IMHO the main reason going there matters is that a legitimate Malian government asked for help. As their request ties in nicely with goals of stability in the region, honouring it makes sense.
AFAIK, the UK’s involvement so far has been limited to a) loan of some strategic airlift capability to the French b) special forces on the ground and c) military advisors trying to shore up the Malian military and the militaries of neighbouring nations.
As to why we got involved on point a): the entire EU has eight strategic airlift planes, all of them belong to the UK’s RAF, b) was (largely) inevitable. c) is taking place as part of a wider EU training mission which, IIRC, also includes German, Swedish and French advisors.
As to why France and the UK have got involved: the EU as a whole has an interest in maintaining a semblance of stability in its backyard. An unstable Mali could have destabilised the entire region, including Algeria and Morocco. As there’s only two militaries in Europe worth a damn, the British and the French, it was obvious that one or both would be doing the heavy lifting. Further, the regional council doesn’t seem to have covered itself in glory in rushing to Mali’s aid…
Keep in mind that the Malian regime is a military junta that overthrew a democratic government.
True, and there has been shady stuff going on there that has been condemned by the international community. But there were reasons for their taking control as well. And then asking for outside help further legitimises them. (Yeah, circular but true.)
I think that’s the reason to go: being asked for support in a cause that we do support. My personal jury is not out on the matter, because you never really know until hindsight finally shows up in the rearview mirror. But so far it makes sense to me.
Britain will offer to work alongside Algerian forces on counter-terrorism as part of a joint security partnership announced by David Cameron in Algiers on Wednesday evening.
[…]
His offer of a joint security compact – including access to UK intelligence and the deployment of a limited number of British soldiers – comes in the wake of the attack on an Algerian natural gas plant that left 37 foreigners dead, including up to six Britons.
At a press conference following the talks, standing alongside the silent Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Cameron promised the two countries would stand together in the fight against terrorism.
Like I said, we’re a Hydrocarbon Protection Force. France can’t do the Algerian bit for obvious reasons.
And:
(Reuters) - France has ordered special forces to protect uranium sites run by [French] state-owned Areva in Niger as the threat of attacks on its interests rises after its intervention against rebels in Mali, a military source said on Thursday.
[…]
Defense ministry officials declined to comment on the report and Areva said it did not talk about security issues.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-mali-rebels-niger-areva-idUSBRE90N0OD20130124
Sure it is :rolleyes:
It wasn’t a part of French Equatorial Africa.
In case anyone is wondering, Mali was part of French West Africa.
It’s been established British and French (and American) doctrine for centuries that we use our navies to keep the sea lanes open for trade. Given the importance of petrochemicals to modern Western life, it’s almost inevitable we’d start using our armies to protect sources of oil. I’m not even sure there’s anything wrong with that.
More exactly, to sum up :
-The Malian president was overthrown one year ago or so by a seemingly inept military officer, who immediatly lost control of the situation.
-The Touareg independantists then seized the northern half of the country while the Malian army (trained at great cost by France and the USA) essentially ran away.
-The Jidahists in turn kicked out the Tuaregs and installed a Taliban-like regime.
At thiw point what was planned was a military intervention by African forces (African Union and West Africa community) along with a retrained Malian army, and with some suppport (special forces, intelligence, etc…) from western countries. This operation was planned for the autumn of 2013, due to various organization and climate issue.
This January, the Jihadists suddenly launched an attack towards the South, taking some cities and threatening the capital. So, France had to to send troops in emergency to stop the offensive (and while they were at it, reconquer the North). They were immediately followed by hastily gathered African forces (from Chad and Nigeria, perhaps Ivory Coast and Senegal, can’t remember). From what I see, the Malian army seems to mostly follow and be handed the towns when they’re retaken.
Other western countries were supportive but not overtly enthralled by this sudden operation (for instance the USA only rented two transport aircrafts to France along with 80 soldiers to man them from France).
The issue isn’t Malian ressources, but the activity of Jihadists in the Sahara, Sahel and in the numerous bordering countries. As mentioned previously they brought things to a new scale (from abducting the occasional westerner to actual military operations) since many weapons came from a disorganized Libya (and it is said, funds came from the Gulf countries). The Jihadists aren’t numerous, but hardened (many having participated in the Algerian civil war, for instance). Their version of Islam is also completely at odds with what is prevailing in the area, which resulted in the destruction of religious monuments, priceless manuscript collections, etc.. (besides the application of a strict version of the Sharia totally unheard off in this region)
I’m unclear about who is actually in charge in Mali currently. There’s a new unelected president, but the coup leader apparently still have enough influence to decide unilaterally to kick out the prime minister at a whim.
How long until the first IED, and how long to the action becomes and ‘occupation’?
As mentioned, the current Malian government isn’t exactly legitimate.
The idea currently is to leave as soon as the “liberation” part is over and let the African Union forces handle the “occupation” part.
I assume you mean that’s how it’s being sold to the public.
Oh, no. Not at all. He/she -as many others on this thread - were at the meeting and took notes.
How about in 1951 when Iran decided to boot BP out and nationalise its oil and Britain started a blockade which prevented them selling their oil on the open market. One of many examples of us not keeping the sea lanes open when it didn’t suit us to. Are we keeping sea lanes open for trade or for our own trade? That’s a question that answers itself if you look at our colonial history and various naval squabbles with other colonial powers over who gets to rob the goodies.
Also, too. Imagine you’re an Iranian living under the democratically-elected Mossadeq government that is then replaced by the USA/Britain with a hideous repressive dictatorship that manges to kill or torture at least one member of almost every Iranian family over the next few decades. Living your life under that tyranny, would you upon mature consideration think there was anything wrong with Britain and America using its military power to protect sources of oil?
It was what was planned originally. Without the unexpected attack by the Jihadists, there wouldn’t have been troops on the ground (apart, again, from some special forces). That’s the first reason why I believe that the intent really isn’t to keep regular troops there.
The second reason was that an early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan was one of the electoral promises of French president Hollande. During his January 1st TV speech, he emphathized that all fighting troops had actually been withdrawn for Christmas. Only to have to announce 2 weeks later that he was sending forces to Mali. That’s the second reason I believe there never was an intent to do so, and that it wouldn’t have happened without the unexpected offensive.
Of course, now, those troops are actually there retaking Northern Mali, and since African and Malian forces had to be sent too in a hurry 9 months before what was planned without preparation, maybe they aren’t ready for this occupation task. Nevertheless, I still believe that the French government, if it’s possible, really intend to withdraw its troops. Especially since everybody knows how well it turns when western forces end up facing an islamist rebellion. Nobody wants to be taken in this again. Then, will it be possible and when? I don’t know, of course.
It’s pretty obvious I meant “keeping the sea lanes open for our own purposes”.
It seems I was wrong. 
Today’s “Le Monde” titles “France in Mali for a long time” (subtitle : “African armies will have a hard time taking over”). Didn’t read the articles yet.