Predictions? Could Mali be the next terrorist stronghold?

We’re hearing more and more about terrorism – the administration embraced the word over the weekend – in west and north Africa during the last week or so, and I find the situation in Mali disturbing. The military wing of our government sees a big area of concern, but the politicians don’t see it that way.

The new standard – as of this week – seems to be direct threat or threats to the U.S. homeland. If there is no direct threat… From the Los Angeles Times.

The widening war in Mali has opened divisions between the White House and the Pentagon over the danger posed by a mix of Islamist militant groups, some with murky ties to Al Qaeda, that are creating havoc in West Africa.

Although no one is suggesting that the groups pose an imminent threat to the United States, the French military intervention in Mali and a terrorist attack against an international gas complex in neighboring Algeria have prompted sharp Obama administration debate over whether the militants present enough of a risk to U.S. allies or interests to warrant a military response.

Although I understand the basics of the Mali/French relationship and history, I still do not know why it’s perfectly acceptable for the French to unilaterally put troops and equipment on the ground in Mali, while action by the United States in various parts of the world – which was never unilateral and was only done after months and months of careful thought – was the worst thing evah.

“No one here is questioning the threat that AQIM poses regionally,” said an [Obama] administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing internal deliberations. “The question we all need to ask is, what threat do they pose to the U.S. homeland? The answer so far has been none.”

Isolationism? If you don’t attack us, do what you want? They are a serious regional threat, but not a threat outside the region?

So far.  The same could have been said in Afghanistan, after our intervention in that country drove the Soviet army into retreat and the Soviet Union into collapse in the late 1980s.  The US and the world benefited from the collapse of that tyranny, but less than ten years later, the failed state of Afghanistan served as a base for the AQ core that launched deadly attacks on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, two American embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and of course 9/11.

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air wrote the above, and I have to wonder at what point do these terrorists cross the line? It seems all but certain our previous doctrine of “fight them there so we don’t have to fight or deal with the aftermath here” is out the window.

As a chaser, read this from Sweetness & Light.

4 replies
  1. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    isn’t it already?? if we are getting wisps of info from the admin through their stellar ‘intelligence’ and the msm, it’s probably already too late.? much like the middle east, africa is a gift that keeps on giving. . .

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    Al Qaeda has proved that there is not any line they will not cross. They, and their franchises, need a training base from which to launch their religion, terror.
    The US will undoubtedly get sucked deeper and deeper into the abyss that is the old colonies of Europe. In countries where there is only a tradition of suzerainty, there is no history of self-rule. Add in a continued presence and interference from foreign businesses, any government is at the mercy of alien interests. Mali’s natural resources are exploited by other countries; as the third or fourth largest producer of gold in Africa, Mali’s population benefits little.? While statistical averages are just numbers, the average Mali citizen lives on around $1.25 (US) per day. That is a harsh reality.

    Islam and revolution offer equality and parity with the developed world’s population. Perhaps that is an unintended consequence of the Internet. Death, as a soldier of jihad,? offers a passage to paradise. What is there to lose in an alliance with Al Qaeda?

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    As always, an RVO post has led me to try to understand why “organized” religions kill, torture and maim in the name of God. I reason, if only we study the past enough, we can solve this mystery. ?I read? Fascinating, religions managed to civilize themselves. ?Why is there no strong upswelling of Islam believers to control their own and stop The fatwa and sharia law? ?Is our only way of protecting ourselves to kill everyone last one of these fanatics? ?Well we can’t, if all of the civilized nations are bent on weakening themselves through financial ruin. ?The selfish who are demanding to be supported, will ultimately allow fanatics to overwhelm us. Maybe we are becoming less civilized.?

  4. dennis
    dennis says:

    I am not a conspiratorial believer at all, but the statement made by the administrations anonymous source speaks volumes to me. Disarm the Populace,(gun control) Shrink and strip down the military, (budget cuts) unprotected borders(immigration policy of open borders) destroy our missile defenses, alienate our Allies and you soon are an easy target for terrorist to attack openly and take over areas litle by little. Also stop the flow of fuel to the USA by controlling those countries and because we have an administration that stops our own production of energy. we are left to the mercy of other countries.? So this is the fudamental change we voted for Twice. Nice going low info and kool aid drinkers.

Comments are closed.