[Guy_Fawkes]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Ahh, maybe here's why Mali is suddenly so important;

$1:

In fact, Mali has been designated a "country of focus" for CIDA since 2009. So it comes as no surprise that Canada is one of the biggest foreign aid donors to Mali, ranking fifth in the world according to OECD figures.

The $110 million Canada gave to Mali in 2010-11 (mostly through the Canadian International Development Agency) was enough to rank Mali as the third biggest recipient of Canadian assistance in Africa. Only Mozambique and Ethiopia received more.

While direct aid payments to the government of Mali were suspended following the coup there in March 2012, CIDA's programs that deliver humanitarian assistance directly to the population are still operating.

CIDA operates some 45 assistance programs through a variety of international and local non-governmental aid partners, such as CARE Canada.

And this;

$1:

But Canadian investment in Mali amounts to considerably more — in the hundreds of millions. And the bulk of that investment can be summed up in one word: gold.

About a dozen Canadian gold miners are actively producing and exploring in Mali. Rich veins of gold were discovered in the country's southwest region in the late 1980s.

The biggest Canadian company there, Toronto-based Iamgold Corp., operates two joint ventures with South Africa-based AngloGold Ashanti and the Malian government.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadas-links- ... 56453.html

We've never seen anything like this before have we?

I still dont think it's a very critical interest, it's enough to show concern but not enough to send 2,000 troops in for.

[Canadian_Mind]

I'll say right off the bat I could be VERY wrong; but, is Mali not the primary exporter of France's nuclear fuel? If the islamists take over, not only is it an ass=pain for our companies operating there, but suddenly france has no supplies for power.
No doubt they could get relief from other countries or a steady supply from elsewhere... But that's not the kind of upheaval they need to be going through with their fragile economy. Due to the EU's economic structure, and globalization in general, if France's economy goes off the rails, we all do. So I'd chalk that up as reason number 2 why Mali should be important for us.

[Gunnair]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'll say right off the bat I could be VERY wrong; but, is Mali not the primary exporter of France's nuclear fuel? If the islamists take over, not only is it an ass=pain for our companies operating there, but suddenly france has no supplies for power.
No doubt they could get relief from other countries or a steady supply from elsewhere... But that's not the kind of upheaval they need to be going through with their fragile economy. Due to the EU's economic structure, and globalization in general, if France's economy goes off the rails, we all do. So I'd chalk that up as reason number 2 why Mali should be important for us.

blog but interesting...

http://www.fpif.org/blog/mali_france_and_chickens

[Jonny_C]

C-17 mission extended from a week to a month...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... d-february

I'd say that's a good thing.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd leave Mali to the French.

The last time someone said, "Leave it to the French", US forces ended up in Vietnam

[EyeBrock]

I was surprised to see the Brits sent two C17's to help besides the RCAF's C17. I think helping the French with logistics is as much as we should do.

Maybe a RAF Regiment Sqn for airfield defence would be nice for the Brits to sort out. We should keep away from deploying CF boots on the ground out there.

This is still very much a French issue. Those buggers still have the Legion dotted all over Africa. Got into a punch-up in Dakar, Senegal with them at a hotel bar a few years ago.

Fuckers are everywhere still.

[Jonny_C]

There are British "boots on the ground" too, which doesn't seem well advertised...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01 ... t=My+Yahoo

[andyt]

I think it's time for the Germans to step up.

[bootlegga]

There could easily be Canadian ones too - the government admitted that a couple dozen of our troops were in the region for Exercise Flintlock.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le7279904/

I'm not saying that there definitely are Canadian troops on the ground, but with our C-17 in Mali and them in neighbouring Niger, it wouldn't be very hard.

Let's hope the government is smarter than that...

[commanderkai]

On one hand, I would much rather see these Mali rebels destroyed before they set up a new terrorist haven much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Anything made difficult or impossible for Islamic terrorist organizations (well, all terror organizations, but Mali only really helps the Islamic ones) is something better for every country in the world, not just us Westerners. I don't think African countries want to deal with Islamic terrorism on top of the other shit they have to deal with.

On the other hand, this is the same sort of proactive military engagements that can certainly lead Western countries getting bogged down in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be playing Whack-A-Rebel/Terrorist in a lot of different countries if this becomes standard policy.

I think the best scenario would be Western countries supporting African Union forces with logistical and air supremacy. Generally, Western countries lack the willpower to deal with these scenarios, and the Americans are still iffy after the amount of wealth wasted in Iraq. Hopefully they would be able to handle the situation like the Libyan rebels did against Gaddafi.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

On one hand, I would much rather see these Mali rebels destroyed before they set up a new terrorist haven much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Anything made difficult or impossible for Islamic terrorist organizations (well, all terror organizations, but Mali only really helps the Islamic ones) is something better for every country in the world, not just us Westerners. I don't think African countries want to deal with Islamic terrorism on top of the other shit they have to deal with.

On the other hand, this is the same sort of proactive military engagements that can certainly lead Western countries getting bogged down in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be playing Whack-A-Rebel/Terrorist in a lot of different countries if this becomes standard policy.

I think the best scenario would be Western countries supporting African Union forces with logistical and air supremacy. Generally, Western countries lack the willpower to deal with these scenarios, and the Americans are still iffy after the amount of wealth wasted in Iraq. Hopefully they would be able to handle the situation like the Libyan rebels did against Gaddafi.

