The French have gone to war

[Cain]

Dr Nafeez Ahmed, one of the few geopolitical commentators who doesn't make me want to strange a puppy, points out...

Nabila Ramdani's endorsement of France's Mali intervention, supposedly "aimed at ridding Mali of particularly sinister insurgents," overlooks key factors which have now made themselves manifest in last night's hostage seizures in Algeria.

Firstly, 'al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb' (AQIM) was, according to experts like Professor Jeremy Keenan from SOAS - the most cited academic in the world on North Africa - virtually manufactured in the region by Algerian intelligence services with clandestine US support. This short-sighted policy originated with the Algerian military junta's attempts to fabricate a justification for exterminating members of the peaceful Islamic Salvation Front after it won democratic elections decades ago. The policy was reinforced by NATO's intervention in Libya, shoring up Islamist militias with AQIM affiliations across the region.

Secondly, Ramdani naively ignores NATO's strategic interests in North Africa, described in 2007 by State Department adviser J. Peter Pham as "protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources... a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment."

Mali is believed to have significant oil and gas potential.

A confidential US embassy cable (8 May 2006) obtained by Wikileaks observes that a "significant impediment" to "extracting and transporting oil" in Mali is "regional political instability and terrorist activities."

With reports of extensive civilian casualties due to French airstrikes, it is far from clear that they will be beneficial for Mali, even if Ramdani concedes they may be troublesome for France. Such military action will only lend legitimacy to the most virulent AQIM components of the insurgency.

A better approach would be to cut off AQIM at source - by reigning in Algerian military intelligence.

But perhaps that's not the point.

Original print has links.

This in particular is worth reading http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2010/07/201071994556568918.html

While the UN statement fits the catastrophic image being portrayed of the Sahara-Sahel region by the US, European and other Western interests, the truth is not only very different, but even more serious in that both the launch of the Saharan-Sahelian front in the 'global war on terror' (GWOT) and the subsequent establishment of al-Qaeda in the region have been fabricated.

These two deceptions have one key feature in common, namely that they were both implemented by Algeria's secret military intelligence service, the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS), with the knowledge and complicity of the US.

I will explain each in turn.

Militarising Africa

A Saharan front in the GWOT was planned by the US and Algeria in 2002 and launched in early 2003.

The pivotal incident that justified the launch of the new front was the abduction in February-March 2003 of 32 tourists in the Algerian Sahara, ostensibly by Islamic extremists of Algeria's Groupe Salafiste pour le Prédication et le Combat (GSPC) under the leadership of Amari Saifi (aka El Para). However, it transpired that El Para was an agent of Algeria's DRS and his false flag operation had been undertaken with the complicity of the US department of defence.

Within two months of El Para's hostage-takings, the US' top military commander in Europe (with responsibility for Africa), General James Jones spoke of "large ungoverned areas across Africa that are clearly the new routes of narco trafficking, terrorist training and hotbeds of instability".

Even before the hostages had been released, the administration of George Bush had designated the Sahara as a new front in the GWOT. Bush referred to El Para as 'bin Laden's man in the Sahel', while Jones' deputy commander described the Sahara as a "swamp of terror", a "terrorist infestation", which "we need to drain". The US military even produced a series of maps designating the Sahara-Sahel as a 'Terror Zone'.

In January 2004, Bush's Pan-Sahel Initiative (PSI) saw US troops, special forces and 'contractors' being deployed into Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad. In 2005, the PSI was expanded through the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) to include Senegal, Nigeria, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, thus linking two of Africa's main oil and gas-producing regions, Algeria and Nigeria, into a military security arrangement whose architecture was American.

With no 'real' terrorism in the region, the US, through the region's repressive regimes, sought to provoke what it called 'putative terrorists'. Algerian police, acting as agents provocateurs, provoked riots in the city of Tamanrasset; in Niger, a trumped up murder charge against a Tuareg minister was designed to trigger a Tuareg rebellion, while in May 2006, the DRS, accompanied by some 100 US special forces, flown covertly from Stuttgart to Tamanrasset, crossed into northern Mali to support a short-lived Tuareg rebellion.

Increasing political instability and insecurity, generated primarily by this fabricated front in the GWOT, the increasing repression of US-backed regimes and the associated damage to local economies and livelihoods, led to the outbreak of Tuareg rebellions in Niger in February 2007 and in Mali a few months later.

The problem for the US was that the Tuareg rebellions were proof that political unrest in the Sahel, contrary to Washington's disinformation, had nothing to do with Islamic extremism, but was the outcome of the US' own duplicitous policy in the region - what Americans call 'blow-back'.

[Cain]

Oh, and...

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-new-al-qaeda-menace-7305

Algiers has taken a curiously passive approach to the crisis in Mali. It withdrew its military advisors from Mali when the conflict began and cut off military assistance. It refers to the issue as a purely internal one. It has pressed for a political solution—not a military intervention. In turn, the jihadists have praised their restraint. The Algerians were against the NATO operation in Libya, which they feared would unleash Al Qaeda in the area. They are especially anxious that a potential intervention in Mali not include French or other Western forces.

