White House looks at “boots on the ground” in North Mali
During the Vice Presidential debate the other night, Joe Bite-Me made the comment in regards to Iran and Syria “The last thing we need now is another war.” But it looks like this administration is looking closely at joining France in operations in Mali, according to the Associated Press;
“This is not only a humanitarian crisis; it is a powder keg that the international community cannot afford to ignore,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said recently.
The Obama administration, France and neighboring African countries are all weighing what will be the most effective policies to halt the rapid success of Islamic extremists in Mali. The 15-nation West African regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, has discussed sending 3,000 troops to help oust the Islamist militants from the north.
According to Radio France International, al Qaeda terrorists have captured six French hostages who they threaten to kill if France intervenes in Mali. The UN Security Council is demanding a plan for military intervention in Mali from African nations in the next 45 days according to Reuters. So why all of this rush to war, UN guys?
While I fully support any strategy that results in filled graves of terrorists, especially of the Al Qaeda variety. But it seems to me that this administration can’t get away from Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan fast enough, where we already have a presence of troops more than willing and capable. I’m pretty certain that another half-assed show of force in some African shit hole isn’t going to bolster our image on the world stage.
I’m pretty certain that doing away with the mullahs in Iran and trying to get a grip on the weapons of mass destruction in Syria should be a priority. But this looks more like an opportunity to make the UN look effective than it is about killing terrorists and putting an end to Al Qaeda. But since there isn’t a Republican in the White House, at least we’ll look like we’re doing something compassionate and useful for a change.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Let the French handle Mali. We haven’t given a damn about al Qaeda since 2002….why pretend to start caring now?
Maybe it is because the next Presidential debate is on foreign policy. You know, gotta look tough against terrorists.
Let’s hope that all they do is look. They do not seem to have the slightest grasp of foreign affairs. Let Hilary handle it, for pete’s sake, and make the amateurs stay out of it.
Okay, PH2…to claim Hillary isn’t among the Keystone Kops down in Foggy Bottom is laughable. She’s as much an amateur as the rest of them.
Maybe it’s supposed to justify the UN global tax that obama supports.
Mali is hardly a front in the War on Terrorism that popped up overnight. It has been ongoing nearly as long as Syria, as Islamists that left the Revolution in Libya, brought their arms into Northern Mali: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/mali/
The question is why is the current administration diverting attention away from al-Qaeda to go after an aging has-been in Kony, and calling for 100,000 Combat Troops to be tossed into the unemployment lines, instead of going after known terrorists, including those that escaped Libya.
Other areas of Africa where the Islamists are on the march are Nigeria, and Kenya. But surprise, surprise, as Kenya and other African Union Nations have taken al-shabab out of Somalia, Somali piracy (a source of al-Qaeda financing) is down. Who would have thought that kicking the pirates out of their land based lairs would slow their off shore piracy!?!?
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/nigeria/
I don’t put a link up here, or email every time there’s a terrorist account, but it’s easy to keep abreast of the world headlines if you subscribe to the newsletter. Sometimes, the headlines are all you need, and sometimes you might want to get a little more detail. (Top area of the left column.)
The bottom line is that the Islamist terorists in Northern Mali need to be dealt with, whether by the French, the British, mercenaries, the AU, or ECOWAS, as do the terrorists in Afghanistan, and Syria, and yes, ground zero of Islamism and terrorism: Iran.
@Sparky, yes, but she’s less inept than the other clowns.
Oh, so it’s a “smartest kid on the short bus” kind of scenario.
Sorry, but I’m not exactly comforted by that thought, ya know?
Sparky, gotta go with you on this, I don’t find a lot of comfort in knowing that the SoS is the least inept of the sycophants surrounding Baracka.
Don’t underestimate the Circus in the Whitehouse. They have an incredibly intelligent group of clowns up there.
But yes, Hillary is the most pragmatic among them. And yes, that SHOULD scare you. And it should scare you even more that they are that smart, and are still deadset on the path they’ve taken.
And Diane Feinstein is the most pragmatic on her side of the aisle in the Senate.
Think about that.
Guys, I only said Hilary because she does have a knack for getting overseas government reps to like her and listen to her.
Smartest kid on the short bus? Don’t you mean short-timer’s bus, Sparky?
Wow.