Mali

Kofi Annan Calls Mali "Collateral Damage" of Libya

|

Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan has said that Mali is "collateral damage" of the conflict in Libya: 

Mali became, if I may put it this way, collateral damage of Libya. Quite a lot of the soldiers, Malian soldiers working and fighting for Gaddafi went back home with their heavy weapons and their training. There was already a revolution and rebellion in the north by the Tuareg group and of course Ansar Dine, the Islamist group, also joined in. When these people returned with their heavy weapons some of the Malian troops of the same tribe also teamed up with them.

The situation in Mali is only the latest lesson in unintended consequences of military interventions. NATO intervened in Libya to unseat Gaddafi, which contributed to Mali's instability. The worsening situation in the northern Mali prompted France (with support from other nations) to intervene, which in turn has motivated terrorists to take hostages at an Algerian gas field.

As it stands the French and Malian militaries have been successful in pushing back the Al Qaeda-linked militants who had been advancing south. The Malian army has retaken the central town of Konna and the French remain confident that the intervention is going well. Nigerian troops are also joining the intervention, further adding to the catalogue of developments for the Al Qaeda-linked militants to worry about. 

While it might well be the case that the French-led intervention in Mali will push Al Qaeda-linked militants out of northern Mali it is very difficult to predict what the effect of the conflict will be on Mali's neighbors or mainland Europe. All military concerns aside, Mali's neighbors will soon be dealing with hundreds of thousands of Malian refugees. In Europe, there are justified concerns over potential terrorist reprisals, a French judge warned of the possibility of terrorist attacks in France before the intervention began, and the Taliban has warned of "disastrous" consequences.

U.S. officials had said that support for the French-led intervention would be limited. However, the U.S. now looks increasingly likely to get more involved in the region due to the hostage situation at the gas field in Algeria, where Americans have been taken hostage. It was recently reported that the Al Qaeda-linked group responsible for taking the Algerian gas field is offering to free two America hostages if some terrorists jailed in the U.S. are freed.

NEXT: Obama Pressures Cameron to Keep UK in EU

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Nigerian troops are also joining the intervention”

    Quite so – this must be why I got an email fro the wife of the former Defense Minister, offering to share $7,500,000 of unused military aid with me!

  2. Kofi Annan and “a French judge warned of the possibility of terrorist attacks in France before the intervention began, and the Taliban has warned of “disastrous” consequences.”

    C’mon man, there are plenty of good reasons to question this move – but if you cannot stack up better than remarks of Kofi Annan, a French judge and the PR arm of the Talib, you need to find better sources/examples.

    1. He’s got with sad sack Kofi Annan because there aren’t any better sources or examples. He’s got to come up with something though because he’s being paid to write this crap.

    2. He’s got with sad sack Kofi Annan because there aren’t any better sources or examples. He’s got to come up with something though because he’s being paid to write this crap.

  3. Argument by authority is weak. Especially so if you’re using a sad sack like Kofi Annan to buttress you’re argument.

    We live in a world with violent Islamists Matthew Feeney. Non-intervention won’t change that.

    1. Neither will intervention, so there you go.

      1. Really? Killing Islamists in Mali won’t help the people of Timbuktu? It hasn’t kept scores of people alive in other countries?

        You josh.

        1. Killing violent Islamists won’t change the fact that we live in a world with violent Islamists.

          1. Uh kill enough of them and eventually, yes it will mean exactly that.

            1. Can’t tell if serious.

              1. Well logically, if you kill every single violent islamist on earth, then that means we will live in a world without any violent islamists.

                I said nothing about the feasibility of that plan.

                1. I suppose we could start a new offensive and call it The Forever War, because that’s how long it would last. The goal would be to kill all violent Islamists, then the ones who might become violent, then the ones who weren’t going to be violent but changed their minds when they saw family members killed, then the ones who just said bad words about us…

                  1. It would end at “saying bad words” because that isn’t violent.

                    Realistically, the only way to do this would be to kill all muslims, which of course is impossible.

                    But a man can dream.

                    1. It would end at “saying bad words” because that isn’t violent

                      That must be why there are drones killing those evil militants in Pakistan who makes vague threats against the US.

                      But a man can dream.

                      I don’t think I want to live in your sick dreamworld if it involves wiping out the entirety of the practitioners of a particular religion. And I’m an atheist.