There have also long been rumors and reports that the Algerian generals have back door connections with elements in Al Qaeda. Algeria's intelligence chief General Mohamed "Toufik" Mediene, the most powerful man in the country, allegedly encouraged AQIM's growth to create a bogeyman to justify the secret police's control of the country. An extremely secretive man, Mediene, was trained by the KGB and has run the intelligence service for over twenty years. Ghaly is said by some experts to be very close to Mediene's spies. Algeria's curious role will revive speculation about its secret connections in the Sahara.

[Cain]

And if you think, in light of all the above, that this is a coincidence, you are too much of a sucker to be trusted with the vote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21085590

Hundreds of hostages have been freed from militants at an Algerian gas facility, state media say, but about 30 foreigners are still unaccounted for.

State-run APS news agency said 573 Algerians and 'around 100' of 132 foreign workers were freed at the In Amenas facility.

The militants remained holed up at the site, APS said. About 10 Britons are thought to be still held.

On Friday morning, a spokesman for the group thought to be behind the attack told the Mauritanian ANI agency - which has received several messages from the militants - that it would carry out further operations.

Algerian officials said the militants were operating under orders from Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who was a senior AQIM commander until late last year.

ANI quoted sources from Belmokhtar's group as saying that they wanted to exchange their American captives for two high-profile detainees in American jails.

They are the Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York, and Pakistani scientist Aafia Siddiqui, who was convicted in 2010 of attempting to kill US military personnel.

An earlier statement purporting to come from the kidnappers says the raid was carried out in retaliation for the French intervention against Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), in neighbouring Mali.

Like Gordon Corera

But BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says the kidnapping was a complex operation which is unlikely to have been planned and carried out since the surprising French intervention in Mali last Friday.

SUCKER.  It's not at all complex if they had military backing, if this was a warning shot to the NATO powers about meddling with Algerian designs on Mali.  Which it so. fucking. obviously. IS.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wait, I'm a little confused. These are American-Algerian created but are firing a warning shot against NATO intervention? I think I missed something...

[Cain]

Yup.

Just because they were a joint American-Algerian operation doesn't mean the Americans have joint custody over their actions.  Who's the more proximate actor?  Algeria.  Who's the actor with the most local power?  Algeria.  Who is covertly supporting AQIM's takeover in Mali?  Algeria.

The Americans were there at the start, but it doesn't mean they have ownership of the beast they helped create.  Algeria has designs on Mali, and America's ally France, riding in to secure their territorial integrity, does not help their plans.  Not one bit.

AQIM wants a safe base of operation in Mali.  Algeria wants...well, lots of things.  A scary enemy to justify their police state.  To carve out a greater regional role.  To decimate possible contenders to its oil and gas markets.  Possibly all of the above.

The French don't intervene without American say-so, whatever Hollande might otherwise claim.  This is a White House sanctioned and blessed op.  So the Algerians are pissed.  They say "let's teach NATO to butt out of our business".  They pass along some ideas and some knowledge about the security of oil facilities in Algeria to AQIM-linked militants, who are also looking to push the NATO-backed presence out of Mali.  The plan is terrorise and threaten Western corporations.  Not enough to force them out.  But to grab headlines, make people fearful, make people think twice about fucking with AQIM directly.

And lo and behold, we have a hostage crisis.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yup.

Just because they were a joint American-Algerian operation doesn't mean the Americans have joint custody over their actions.  Who's the more proximate actor?  Algeria.  Who's the actor with the most local power?  Algeria.  Who is covertly supporting AQIM's takeover in Mali?  Algeria.

The Americans were there at the start, but it doesn't mean they have ownership of the beast they helped create.  Algeria has designs on Mali, and America's ally France, riding in to secure their territorial integrity, does not help their plans.  Not one bit.

AQIM wants a safe base of operation in Mali.  Algeria wants...well, lots of things.  A scary enemy to justify their police state.  To carve out a greater regional role.  To decimate possible contenders to its oil and gas markets.  Possibly all of the above.

The French don't intervene without American say-so, whatever Hollande might otherwise claim.  This is a White House sanctioned and blessed op.  So the Algerians are pissed.  They say "let's teach NATO to butt out of our business".  They pass along some ideas and some knowledge about the security of oil facilities in Algeria to AQIM-linked militants, who are also looking to push the NATO-backed presence out of Mali.  The plan is terrorise and threaten Western corporations.  Not enough to force them out.  But to grab headlines, make people fearful, make people think twice about fucking with AQIM directly.

And lo and behold, we have a hostage crisis.

Gotcha. Is Algeria then seeking to become... hmm, well are they looking to annex Mali, or are they trying to make it a client state of some sort?

[Cain]

My personal belief is "dismember it and prevent it from forming any kind of cohesive whole".  Actual annexation is the kinda thing that would bring down definite US wrath, in military form (last real time someone tried to annexe another country was Saddam Hussein).  So rip the country apart.  Prevent it from being a potential future threat, military or economic.  Support factions that will help bring about this goal.  Mali may not look like much of a huge threat, from our vantage point, but the view from Algiers is probably rather different.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My personal belief is "dismember it and prevent it from forming any kind of cohesive whole".  Actual annexation is the kinda thing that would bring down definite US wrath, in military form (last real time someone tried to annexe another country was Saddam Hussein).  So rip the country apart.  Prevent it from being a potential future threat, military or economic.  Support factions that will help bring about this goal.  Mali may not look like much of a huge threat, from our vantage point, but the view from Algiers is probably rather different.

