Submit your comments on this article |
Africa Subsaharan |
Get Ready for the Mali Invasion |
2012-10-24 |
France is sending drones to Mali while hundreds of Islamist fighters are coming in from across the Middle East, preparing to defend their safe haven. According to the Associated Press, French drones will soon be patrolling the skies above the Malian desert: A French defense official said Monday that France plans to move two surveillance drones to western Africa from Afghanistan by year-end, though he did not provide details. Meanwhile, according to Voice of America, the Islamist fighters are calling in reinforcements: Hundreds of additional Islamist fighters have deployed in northern Mali. . .
African soldiers will likely lead the invasion force, with the U.S. and France supplying intelligence and operating behind the scenes. Mali was first destabilized thanks to NATO's intervention in Libya, which sent weapons and fighters streaming into the northern deserts, where they found little opposition from the government. Other Islamist fighters from the Middle East soon came flocking in to this sandy patch of ungoverned territory. Their ranks are reportedly bolstered by thousands of local child soldiers. The Libyan afterparty--the unintended consequences of NATO's little Libya misadventure--sadly drags on well into the night. Libya is going to haunt US policy for years, if not decades. When the fight for Libya was starting, and our high ranking officers were wondering out loud what the hell we were doing there is shows pretty clearly that this wasn't a well thought out, long range plan in geopolitical action. |
Posted by:DarthVader |
#9 The Islamist Jihad is GLOBAL = the Hard Boyz will be coming to Europe, the Americas, + Asia, etc. soon enuff. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-10-24 20:30 |
#8 Because they can start there and then incrementally conquer more. |
Posted by: lotp 2012-10-24 18:29 |
#7 I wondered why Islamists always fight over desolate land. Because if they try to go anywhere that is civilized they get their butts kicked. |
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-10-24 17:08 |
#6 I was starting to wonder if the massive early voting effort by the dims was to solidify to peace vote, in case of going to war. |
Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-10-24 16:43 |
#5 Good post Nimble. I wondered why Islamists always fight over desolate land. |
Posted by: Fester Clunter7205 2012-10-24 16:13 |
#4 Hear, hear NS! |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-10-24 15:55 |
#3 "It's SAND. You LIVE IN A F&$^#NG DESERT." -- Kinison |
Posted by: mojo 2012-10-24 12:39 |
#2 It's long been the goal of the more radical muslim world to obtain nukes, from Pakistan, to former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad, to the Iranian theocracy. The mulluahs don't need the justification of Qadaffi getting dumped. |
Posted by: Pappy 2012-10-24 12:18 |
#1 The biggest spectre haunting the Libya fiasco is that we double crossed a guy who turned over his nuclear weapons program. What better justification do the mullahs need for continuing their nuke development? The only way they can be sure to be protected is to have nukes. The Koreans proved the positive case and Ghadaffi proved the negative. Beyond that, any lawless state will become fertile territory for Islamists regardless of our involvement. Libya was probably destined to become lawless after the departure of Ghadaffi. Perhaps our intervention increased the probability that lawlessness would occur, but only minimally. The same thing appears to be going on in Syria where our involvement is less kinetic. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-10-24 09:36 |