Bang! Bang! Shoot! Shoot, Mali again!

Mali is back on track as far medias go! It had dropped to 8th on Google’s list in World and is back up to fourth.
Why?

A very frank look back goes thus : As the international community did its usual shuffle dance of death, a well known political way of holding on to details until newer news replace your problem with anything else that matters, things got worst. A plan had been drawn up to wait and eventually, before dying of old age, pounce! The enemy, not being that dumb, and said weak plan being freely available on net, TV et al. it decided to strike first. The locals called for help to someone they knew, their ex-colonizer even though no major defense agreement linked them. It so happened that France’s Intelligence is second to none and that the threat was real to the effect of a country losing itself to AQIM & the local gang.*

Take-off, transit, release, target terminated, next. On such short notice, old-school machines now mostly used under the cover of night were dispatched. A pilot was lost. Two helicopters damaged …
and the rebels’ progression towards the South in Mopti first and then the capital stopped. The next day, 350-450 French soldiers showed up in Bamako, Mali’s capital. The local group was preserved and reinforced, the surrounding French bases activated to the mission and the Opération Serval fully launched!

The jet fighters’ bombing raids have averaged 10 plus per day since missions varying from 8 to almost 20. The old rotary crafts got back up from home and now share duty over Mali to their advantage, not so much as a cockpit grazed since. The troops on the ground made good wind. Landing, preparing, moving in, fighting! The French Marine Infantry** is spearhead with the Légion Étrangère for Cavalry Support.In three days, the fight was on in the very last towns acquired by the Terrorists.

And England was at their side with such a short reaction time that it might as well be accounted for by their wicked ghastly phone system. Canada, the trusted ally par excellence to pretty much any one well behaved and reliable UN/Nato, Belgium and Norway following suit.

Then the surprises began. The US thought it was a great idea but didn’t wanna play. The rest of the Europeans approved but most politely declined to join  in.

Medias began churning out their stuff and, lo and behold, opinions abounded.

On the fourth day, articles by reputable sources began erroneously stating that France had initially intended on air strikes only. Shocking! as the lads would say and already demonstrated wrong here :
https://dlofr.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/malian-crisis-turns-political-in-our-last-installment/

The job on the ground got on and the situation was stabilized, first, and then the surge began. A road was established and Diabaly, the last rebel gain, was taken as the  Central-Eastern “waistline” of Mali was conquered back. It has now been 16 days since the action began and the French troops are in Gao having secured the bridge and airport and a second group is inching towards Timbuktu.
Which is either to be gotten soon :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/world/africa/france-mali-conflict.html?_r=0
according to the Yankees or already taken if you’d rather trust the Russkies 😎
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_27/Timbuktu-retaken-from-rebels/

Air strikes have hit the region of Kidal and more particularly the house of Ansar Dine leader Iyad Ag Ghali and a military camp. He is said to have asked for asylum to Mauritania.
http://www.businessinsider.com/french-airstrikes-blew-up-a-key-al-qaeda-leaders-house-in-mali-2013-1

Impressive!

Which begs the question : Why are the French doing so well in Mali? Especially in comparison to say Afghanistan for example?
We did hear many times that the terrain to be recovered was the same size as Afghanistan for instance. That much is true but almost everything else is different. For both clarity’s sake and concision, let’s draw a list : Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?

Who : Mali’s government, although initially installed by a military coup and still lacking a bit in legitimacy, called for help whereas the Talibans in power in 2001 had not. France responds as the historic military & political power to Mali and the whole surrounding region of Africa.

What : Stop the rebels’ progression towards the capital Bamako; bring the Malian army back in the fight, reconquer the Northern towns; hunt the rebels into hiding in caves; let the Africans settle it in the long term.

Where : similar in size but Mali goes from jungles & forests to desert & mountains. Afghanistan is higher and mostly rocky mountains.

By which means : the French military has bases all around Mali providing a full range of kit. Being a historical actor in Africa’s wars, France’s equipment is well suited for the job.

Why : because in addition to the call of the Malian government, the Salafists and other Al-Qaeda affiliates are all over the Sahara which is darn close to Europe and potentially allows them to act in many countries and thus destabilize the whole of North Africa ( and also they asked for it ).

How : by engaging the whole range of troops and weapons available from the start on a general strategy of high mobility forward actions quickly as has proved to work before and reduce the access of the enemy to very limited resources ( save their funding from the Arabic Peninsula ).

When : from the point of danger to conflict resolution, officially “as long as needed”, most likely less than a year, maybe half of that.

Is that clear enough? We will check the details as we project our views to the future. Because you see the rapid progression of the French raises questions and supposing things to carry on about as smoothly as they are now allow this military operation to begin delivering geo-political cues to its aftermath already.