Being the winners of both world wars probably does skew our perceptions a bit. I'm not that great with knowing stuff about North Africa, either, so I'm not really sure of the dynamics between all of the countries there. Though I do seem to recall there being some territorial dispute between Algeria and Morocco. Not that that has anything to do with this, it just popped into my head.

[Golden Applesauce]

So does every country in N. Africa / Middle East have its own pet terrorist group that it can use to destabilize its neighbors and justify US/NATO operations?

[Cain]

So does every country in N. Africa / Middle East have its own pet terrorist group that it can use to destabilize its neighbors and justify US/NATO operations?

Most African countries full stop have secessionist or terrorist groups operating within their borders.

All part of the fun of having your borders drawn up by people looking to neutralize outside opposition - it invariably means throwing together two people who historically hate each other more than those manipulating them.  Islamist groups are the big ones of late, but you still have classic Marxist-Nationalist types running around too.

Anyway....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/david-cameron-warns-of-decadeslong-struggle-against-islamist-terrorism-in-north-africa-8458964.html

Mr Cameron said the attack was a "stark reminder" of the continuing terrorist threat and vowed to use Britain's chairmanship of the G8 to ensure that it was right at the top of the international agenda.

"This is a global threat and it will require a global response. It will require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months," he said.

"It requires a response that is patient and painstaking, that is tough but also intelligent, but above all has an absolutely iron resolve and that is what we will deliver over these coming years.

"What we face is an extremist, Islamist, al Qaida-linked terrorist group. Just as we had to deal with that in Pakistan and in Afghanistan so the world needs to come together to deal with this threat in north Africa.

"It is linked to al Qaida, it wants to destroy our way of life, it believes in killing as many people as it can. We need to work with others to defeat the terrorists and to close down the ungoverned spaces where they thrive with all the means that we have."

North Africa is being built up as the next great theatre in the Global War on Terror.  And given how badly Afghanistant was fucked up....North Africa is bigger than North America.  Mali alone is bigger than Texas, or any two European countries.  The idea that we can win a war over such a large area of operation is foolishness.

Especially when we apparently don't know who our enemies are:

"It is absolutely essential that we broaden and deepen our counterterror cooperation going forward with Algeria and all counterterror efforts in the region," Clinton said. Citing her conversations with Algerian officials in recent days, she said, "I made clear that we stand ready to further enhance counterterror support that we have already supplied."

[Cain]

The French have taken Timbuktu and Gao, both without any resistance.  This leaves only one major town in Tuareg rebel hands.

Also conspicuous by their absence are the Islamist groups, who have apparently crossed the border into Burkino Faso.  Meanwhile, the Tuareg rebels are retreating back into the Sahara Desert, preparing for cross-border guerrilla warfare.

This isn't finishing anytime soon.

[Telarus]

Appreciate the updates.

[Cain]

UK troops to be deployed to Mali:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21240676

The UK is expected to agree to send troops to train forces in Mali, as part of a joint EU mission, at a meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.

Number 10 said David Cameron spoke to French President Francois Hollande on Sunday evening about further possible British help for French forces in Mali.

The UK said it was "ready to provide further assistance where we can and depending what French requests may be".

French-led troops have taken Timbuktu in their operation against Islamists.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said there was still no question of British forces taking on a combat role in Mali.

Uh, hello, "insurgency"?  Every troop is in a combat role, dipshit.  In fact, if I was an insurgent leader, I'd be rummaging around the spare change draw to see exactly how much of a bounty can be put on the head of every foreign military trainer.  One trainer is worth as many troops as he can effectively improve, which over a period of time can be significant.  Western armies don't like putting their own troops in harms way, especially not when there are sepoys to bear the brunt of the fighting.

You strike at the source of an enemy's power, and in the case of the Malian government, that power is its overseas allies.  Drive up the political costs of engagement with ugly killings, reduce the effectiveness of the Malian Army (which is pretty poor) and fight the war on your terms - not the enemy's.

[Junkenstein]

Great stuff. The best thing about these modern day sepoys is shown in how effective this strategy has been in Iraq, Afghanistan etc...

How quickly is this likely to ramp up? There's going to have to be a lot of "peacekeeping" either way.

I seem to recall something about the area being gold rich too. A pleasant secondary bonus given the multitude of cheap local labour and highly (cost) efficient methods of recovery. Mercury is still the method of choice in the area I believe.

[Cain]

"Ramp up" in the sense of...?  It's a guerrilla war.  It's going to be mostly quiet, with the occasional scene of bloody violence.  That's how they go.

Niger is allowing the US to use it's airspace for drone surveillance.  Whoever it was who said this was part of a more concerted push into North Africa generally, award yourself a cookie.  The War on Terror (Global Edition) may be selling poorly, but local franchises, such as the North African one, are apparently all the rage.