The French are winning handily in Mali

Enough with the facile Vietnam and Afghanistan analogies.

|
Benoit Tessier/Reuters
French soldiers patrol the area outside the Sankore Mosque, a world heritage site, in Timbuktu, Thursday.
They actually seem to know something about this desert stuff.

Some frankly silly thoughts and ideas have been punctured in the past few days about France's invasion of Mali. Most importantly, that the French military effort to roll back the advance of salafy jihadis who had captured much of the north of the country, bringing a reign of amputations and torture to locals for what they deemed violations of Islamic law, would turn into a repeat of Dien Bien Phu, where French forces were defeated by a 45,000 man Viet Minh army backed by both China and the Soviet Union.

Or that it could come to resemble the American experience in the Vietnam War after the US had taken the lead from the French. Or, mon dieu! -- it was going to be just like Afghanistan.

No, it was never going to be like any of these places and historical contingencies. The simple fact that the United States' recent experience of war is of the long, grinding, expensive and inconclusive messes of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean that other nations won't step more nimbly and carefully in their own wars. And while I don't know terribly much about Mali, I do know that the jihadis had nothing anywhere near either the number of fighters nor the powerful outside backers that the Viet Minh had at Dien Bien Phu and the Taliban, thanks to Pakistan's assistance, have today.

So here's one lesson we've learned so far: When the conditions are right, it's easier for professional, well-armed soldiers to defeat jihadi insurgents. France's war in Mali began on Jan. 11 and by Jan. 26 it was all but wrapped up.

Of course, a lot of the jihadis simply cut and ran, giving up the towns they'd held for months and in which, as they commonly do wherever they take control of the world, they'd alienated and antagonized the residents.

Could they come back? Sure. Mali's Tuareg's have had a bad relationship with the central government since the state was founded and while both the central government's troops and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) are now eager to see the back of Al Qaeda-inspired groups like Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Ansar al-Dine, they may find it hard to get along with each other for long. 

Laura Seay, a political scientist who focuses on central Africa at Morehouse College, explained in Foreign Policy yesterday some of the specifics of Mali and why France has done relatively well so far.

How is Mali different from Afghanistan? First, Mali is not where empires go to die. Afghanistan is well-known as a place that has always been difficult for any outsiders to invade and sustain military engagement, much less establish governing institutions. What governing institutions are established have long been weak and largely decentralized structures that allow local and tribal leaders maximum autonomy. Mali, by contrast, has a longer history of at least some centralized rule. The Mali Empire, which governed a huge swath of West Africa from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries, included the renowned city of scholarship in Timbuktu. Mali's colonization by France in 1892 was largely peaceful, and the country has never engaged in a serious war until now, with the exception of a brief and violent border dispute with Burkina Faso in the mid-1980s. France's exit from Mali at the end of colonization was accomplished peacefully as well.

France's engagement in Mali is also unlike U.S. engagement in Afghanistan in that, because of their colonial history, the French know what they are getting into. There are decades of outstanding French scholarship on Mali; France is practically drowning in Mali experts in government, academia, and the private sector. This is more important than many realize; having deep cultural and historical knowledge and a shared language (most educated Malians still speak French) makes it much easier for French forces to relate to average Malians and build friendships with key local leaders whose support will be necessary for long-term success.

As long as we're learning about history, it's also time to put to rest the foolish trope so popular in some American circles that France is a wimpy has-been power that doesn't dare get its feet wet, even in good causes. This month, they've beat back jihadis in Mali, at least giving the country a chance to work out its own internal problems (which of course, it may well fumble again.)

(Below, video of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys from the Foreign Legion's 2nd Parachute Regiment arriving in Timbuktu overnight on Monday.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to The French are winning handily in Mali
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0131/The-French-are-winning-handily-in-Mali
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe