| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| LA Times: White House, Pentagon In Dispute Over Mali War |
| 2013-01-20 |
| [Jpost] The White House and the Pentagon are divided on the desired extent of US involvement in the conflict in Mali following the French intervention in the country and the hostage crisis at the gas complex in neighboring Algeria, the LA Times reported on Friday. While US official don't view the Death Eaters in Mali as an imminent threat to the US, top Pentagon officials and army officers believe aggressive US military action in Mali is needed to prevent the extreme Death Eater groups from taking over the country. Aides of US President Barack Obama How's it going, Sunshine?... , however, said it's unclear whether the Mali Death Eaters threaten the US. Those aides said they did not want the US to be drawn into another long-running conflict, similar to past conflicts in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #17 "History is replete with 20th Century examples of a modern, highly trained and motivated regional stabilization forces giving the heave-ho to terrorists, the Cubans, Russian advisors" actually Besoeker you have an idea there. why don't we just hire the Cubans, with a few Russian advisors thrown in? Give them the task of cleaning out Mali. They've got previous experience in Africa, and no real job prospects at the current time :-) |
| Posted by: Raider 2013-01-20 23:02 |
#16 They're real hazy on the concept of anything at all being a strategic threat. I'm pretty sure they consider the US Constitution a strategic threat. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2013-01-20 18:01 |
| #15 what shade of lipstick to wear and what will go with the new flap less berka they all wear to show off their beards no doubt? What color are the boys wearing in the map room now a days or around the coy pond while practicing flap maneuvers? Still playing pin the beard on a frenchy are they? |
| Posted by: Angeck Elmasing1882 2013-01-20 16:57 |
| #14 Amen and amen NS. They do have a totally separate agenda. They love getting involved in operations. I've watched a few in action. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-20 16:51 |
| #13 It would be nuts to go into Mali right now. The people are a critical component of the American war machine. And right now the people want nothing to do with another war. Dear Leader screwed up Iraq and he campaigned for a second term promising to screw up Afghanistan more. The people voted for it. So we're going to have to wait for something closer to Pearl Harbor before we rumble again. What we should b3e doing right now is figuring out how to hog-tie the JAG for the next one. How much does JAG get cut in sequestration? Because ti should be the full Sherman. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-01-20 15:01 |
| #12 The AU is also fairly busy in Somalia, and they have commitments still in Sierra Leone and (I think) Liberia. Did they ever get a force together for the Ivory Coast? I don't think the AU has the forces for another commitment, and I'm more certain the French and FFL do not. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-01-20 14:41 |
| #11 Lot of 52 card pick up being played, but I thought I saw an article stating the local irregulars were part of the problem and the AU is having a tough time putting something together, seeing how the usual participants are either busy themselves or have no real interest in defending Mali, leaving the French, USA, and whomever local who is still a good bet. I also thought I saw something about potential legal questions about how much the USA could officially contribute. I do hope the baddies get hit, hit hard enough to know that shtty domino back the other direction. I hope they are weak. There has also been enough time to setup a defense against a counterattack. Be a real shock to find that column of French armored cars fighting through sixty miles of ambush up/back down that one real road, and finding out the baddies have some effective anti-aircraft capability. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-01-20 13:06 |
| #10 Hell, can't we over-run Bermuda and it's neo-colonialist rulers instead? We're all set up for that right now. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-01-20 12:58 |
| #9 No swksvolFF, Sun Tzu would advise hitting them where they are weak. They ain't growing food there. I say send irregular forces in to cut their supply lines. Let them wither on the vine. Add just enough drone zaps to make sleeping outside at night uncomfortable. Mali is such a great place, I am sure that AQIM will get what they deserve. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2013-01-20 12:41 |
| #8 Sorry about the eight years of baby raping oil mongering. Hey, whose up for another little land war smack dab in the middle of a continent? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-01-20 12:11 |
| #7 You're on target Mike, at least in my view. "Hypocrisy" at many levels. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-20 11:47 |
| #6 Besoeker, I wasn't advocating the commitment of US ground forces. I was simply quoting a Whitehorse document on AFRICOM's mission. The contrast between words and deeds seems like hypocrisy to me. Just saying. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2013-01-20 11:46 |