The problme is--there'

[Zipperfish]

p[roblems in Africa--

commanderkai commanderkai:

On one hand, I would much rather see these Mali rebels destroyed before they set up a new terrorist haven much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Anything made difficult or impossible for Islamic terrorist organizations (well, all terror organizations, but Mali only really helps the Islamic ones) is something better for every country in the world, not just us Westerners. I don't think African countries want to deal with Islamic terrorism on top of the other shit they have to deal with.

On the other hand, this is the same sort of proactive military engagements that can certainly lead Western countries getting bogged down in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be playing Whack-A-Rebel/Terrorist in a lot of different countries if this becomes standard policy.

I think the best scenario would be Western countries supporting African Union forces with logistical and air supremacy. Generally, Western countries lack the willpower to deal with these scenarios, and the Americans are still iffy after the amount of wealth wasted in Iraq. Hopefully they would be able to handle the situation like the Libyan rebels did against Gaddafi.

A big challenge is the African Union foces themselves are often as bad or worse than the people they are supposed to be getting rid of. It's really hard to pick the good guy when the African Union soldiers, the government Mali soldiers, the Tuereg rebels and the Islamists all routinely grossly violate human rights.

The Brits POV--and the Romans--would be to pick the side most aligned with its own interests, and back that. Americans hagve always been different, wanting to cast their lot with the moral actor. One of the things I've always loved about the US. But that said, that approach doesn't actually have a great success rate.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A big challenge is the African Union foces themselves are often as bad or worse than the people they are supposed to be getting rid of. It's really hard to pick the good guy when the African Union soldiers, the government Mali soldiers, the Tuereg rebels and the Islamists all routinely grossly violate human rights.

The Brits POV--and the Romans--would be to pick the side most aligned with its own interests, and back that. Americans hagve always been different, wanting to cast their lot with the moral actor. One of the things I've always loved about the US. But that said, that approach doesn't actually have a great success rate.

I was going to wait for when you got everything down How do you generally type up stuff on CKA? PC or some phone/tablet device?

I agree that the African Union is certainly not a great military force, but I honestly don't think that Western countries really want to get involved anymore. It's politically safe to drop bombs from 35,000 feet over having pictures of flag draped coffins from a conflict's causalities, especially when the ones you are bombing have absolutely no real AA capacity to take down your aircraft. I mean, and I mean this without any real offense to anyone, but unless Hitler 2.0 (and even then, I question) rises out of somewhere, I don't think any country in Europe or North America will be able to handle significant casualties like seen in Vietnam or World War II. As much as I think everyone on this site recognizes the long term dangers of Mali rebels being Africa's Taliban, it'd be political suicide to engage in an Afghanistan style engagement, even for only a year.

I mean, who else other than the African Union? Mali's forces seem utterly incapable of stopping the rebels. Peacekeeper forces wouldn't stop anything, and a majority of those soldiers would be from Africa or some Asian countries, and they don't have a stellar record either as of late. The United States won't, not after the shitkicking the GOP received politically over Iraq (even though Iraq seems relatively not fucked up like it used to be, although US news programs haven't mentioned the situation in Iraq lately), and the Pyrrhic victory Afghanistan seems as of late. And, for the most part, if the United States doesn't, Europe won't devote all that much, and neither will Canada. France might surprise us, but that's probably in their best interest over anything else.

Really, unless we can hire alien mercenaries warping by to deal with the Mali rebels, it'd be either France or the AU with Western support, and I see the latter much more likely.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I was going to wait for when you got everything down How do you generally type up stuff on CKA? PC or some phone/tablet device?

I don't know what the heck happened there!

$1:

I agree that the African Union is certainly not a great military force, but I honestly don't think that Western countries really want to get involved anymore. It's politically safe to drop bombs from 35,000 feet over having pictures of flag draped coffins from a conflict's causalities, especially when the ones you are bombing have absolutely no real AA capacity to take down your aircraft. I mean, and I mean this without any real offense to anyone, but unless Hitler 2.0 (and even then, I question) rises out of somewhere, I don't think any country in Europe or North America will be able to handle significant casualties like seen in Vietnam or World War II. As much as I think everyone on this site recognizes the long term dangers of Mali rebels being Africa's Taliban, it'd be political suicide to engage in an Afghanistan style engagement, even for only a year.

I mean, who else other than the African Union? Mali's forces seem utterly incapable of stopping the rebels. Peacekeeper forces wouldn't stop anything, and a majority of those soldiers would be from Africa or some Asian countries, and they don't have a stellar record either as of late. The United States won't, not after the shitkicking the GOP received politically over Iraq (even though Iraq seems relatively not fucked up like it used to be, although US news programs haven't mentioned the situation in Iraq lately), and the Pyrrhic victory Afghanistan seems as of late. And, for the most part, if the United States doesn't, Europe won't devote all that much, and neither will Canada. France might surprise us, but that's probably in their best interest over anything else.

Really, unless we can hire alien mercenaries warping by to deal with the Mali rebels, it'd be either France or the AU with Western support, and I see the latter much more likely.

yes, I agree. The African Union are ultimately aligned with our interests and, if in name only, theya re least accountable as an organization for their behaviour through legitimate means.

[Thanos]

andyt andyt:

I think it's time for the Germans to step up.

Talk about yer classic famous last words. Germans don't step up, they step over.