From Libya to Algeria, a bloody trail SA Aiyar 27 January 2013, 06:02 AM IST Barack Obama’s triumphal second inauguration as US President has been tarnished by Al Qaida’s attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed 38 foreigners. US analysts may ignore the connection, but the Libyan chickens have come home to roost. A major Obama achievement is supposedly Gaddafi’s overthrow in Libya. Yet a line of direct causality runs from Gaddafi’s overthrow to the rise of Al Qaida in Mali and attack in Algeria. Paranoid about the possibility of an internal coup, Gaddafi hired mercenaries from many African countries. These included Tuareg soldiers from Mali. Historically, the Tuaregs were great traders. They ferried gold and slaves from black Africa across the Sahara to the Mediterranean, and brought back salt. Their trade yielded huge wealth, with which they built the great city of Timbuktu. Then came white colonial rule, dividing Africa through arbitrary lines on maps. One such artificial creation was Mali, combining blacks in the south with mostly Tuaregs in the Saharan north. The blacks were more numerous, so the capital was the southern city of Bamako, not Timbuktu. After Gaddafi’s overthrow, his Tuareg mercenaries took their heavy weapons back to northern Mali. They joined hands with local Tuareg secessionists and an Islamist group, Ansar Dine. The Islamists soon came to dominate the new Tuareg combination. They linked up with Islamists in neighbouring countries to form Al Qaida of the Maghreb. Mali had been a democracy for two decades. But after the Tuareg revolt, the Mali army staged a coup in Bamako. Under pressure of sanctions, the army allowed a partial restoration of civilian rule, but basically remained in charge. So, the NATO intervention in Libya, widely trumpeted as a triumph for democracy, actually ended up destroying both ethnic unity and democracy in Mali. Meanwhile, the Islamist Tuaregs started moving south, taking several French hostages. France intervened to protect its citizens and greater interests. It is being supported by token forces from neighbouring African countries, but this is essentially a French/NATO move. Islamists call this a religious war. This explains their suicide attack on the gas plant in Algeria, which was planned in Mali. Other attacks will surely follow. The Islamists are not popular save in some pockets, and are feared by African governments. Their strict interpretation of sharia is widely resented. They have destroyed historic buildings in Timbuktu as unIslamic. Yet they are strong enough to take over territories. Obama triumphalism over Gaddafi’s overthrow looks comic after the disastrous consequences in Mali and Algeria. The US media hail Hilary Clinton as a great Secretarty of State. Why? For exiting from Iraq leaving behind a Shia sectarian government, not an inclusive democracy? For exiting from Afghanistan after failing in all strategic goals? For promising to close down Guantanamo and not doing so? May be Libya will evolve into a genuine democracy, but this is uncertain because of deep tribal rivalries that sparked Gaddafi’s overthrow. Democracy in next-door Egypt is already at risk, with secular parties accusing President Morsi of Islamist murder of the constitution. Of the Arab Spring countries, only Tunisia looks safe for democracy. Militarization of the Arab Spring, by NATO in Libya, unwittingly destroyed democracy and ethnic peace in Mali. It greatly expanded Al Qaeda’s influence in the region. Yet we see no agonizing by US politicians or media over their role in this sorry sequence of events. What lessons flow from this? In Syria, the US should stop the simplistic portrayal of the revolt against Bashir Assad as one of democratic forces against a tyrannical dictator. Overthrowing one nasty regime can simply lead to another. Assad is a bloody dictator. But most rebel groups are Sunni and Islamist sectarians who have little time for secularism, democracy or minority rights. US support for these rebels could be as disastrous as was support to Islamist rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The very Islamists who forced the withdrawal of Soviet troops have now forced the withdrawal of US troops. The most powerful nation in history has been fiscally bankrupted by failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Debate on budget deficits drowns out debate on foreign policy. French troops in Mali will, at least temporarily, check the advance of Islamist troops. But this has revived memories of colonial rule and is fraught with danger. Roping in troops from neighbouring countries makes sense, but these will be seen widely as colonial camp-followers, not a pan-African force. This will fuel Al Qaida’s propaganda. There are no easy answers. Obama’s Libyan strategy of “leading from behind” will not work here. The ultimate solutions will have to come from within the region. Sadly, these are not in sight.