| #5 With it's (Africa's) many ills, one could ostensibly use those, quite inclusive mission statement bullets to take over the whole of Africa...or anywhere else. I agree with Fred, where is the "strategic threat" to the United States to be found. History is replete with 20th Century examples of a modern, highly trained and motivated regional stabilization forces giving the heave-ho to terrorists, the Cubans, Russian advisors, and others of a similar ilk in the Sub-Sahara. Unfortunately our righteous leaders labeled them evil apartheid racists. They, along with the all knowing British, imposed sanctions upon them, and permitted their eventual collapse and transition to tribalism and communism. We are now to assume the clean-up mission, as the Chinese look on gleefully? We are now to buy our way out of betrayal with our own treasure and blood? I think not. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-20 11:32 |
| #4 While US official don't view the Death Eaters in Mali as an imminent threat to the US They're real hazy on the concept of anything at all being a strategic threat. |
| Posted by: Fred 2013-01-20 10:41 |
| #3 U.S. AFRICOM objectives ••Counter al-Qa’ida and Other Terrorist Groups. In our approach to counterterrorism, we will continue to be guided by the President’s affirmation in the National Security Strategy that he bears no greater responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of the American people. Consistent with the National Strategy for Counterterrorism, we will concentrate our efforts on disrupting, dismantling, and eventually defeating al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents in Africa to ensure the security of our citizens and our partners. In doing so, we will seek to strengthen the capacity of civilian bodies to provide security for their citizens and counter violent extremism through more effective governance, development, and law enforcement efforts. ••Advance Regional Security Cooperation and Security Sector Reform. We will deepen our security partnerships with African countries and regional organizations and their stand-by forces by expanding efforts to build African military capabilities through low-cost, small-footprint operations, consistent with the vision set forth in “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.” We will also seek to strengthen the capacity of civilian bodies and institutions to improve the continent’s ability to provide security and respond to emerging conflicts. Moreover, U.S. military and civilian agencies will help establish effective partner nation security forces, intelligence organizations, and law enforcement and border control agencies that are subordinate to and operating jointly with their constitutional civil authorities. ••Prevent Transnational Criminal Threats. We will build comprehensive partnerships that leverage our land border, maritime, aviation, cybersecurity, and financial sector expertise to counter illicit movement of people, arms, drugs, and money, as well as guard against the criminal facilitation of weapons of mass destruction material and technology. We will work to curb armed robbery at sea and protect fisheries, and continue to implement our Counter-Piracy Action Plan off the coast of Somalia. Consistent with the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, we will support efforts and build partner capacity to combat corruption and instability as well as to combat trafficking in persons. ••Prevent Conflict and, Where Necessary, Mitigate Mass Atrocities and Hold Perpetrators Accountable. Consistent with the objectives of Presidential Study Directive-10, we will address atrocity risks at the earliest stage possible to help prevent violence before it emerges, and bolster domestic and international efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. We will also cultivate deeper and broader support among governments and multilateral organizations to work toward the same objectives. ••Support Initiatives to Promote Peace and Security. We will support U.N. peacebuilding and peacekeeping missions in sub-Saharan Africa, including by working to ensure that peacekeeping missions are well-led, well-supported, and appropriately resourced in order to maximize their effectiveness. Within African countries, we will support those who work to overcome communal divisions in pursuit of sustainable and peaceful political processes. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/africa_strategy_2.pdf So which one of these actions do not apply to the Al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) transnationl terrorist promoting conflict and attacking peace and security in Mali? |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2013-01-20 10:28 |
| #2 Smells of Pentagon budget motivated mission creep. Provide them airlift and intelligence (if asked), and permit them to clean the stalls. African solutions for African problems. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-20 04:11 |
| #1 What's wrong with letting EUropeans and Muzzies bleed each other? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-01-20 02:28 |