                    2. Then you can continue to live in your leftist fantasy world, and get killed by those “evil militants”. Because if you don’t get them, rest assured, they will think of a way to get you. Or any other innocent American they may stumble across.

                    3. Or any other innocent American they may stumble across.

                      Would you think of yourself as innocent considering you just threatened the entire Islamic population?

                    4. you just threatened the entire Islamic population?

                      Lying shitsack is lying.

                      It is not unfeasible to kill all the Muslims who are really violent. They are the ones in battle typically.

                    5. “Lying shitsack is lying.”

                      Really? Check the post he was responding to. The guy clearly implies he would like to see all Muslims die.

                      “It is not unfeasible to kill all the Muslims who are really violent. They are the ones in battle typically.”

                      Yeah, because the War on Terror is totally a conventional war with conventional battles by uniformed soldiers

                    6. I couldn’t list all of the things more likely to kill you than Islamic terrorists into one post if I tried

                    7. Ugh, where the hell did all these bigoted warmongers come from?

                    8. Bigoted? Who is bigoted? Bigoted about what?

                    9. Ugh, where the hell did all these bigoted warmongers come from?

                      I kinda feel bad for the Libertarian movement that these retards call themselves libertarians.

                  2. It didn’t take whites forever to take over North America. It may have seemed like it would, but it didn’t.

                    We are only a few decades into this conflict. Medieval cathedrals weren’t built in a lifetime, nor were some of the wars during that time. Let’s be patience shall we.

                    1. We are only a few decades into this conflict. Medieval cathedrals weren’t built in a lifetime, nor were some of the wars during that time. Let’s be patience shall we.

                      When will you be heading out to take the battle to them? Stocking up on guns first?

                    2. When will you be heading out to take the battle to them? Stocking up on guns first?

                      What? That doesn’t make any sense.

                    3. What? That doesn’t make any sense.

                      So you’re just a pathetic pussy playing Internet tuff gai. Fair enough. I didn’t figure you had the sack to grab a gun and get to killing the dirty mongrels like you’re advocating.

                    4. park,

                      And aren’t you just as tough to get on the internet and encourage nobody to help these people or to promote military intervention to defend liberty.

                      What kind of liberty loving decent citizen won’t support these people and stand up, even online, to violent Islamists?

                    5. promote military intervention to defend liberty

                      I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say, that you don’t see a problem with that sentence. “You’ll be free even if we have to force you to be free and then occupy your country to keep you free, dammit!”

                      What kind of liberty loving decent citizen won’t support these people and stand up, even online, to violent Islamists?

                      Well, you are apparently one. Or do you mean that running your mouth on the Internet and calling for the extermination of Islam is all it takes?

                    6. extermination of Islam

                      Don’t put words in my mouth man. I mean I’m supporting France helping the Muslims of Mali to defeat the violent Islamists.

                      Get it, not all Muslims, not even a majority, are violent Islamists.

                      You’re ignorance of Muslims and Mali is what is shocking. 🙂

                    7. Lyle is the conservative equivalent of the liberals who make arguments like “If you oppose universal health care, you want poor and sick people to die in the streets”, “If you oppose welfare, you hate poor people” or “If you are against public education, you want people to be illiterate.” Except in Lyle’s case, the argument is “If you don’t support using the US military to ‘liberate’ country X, you oppose liberty in that country.”

                    8. “It didn’t take whites forever to take over North America. It may have seemed like it would, but it didn’t.”

                      Taking over a continent is one thing. Completely eliminating people who might want to kill you for a political or religious cause is something else entirely.

                    9. Taking over a continent is one thing. Completely eliminating people who might want to kill you for a political or religious cause is something else entirely.

                      No, more or less the same difference. It’s survival of the fittest in the clash civilizations. Always has been; always will.

                    10. “No, more or less the same difference. It’s survival of the fittest in the clash civilizations. Always has been; always will.”

                      You are a moron if you are unable to see any difference in those two goals.

                    11. “It didn’t take whites forever to take over North America. It may have seemed like it would, but it didn’t.”

                      Taking over a continent is one thing. Completely eliminating everyone who might want to kill you for political or religious reasons is something entirely different.

                      “We are only a few decades into this conflict. Medieval cathedrals weren’t built in a lifetime, nor were some of the wars during that time. Let’s be patience shall we.”

