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.

India Claims Two of Its Soldiers Killed by Pakistani Troops in Kashmir

India claims that regular Pakistani troops killed two Indian soldiers in a cross-border attack on Tuesday.  Indian officials further claim that the Pakistani troops beheaded one of the soldiers and mutilated both bodies.  Pakistan has officially denied that the incident occurred.  One Indian official described this incident as the most serious infiltration since the 2003 cease-fire.

Indian officials are objecting to the alleged killings and what they describe as the inhumane treatment of the soldiers.  Pakistan, in addition to denying the incident even occurred, has said it would not oppose a UN investigation into the matter.  While both sides are denouncing each other, they have also attempted to ensure that the incident does not escalate into broader hostilities.  India has summoned a high-ranking Pakistani official stationed in Delhi to meet with its foreign minister, to which Pakistan has not objected.  Furthermore, the Indian foreign minister noted: "We cannot and must not allow the escalation of any unwholesome event like this."  On the other hand, the minister promised a "proportionate" response to the attack.  Presumably, parties on both sides are attempting to placate upset citizens at home while presenting a rational and even-handed front abroad.  In the age of globalization, however, governments walk a fine line in trying to present one view at home and another abroad.  Pakistan in particular has had this problem in recent years, with its officials often making anti-American statements at home while pushing for military and other aid from the United States and cooperating with the U.S. on a variety of counter-terrorism initiatives (the one that comes to mind is Pakistani officials decrying U.S. incursions into its airspace for drone strikes while simultaneously providing bases and intel for those same strikes).  As far as what comes of the Kashmir flare-up, we'll just have to wait and see.

Hamas & Fatah to Meet, Rehash Disagreements

Hamas and Fatah, leaders of the governments in Gaza and the West Bank respectively, have apparently agreed to meet in Cairo under the mediation of Egypt's president, Mohammed Morsi. Although ties have warmed of late, Hamas and Fatah remain polar opposites in their approach toward sovereignty,  independence, and Israel. While Hamas refuses to renounce violence or acknowledge Israel's right to exist, Fatah, through the PA, has already engaged Israel for decades and has pushed for recognition through the United Nations. Unfortunately, Fatah's engagement with Israel has not proved beneficial, with many now viewing Fatah as a mere pawn and Hamas as the voice of the Palestinians. Nonetheless, reconciliation can have many benefits, including a possible return to the peace process. As in any process, two significant roadblocks exist: time and trust. Hamas and Fatah have been enemies not only politically, but also on the street. To imagine their peaceful coexistence under the current framework is difficult. Trust will be difficult to build quickly, and time is short, and yet moves ever slowly in the Middle East. Changes in government, policy, and even public opinion in both other Arab countries (including Egypt itself) and Israel can play havoc on the differences that exist between Hamas and Fatah, differences that may not be resolved in time for reconciliation. A two-state solution with contested multi-party democracy in the Levant may continue to be a dream as disagreements continue to resurface.

US Flexes Financial Muscle, Closes Down Swiss Bank

The closure of Swiss bank Wegelin, formerly the oldest bank in Switzerland, as a result of a criminal case in the United States, is frightening the banking community like nothing since LIBOR began to unfold. Wegelin admitted that it had wrongly aided Americans in tax evasion. More importantly, it implicated the entire Swiss banking community, noting a climate where assisting tax evasion was common practice. This admission raises the fundamental question that has been dogging the banking community since the financial markets tanked in the late 2000s: is the problem a rogue individual within the company or is the culture of the banking community? The public seems to be leaning toward the answer being that the culture is the problem and most rogue individuals are a result of a culture that encourages or accepts such behavior. This answer is not good news for banks and could perhaps spell further trouble ahead than the LIBOR scandal still in its denouement and the Swiss tax evasion scandal which continues to unfold.

We took a break, but we're back!

The last quarter of 2012 was a very busy time, and we got a bit lazy, but 2013 will be better, and we're back!

Burma takes a leap backward, anyone apart from Human Rights Watch listening?

After damning evidence from Human Rights Watch (following numerous reports), Burma admitted massive security failures in clashes in largely Muslim Rakhine. This event presents a massive leap backward for Burma. First, it indicates that violence in Burma continues. Second, it shows that the government will still suppress news and information when it is possible. There is a glimmer of hope in that the government did admit violence and its response; however, this admission only came after overwhelming evidence surfaced.

The United States and other Western countries that have extended an open hand to Burma should rightly ask the government whether it truly is moving forward, albeit without pushing the Burmese into China's grasp. Naturally, these questions and issues are extremely sensitive. The plight of this minority group should not be overshadowed by the potential opening up of Burma. Rewarding behavior that is just slightly less bad than it was previously has never previously led to good behavior. It only tests the waters of how one can maximize benefit while minimizing costs - something that cannot be afforded in Burma.

Counterterrorism: How to Gather Intel and Where to Send It

A couple of weeks ago, as detailed by Danger Room's Spencer Ackerman, a Senate report found that the post-9/11 "fusion centers" of the Department of Homeland Security are particularly inept when it comes to uncovering and thwarting terroristic threats.  It's telling, but unsurprising, that the FBI has been much more effective in uncovering and responding to such threats.

To understand why the FBI is often on the front lines of investigating and combating terrorism, one need look no further than Garrett Graff's The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War in the Age of Global Terror.  The Threat Matrix explores the FBI's long history of addressing terrorism, be it hijackings in the 1970s or the Islamic terrorism of the 1990s that ultimately culminated in 9/11.

So, if you want to effectively conduct counterterrorism investigations, and coordinate efforts across different geographical areas and different social strata, what do you do?  Well, the FBI and NYPD came up with a plan in 1980 that led to a long-standing model: the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).  There are now over 100 JTTF's throughout the country, but the original task force created in New York remains vital: just today, news came out that the New York JTTF, after a months-long investigation, arrested a man for attempting to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Another shortcoming of fusion centers: global reach.  Sure, in theory, these fusion centers answer to the broader DHS hierarchy, which in turn could have the resources to properly analyze information.  On the other hand, DHS has tended to be a bureaucratic monolith, devouring resources without a clear concept of how it fits into the broader intelligence community structure.  If we intend to have a clear policy with respect to gathering and analyzing domestic intelligence, our options seem to be: fusion centers; FBI cooperation with local law enforcement; or a "throw everything against the wall to see what sticks" approach.  FBI cooperation with law enforcement seems to have advantages over the other options, not merely with respect to efficiency/reducing redundancies.  The FBI has global reach and global clout, the result of decades of forging strong professional relationships and personal friendships with police and military forces worldwide.  The FBI was already increasing its global presence before 9/11, and since then, has only increased its worldwide outposts and its efforts to have a presence in more countries.  That combination of domestic and international involvement is essential when you're addressing a threat as amorphous and elusive as international terrorism.  It's imperative that the United States decide how it wants to address intelligence-gathering and intelligence analysis - only by using the right tools will we be properly equipped to uncover terror plots and properly address them.