Our enemies continue to wage war on us and they have a new address:
"There is a growing network of violent extremist organizations and it appears to me very likely that some of the terrorists who participated in the attack in Benghazi have at least some linkages to AQIM," General Carter Ham, head of Africa Command, told reporters in Paris.
I'm not saying that we should lead the counter-attack in Mali. I still think this should be left to France. They want a sphere of influence? Let them lead. But this is what happens when you lead from behind. You need willing bodies to take point.
We mounted an invasion of Afghanistan in less than half the time back in 2001 after the original September 11th attack. We couldn't have managed some drones and cruise missiles on AQIM targets in northern Mali since the defeat in Benghazi?
But no, we are content to let al Qaeda retain their Mali sanctuary for at least 6 more months while we train, organize, and supply African forces (Mali, ECOWAS, Algerian, and South African) to do the job next year.
Where are the French? They led NATO into Libya last year. They even jumped the gun to get in the first air strikes. Why won't they send a Foreign Legion regiment to lead the counter-attack?
Oh, but the French have an excuse--they're busy dealing with Syria:
Six Gulf Arab states recognized the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces on Monday and France followed suit the next day, unlike its European partners.
President Francois Hollande's decisive posture on Syria recalled that of his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy on Libya last year, when France led calls for NATO action to protect civilians which effectively helped Libyan rebels topple Muammar Gaddafi.
So France has a good excuse to do nothing in Mali--it has to keep its forces free in case they are needed in Syria. Like they'd actually do that. Call it "avoiding from the front."
I'm sure we have all the time in the world to deal with an al Qaeda safe haven. What are they going to do? Use the time we give them?
UPDATE: So, perhaps the attack goes in before April. Or maybe after September:
"You won't have boots on the ground in northern Mali until everything is ready to go," said a Bamako-based diplomat following the situation closely who asked not to be named.
"It is quite conceivable that there will be no military action for up to a year. Any intervention will probably need to be before April or after September," the diplomat said, referring to complications arising from the mid-year rainy season.
The fall of Mali's north to Islamists, including AQIM, al Qaeda's North African wing, has carved out a safe haven for militants and international organized crime, stirring fears of attacks in West Africa and in Europe.
Take your time. What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, and now the plan says 4,000 African troops come in to lead the offensive. That's a reduction of the ECOWAS, Algerian, and South African contingents recently talked about. What happened to the minimum of 7,000 talked about? Will 3,000 Mali troops be ready by then? Or will 3,000 French still be at the pointy end of the spear?