                      In addition to the point I made above, just as medieval cathedrals and wars were a waste of time and money, so is the vast majority of the War on Terror.

                    12. Sorry for the double post. Didn’t mean to repost the first two paragraphs.

                    13. Really, Calidissident, building Castles and armies to defend one’s territory or wealth was a waste of money? They should have just let the other knights kill them and take their food, serfs, women, and money?

                      Cathedrals… made the Catholic church very wealthy.

                    14. You are one of the best posters here when it comes to the art of arguing against the strawman. I’m not criticizing defending territory. I’m criticizing wars of aggression and wars over bullshit like succession of kings, religion, and other things that characterized so many medieval wars.

                      And those cathedrals were generally built by serfs with money taken by compulsion, so I don’t give a shit how much money they made the Catholic Church

                    15. Strawman? No, it’s actually a fact that Cathedrals took a long time to build and the wars in Medieval Europe went on and on for years. Facts man, facts.

        2. No, I Hugh, you Lyle.

          And every bomb the US drops on a wedding or border station or school creates far more violent terrorists than it takes out. Every day of occupation and military presence engenders more anti-US sentiment. Even the genuinely dangerous people the US manages to take out have friends and family that will hate America and teach that hate to their kids.

          1. Haha… you actually believe that nonsense. Why are there thousands of refugees in Mali right now? Is it because they’re worried about being killed by the French or killed by Islamists?

            The worse has got to be the children and family of some of these guys who hate them, but can’t get away from them.

    2. We live in a world with violent Islamists Matthew Feeney.

      Did you just call Matt Feeney a violent Islamist?

      1. Imagine there’s a comma there.

      2. Wow, I don’t remember Feeny being on the threat list – is he HiG, Talib or Jaish al Mahdi?!

        1. He’s from that new one, Re’Ason. I think it means something like “Death to Freedom”.

    3. Argument by authority is weak.

      So is ad hominem. Just because Annan said it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

      1. No, but it’s a very, very good possibility.

        Plus it depends on the subject. If the Supreme Leader of the Black Panthers tells me 2 + 2 = 4, then yes, it’s true regardless of my feelings for that person.

        If he gives me a lecture on the history of white/black relations, I’m going to hear it with a very skeptical outlook.

  4. lesson in unintended consequences of military interventions

    No such thing.

    1. Don’t cha know that the government is totally competent and moral when it comes to foreign affairs and the military?

      1. So because government isn’t totally competent or moral Lincoln shouldn’t have tried to save the Union. He should have just let the Confederacy and slavery be?

        1. Lincoln wasn’t all that moral. Pick a better example.

          1. Hahahahaha!!! And pick a better example? Who isn’t perfect? Every example is imperfect.

            No, we must let the Confederacy go because well we don’t like the negro much better and war is bad. Laughable.

            1. Abraham Lincoln is the best example of morality you could come up with? And if you think the north fought the Civil War because they wanted to free the slaves, you’re more naive than I thought

              1. I didn’t say they did. The war was fought to defend the Union. Slavery only became a reason once the war got going.

                The point I making is that Lincoln, an non-military guy, led the country into its most violent conflict in defense of an idea. Good for him.

                Now, since you don’t think Lincoln is a good example… who is a good example in history? Name him or her and explain why?

                Good luck Calidissident.

                1. The point I making is that Lincoln, an non-military guy, led the country into its most violent conflict in defense of an idea.

                  The idea that part of a country it voluntarily joined can’t voluntarily leave. A pretty crappy idea. Bad for him. The reason for the Civil War was terrible. The freeing of the slaves was the only good result, and that wasn’t an intention at the start (or even in the middle; states that surrendered at that point would have been allowed to keep their slaves).

                  1. True about the slaves. It was about secession and maintaining the Union. Secession of course was about the slaves and the war became about slavery as ending slavery became a military target, as slaves were being utilized by the Confederacy. Hence the Emancipation Proclamation.

  5. The Libyan connection to the Mali civil war isn’t exactly breaking news. I don’t see what’s so hard to believe about Annan’s point, regardless of who he is. And yes, you’d have to say that the flood of Qhadaffi’s mercenaries back their home countries was an unintended consequence of the western intervention. I doubt any military analyst thought it would be this extensive or result in such a widespread problem.

    1. an unintended consequence of the western intervention

      Again, there is no such thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.