able to bid against you for each new gallon of gas.

[Winehole23]

According to intelligence analyst Stratfor, “with this agreement, the U.N. is . . . circumventing its own mandate and rules of engagement by allowing the French to conduct combat operations without [adhering] to the same limitations and constraints of . . . African forces. This unconventional approach likely stems from the fact that the peacekeepers are facing a more complex militant threat than in most . . . operations, compelling them to employ the French to project firepower that U.N. forces . . . cannot [under their mandate].”


France has withdrawn some of the 4,000 troops it deployed to Mali at the height of Operation Serval in February but is maintaining troop strength at 3,200 until all parties accept results from the presidential elections. U.N. forces are responsible for security during stabilization. However, only half of the 11,200 troops that could be deployed are in country.


Stratfor estimates that “at this level, the troops are capable of continuing to secure population centers.” Moreover, attacks by militants in the cities or against security forces throughout the country have not occurred in recent months, the analyst notes, even though tensions between the Malian military and northern Mali's Arab and Tuareg populations pose security threats and jihadists retain an offensive capability.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_09_2013_p13-605715.xml&p=1