Why are things going so well? First, the historical component we mentioned is paramount. Even if saying so reeks of colonial overtones, Africa is very much France’s terrain of predilection. It’s always easier when you know the lands and people which was not the case in Afghanistan for the coalition really. Second, the reports from yesterday’s Gao operation show the French to have used the trusted land and air joint attack mode where you use fast vehicles and helicopters or tactical transport planes to project power at locations of your choice deep in the battlefield. It was successfully used in Algeria and later in Viet-Nam, both wars with political influences & results even though the battle was being won. The enemy itself, was not prepared for that kind of response but also is not as numerically potent as Talibans were in A-stan as it was under their control to begin with. That, in and of itself is the main difference between the two “wars”. The coalition invaded Afghanistan as a action to allow hunting Bin Laden as a revenge of sorts for the 9-11 attacks on the USA whereas France moved as soon as the need surfaced to interdict-react-counteract BEFORE the Salafists/rebels took control. The population of Afghanistan saw it as an invasion mostly whereas Malians see it as a liberation/rescue. And last but not least, France went at it alone.***

That last reason is the most interesting one and we will dissect it. What would be the advantage for a Nation to go into military action by itself instead of with allies? To understand that, we need to quickly explain that the American Military’s influence since the end of World War II and especially through the Marshall Plan is almost inclusively pervasive as far as the Western Civilization’s nations/allies/partners are concerned. I mean that since being equipped with American gear after 1945 and joining American-lead initiatives like NATO, most of them now fight the US-style. Of course, in each case remains a national know-how based on traditions except that the French call theirs “savoir-faire”. And may have kept more of it than the rest. For instance, of the three main European Nations, post 1945, Germany has maintained  a big army until the end of the Cold War and the present format is less since Deutsche reunification but more importantly, the voluntary restrain shown by that Nation to minimize out of frontiers use of it means that they may be … say less motivated than the other two. The UK in stark contrast, maintained an efficient army of the type that can be used to project power far away … with the corollary that it did so in close partnership with the USA all along and may thus be the nation whose Armed Forces are most integrated to the ways of the Yankees. That is the way coalitions work best, when there is a commonality of processes between the partners. It is also the coalitions’ weakness and paradox that it both reduces the skill-set brought about by a different way of doing things and becomes increasingly complicated to run as the participants rise in numbers as you inevitably end up with folks that “don’t do it right”!.  Recent declarations and the Lancaster House treaties will most likely change that in the coming years for the UK.

– force projection, with the creation of a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF). This force is not permanent but available at short notice and able to lead highly intense operations;
http://ambafrance-uk.org/Defence-cooperation
That up there is the first of the cooperation projects from the treaties of 2010 and it gave us the Corsican Lion exercise in the Mediterranean that China found threatening enough to put on its top ten list of mili practices for the year even while forgetting Bold Alligator?

As for France …
There are three main causes to the French Touch in military actions. Political intent from the start with Gen. De Gaulle was to keep France’s role in the world to its previous level following WW II. That brought about a very autonomy independent drive to its arms procurements and thus industry which explains why they still sell so much of them. And third, with the exception of the Aircraft carriers where it maintained partnership with the US tighter than anyone else, France sort of picked its own fights, which may reap the present benefits in Mali.

20 times in Africa alone since 1960 out of 30 some total since 1945! Which is why I said it was their terrain of choice earlier.

Then as the French Colonel Michel Goya said :  -“If we do it alone, it’s more efficient in military terms.”
http://euobserver.com/defence/118858

What are the possible consequences of a French success in Mali? It depends what kind of success. Doing the job and leaving  behind a couple hundred troops for 2-3 years tops would be OK. A shorter timetable would be better and the stabilization and nation building that should follow to be run by MISMA and Chad would be best. In that case, pretty much will be accomplished or set in movement.

IF it happens like that, Africa gets its first success in auto-regulation on the way to autonomy in such matters.

And if it gets confirmed, it may give the French a little added weight in building Europe’s Defence which for now is but a pious wish at best. The joint capacities to be gotten with the British will be there for basic needs and safety. Safety for Britain to have a major partner apart from the Yanks. Safety for France to rely on the renewed Entente Cordiale and the lads when the rest are dubious. In a way, pulling the UK and France together, these treaties from above pull the UK a little away from the US but also France a little away from Germany. The Franco-German couple that just celebrated this week its 50 years’ union will survive but it may bring a change in roles and perceptions in defence matters on the old continent and pave the way to a dedicated effort and structures. Maybe a split in roles amongst nations etc.

And the US in all of that, how does it gain from looking ridicule?
Well, as I explained above, comparing the US-led coalition in Afghanistan to singular action of the French in Mali is too simplistic and reducing. The hesitant quasi-neurotic waltz of Washington on whether to help or not, how much and how was disturbing but it will be lost in translation before long and the slight sting of jealousy would be a small price to pay if it did have the effect of positioning France to lead Europe’s defence building. For if Europe builds and thus pays for more of its defence then it is so many funds which at term can be saved by the Pentagon and considering its recent problems with finding a single project NOT to waste money on and the cost-cutting it will most likely get asked to perform soon, it will come in handy?

Bets are on, Tay.

* Raps on the side but nowhere as good as Kool & the Gang. Just sayin’ 😎

** For all practical purposes, 21ème RIMA should equate 21rst Marines but being didactically inclined, I’ll keep making the distinction, TYVM. 😀

*** Actually, similarities are easier to list than differences : both were based on previous wars equipment ( A-stan : Soviets invasion/Mali : Libya ) and both were financed in the oil-rich sands ( Saudi Arabia/Qatar and both are Djihadists/Al-Qaida/terrorist in nature.