Who cares. We call know that democracy is as good as money or as bloody as dictatorship. Just make sure it's their blood and our money.
Yeah, I was suspecting the cascade essentially as he describes it, but without really looking into it myself. But, he wants to suggest, therefore, that we should not have helped overthrow Gaddafi, and that seems plain ridiculous to me. Libya may have civil war and they may end up in another dictatorship in the end. It's still worth it. We've hated Gaddafi forever; he was a problem child in the region. And Libya gets a chance to shoot for a legitimate government now. Even falling short, experiments now will help with later attempts at limited government, just like the First French Republic is vital to the Fifth, even though there were plenty of failures and backtracking along the way. I still see it as a mostly-success story. Mali, I think, should divide itself betwee a Muslim north and a non-Muslim south, like Sudan recently did (but, hopefully with more success). There's a big geographical, ethnic, and religious divide between north and south and it makes no sense they should have to coexist in one government.
I have traveled around Mali. It's crazy what's going on over there. I think about the family I stayed with in Timbuktu quite often. I would bet money they fled back to Ghana with the first wave refugees (at least I hope they did). They were a Christian family, after all, and most all Christians in Timbuktu got the hell out very early. You see, Northern Mali is a place where Christians are actually being persecuted. It really makes we laugh when I hear American Christians talking about being persecuted here...GTFO! And for the record, the Christians were not run out be Muslims. They lived side by side with Muslims in peace for years. They were run out by Islamic terrorists. I am an atheist. I also didn't bother to read the OP.
I wonder if basso felt the same about Iraq? The circumstances were virtually identical in terms of creating a void of power to allow Islamic extremists take root. And if you cling to the idea that there were WMD's, then they are now in the hands of who-knows-who. The primary differences between the two were the methodology: Iraq involved relatively low international support and a decade-long occupation that resulted in many American deaths and all sorts of additional costs and chaos. Libya was done with the support of the international community and with the backing of the people in the country. The lack of occupation and a true Libyan government resulted is relatively less chaos and hopes that there will be stability far sooner than Iraq.
basso jelly that America helped foster more democracies in Obama I than in Bush I and II and III combined. As for the link in causality between Libya and Mali, that's what happens with neo-con adventures. They tend to have negative side effects. Thank the heavens Obama went with a multilateral alliance, and stopped short of enforcing "democracy" on the Libyans, otherwise the mess would be a lot larger. When you give arms to dangerous groups, sometimes dangerous things happen---something Reagen et. al should have heeded before they initially armed Osama and Saddam.
Out of context quotes? You wonder why your party is dying. Hey, remember when basso got all excited and said there was a video that was going to change the election? SIRENS! And it turned out to be like a 5 year old youtube clip? SIRENS!
Don't make it out to seem as though everything regarding war is a clear neocon adventure. Reagan was the action to Carter's "moral equivalent of war" rant. Close friend of the Shah (like Ford) gave Iran nuclear technology and a fleet of military hardware - such as jets, tanks, rifles, etc. I can't recall if Carter ever objected to Saddam's invasion of Iran. Carter also gave precedence to Reagan by giving aid to those forces in opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan. If the world were so black and white, would a nation of rational people tolerate such unending blowback?
you can bagtag Carter all you want. I'm not making a statement here on the nature of war or anything deeper than the fact that basso is being painfully ironic every time he posts, well, anything. Not every war is a neo-con adventure, but quite a few recent ones have been. It's good to remind some people here of that fact.
Are we going to see basso's hatred of Obama trump his chickenhawk cheering for war? Or is he just hates Obama for not sending other folks kids for a neato war of choice in Libya?
