US Admits...Helping the French in Mali Would be a Web of Contradictions

An interesting piece in the Washington Post carefully notes some of the concerns that exist with US aid to French forces in Mali. As most everyone suspects, the idea of ground forces being deployed is near to nonexistent. In fact, logistical support and intelligence is about all that is being considered. France, however, has sent in ground forces, expecting up to 2,500 to be available soon, in addition to ECOWAS forces and the Malian military.

See, the problem seems to be two-fold.

First, Mali's government is not exactly considered legitimate by the US government. A March 2012 coup, followed since by military junta rule, has stifled any democratic development. The US terminated assistance and even critical aid is reviewed case by case. Perhaps this gut reaction wasn't the best idea, considering how the US has treated countries under similar conditions (Myanmar isn't a distant comparison, prior to its recent actions). Nonetheless, all this means that any direct support to Mali is out of the question. Moreover, there are questions as to what extent the US can even aid France without breaking the law. Meanwhile, some reports also implicate US officials in encouraging the French to strike quickly. All in all, the politics of this conflict are already messy.

The second problem is the rebels, which, like many insurgencies, are really a collective of a variety of groups, including those the US wishes to not retaliate against, such as local tribesmen, and those that are on the terrorist watch list, such as AQIM. In a sense, the US wants to avoid the muddy legal waters it can already see coming were it to strike, even accidentally, groups that it has not declared itself in conflict with. Although the Islamist control currently being battled is not in US interests, a vacuum of power in northern Mali is not quite the solution.

So while France seems to be gearing up, the US is waffling. To what extent should the US participate? US expertise on counterterrorism in North Africa has been rapidly developing capacity since around 2002. It would likely behoove the US to not throw it all away over some technicalities and instead to find a way to offer assistance that is both significant and legal at the same time. Failing to do so could require us to lead the way into Mali later on, a lesson from Vietnam we would hope to not repeat.

The French are Invading! (Sort of)

Well, not exactly. Or at least it's not clear yet what they're doing, apart from some form of military "support" with the troops organization by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to repel rebellious forces aligned with al-Qaeda. It's not even clear if French involvement is limited to air support, which is sorely needed, or also actively includes ground forces stationed in the region. Mali has been spiraling down a black hole for a while, and it has been particularly bad for at least six months.

Nonetheless, everyone seems happy with the party, so long as they don't have to participate. The United Kingdom, European Union, and the United States all extended support for the mission and French involvement. None hinted at physical support, even though some weapons in the hands of the rebels may be the result of those made available to Libyan rebels and in the wake of Libya's rebellion. The United Nations, having urged an African-led counter to the rebels in UNSC 2071 (October) and reaffirmed it in UNSC 2085 (December), is also pleased that the Security Council does not seem inept.

However, does any of this really have to do with any of these countries or pan-national bodies? Mali was under French colonial power until its independence in 1960. Since the waves of independence in Africa, France has consistently displayed a willingness to use military force to support post-independence governments. Although France is using Security Council resolutions to back its participation, there is little question that French forces would have otherwise assisted. The French have spent the past half-century attempting to use military force to attempt to fix substantive flaws in colonial administration that led to much post-independence violence, hatred, and bickering.

So while France continues to show its role in Africa, a role that it wants to have given the still potential impact of African countries and economies on trade, energy, and precious mineral availability, the United States is missing an opportunity. Wasn't AFRICOM created for specifically this purpose? Instead, AFRICOM seems to be sitting quietly in Germany, watching at best.

It remains to be seen what will come of this military intervention. Will the rebels be driven back, or will it falter? The only given so far is who is sitting this one out.