After criticizing French plans to counter Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in northern Mali, the Obama administration is slowly increasing its support to the French, as the French military conducts a mission vital to U.S. interests as well as their own.
Mali is a beautiful country, one which I visited as a tourist a decade ago. (My thoughts from the time are encapsulated in this New Republic article). It was also the Muslim majority country which Freedom House had, for years, rated as most free. Despite being one of the poorest countries on earth and democratic, Mali was for years ignored by the United States.
Only with last year’s coup—and the acceleration of insurgency fueled by loose weapons from Libya—has Mali come to America’s strategic notice. Simply put, with the consolidation of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s presence in northern Mali, officials on both sides of the Atlantic recognize the danger of a vacuum.
Obama may congratulate himself on once again leading from behind, but his actions on Mali only highlight the fact that the president does not understand—or care—that far from resolving the problem, he is on the verge of making it worse. Perhaps France, in conjunction with contingents from some neighboring West African states, will contain the problems in Mali, but Obama does not recognize that by creating a vacuum in Afghanistan, he will be setting the stage for further Al Qaeda empowerment. No one will be able to rely on neighboring states when those states are Iran and Pakistan. And while India should take a greater regional role, it is too inward looking—and the logistical hurdles too great for landlocked Afghanistan—for it to take the actions it should to help buttress Afghanistan.
With the United States abdicating its international responsibilities so that Obama can claim to be true to his own political schedule, the question is not who will fill the vacuum Obama helps to create in Afghanistan, but rather who will be the victims of Al Qaeda’s return to Afghanistan.
"With the United States abdicating its international responsibilities so that Obama can claim to be true to his own political schedule, the question is not who will fill the vacuum Obama helps to create in Afghanistan, but rather who will be the victims of Al Qaeda’s return to Afghanistan." n nWhat responsibility? To participate in EVERY war and military action around the globe. Let our allies spend their blood and treasure for a change. And as for Afghanistan, the Afghanis have had over a decade to build a counterforce to the Taliban. If they don't fight for their homeland, they should not expect the US to step in with an open-ended commitment.
I think the more valid point is that there's a spectrum of allies in the world from close allies to sworn enemies. But Obama has clearly drawn a line that moves close allies to the neutral zone of the spectrum. Not allies not enemies just on their own no matter what. It's a kind of institutionalized nihilism, a post modernist equivalence of everything is everything and farming crops and slaughtering people you don't like and threatening genocide and drilling for oil and all that is pretty much the same thing. Which is fine. America stands for nothing and everyone stands alone. Global tribalism. Oh well, we tried civilization, didn't like it. Now we're done.
Obama did not create a vacuum in Afghanistan. He created a war. He blew on the dying embers of Bush's sideshow where we had across eight years deployed an average of just 15,000 men. Obama quickly jacked that up to 100,000 men and our casualties from the proceeding eight years were almost immediately doubled. It was a place where we had no vital interests, where we did not have to fight, where it was not necessary to win, but where defeat and a major loss of face were foreseeable. n n Michael Rubin, like Max Booth, cheered on that foolishness. They never offered a coherent explanation of what our interests there were and Michael now speaks ominously of the consequences of a al Qaeda return to Afghanistan. n nIn a post which is about al Qaeda rampant in Mali, such gibber is ridiculous. Al Qaeda is also all over Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, it is couchant in Algeria and Egypt, and many other places, but Rubin warns that if they get back to Afghanistan, then we will really be in trouble.
The real lesson of Mali is how not to fight a war. A military with more history of surrender than most have of mere existence goes in with 2500 troops and achieves in a two months, what we have not been able to do in Afghanistan in 12 years. Why? Rules of Engagement. The French did not have any ROE but one, see jihadi, kill same. We on the other hand tip toe around in Afghanistan more worried about violating ROE than killing the enemy. ROE have but one purpose, to aid and abet America's enemies. In that regard, they work great.