The Obama administration has thrown its full support behind an upcoming United Nations-orchestrated invasion of northern Mali, with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveling the region prodding assorted African regimes into supporting and supplying troops for the controversial scheme. Even as the U.S. government and assorted Muslim dictatorships openly arm Islamists in nations like Syria, the international coalition preparing to invade Mali claims the plot is aimed at quashing Islamic extremism.
According to officials cited in news reports, the U.S. government is already expanding its “intelligence-gathering” operations in Mali and the surrounding area, including through the use of unmanned aerial surveillance drones. While UN-led troops from the “Economic Community of West African States” (ECOWAS) and the so-called “African Union” are expected to do most of the fighting, Western powers like the new Socialist government of France and the Obama administration will play a key role as well.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has also been stepping up military aid to regimes ruling countries around Mali in preparation for the upcoming intervention, showering vast sums of American taxpayer dollars and borrowed money on a motley assortment of regional despots. Ironically, it was a U.S.-trained Malian officer who led elements of the former regime’s U.S.-funded military to stage a coup in the capital city of Bamako, paving the way for nomadic Tuareg rebels and Islamists to seize the vast northern region of Mali and declare independence.
Joint U.S. military exercises with West African regimes and the Socialist government of France, which is among the chief proponents of the invasion, have been ongoing for months. More recently, U.S. forces completed a two-week “war-game” exercise aimed at preparing American soldiers to battle alleged “militants” in the region. Ironically, again, those same rebels currently in the crosshairs acquired vast stockpiles of arms as a direct result of Obama’s lawless and unconstitutional war on nearby Libya purportedly “authorized” by the UN.
Last month, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution “determining that the situation in Mali constitutes a threat to international peace and security.” As such, it declared its “readiness” to deploy an “international military force” to invade the country to prop up the embattled and dubious “transitional” regime ruling a small area of the country from Bamako. The word “democracy” has been used more than a few times, but the socialist “transitional” government, led by a Soviet-educated politician, was not elected to power.
The Security Council resolution also purported to authorize the deployment of UN “military and security planners” to plot the invasion of Mali in coordination with African regimes and self-styled regional authorities. Finally, the document calls on the European Union and the African Union as well as UN member governments — mostly dictatorships — to “provide coordinated support to these regional and international preparation efforts, including through military training, provision of equipment and other forms of assistance.”
While the Obama administration initially expressed some hesitation about a full-blown international invasion to support an unelected regime, it appears that the U.S. government is now fully onboard with the international plan to invade Mali and smash the rebels who declared independence. In fact, in recent weeks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been meeting with regional rulers to ensure their participation in the scheme.
"We had an in-depth discussion of the region, particularly the situation in Mali," Clinton told reporters after meeting with the socialist ruler of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika. "We have agreed to continue with in-depth expert discussions, to work together bilaterally and with the region — along with the United Nations, and the African Union, and ECOWAS — to determine the most effective approaches that we should be taking."
An unnamed “senior official” at the State Department, meanwhile, told Reuters that the “political process” and the “counter-terrorism efforts” — as in, the use of raw military force to exterminate anyone opposed to the international scheming in Mali — need to “work in parallel.” The official also claimed the U.S. government had “an awful lot at stake” and that the socialist regime in Algeria would play a key role in imposing the UN’s dictates on Mali.
"They are going to be supportive of a major effort in Mali to both restore democracy and restore order in the North,” the anonymous official said about the Algerian rulers. “Everyone has their favorite institutions to work with, and there's a lot that has to be sorted out in the geometry of the thing."
Separately, another State Department official told the AFP news agency that the Algerian “president” was “warming to the idea” of invading Mali, with assorted African regimes providing “boots on the ground” to prop up the interim government. “Then the rest of us have to support that and create the means for it to succeed,” the U.S. official said, presumably referring to the role of Western governments in financing the plot and ensuring that the invasion is successful.
Experts, though, say the half-baked plan is bound to result in more problems for the United States. "In Mali, any invasion would probably mirror that in Somalia by the recruitment of regional powers to do the dirty work," noted Ivan Eland, director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. "But at a time of war weariness and budget and economic crises at home, the U.S. cannot afford to keep making new and unnecessary enemies by promoting an invasion of Mali."
Under relentless pressure and the threat of outright annihilation at the hands of UN-led forces, which have developed a reputation for wanton slaughter and sex-crimes all over the world, some of the groups claiming independence from the “transitional” regime in Bamako have tried to negotiate a settlement. However, brutally oppressive despots in the region, as well as Western supporters of the invasion, said that was not enough.
“In northern Mali there are terrorist groups who are currently carrying out unacceptable acts,” Djibril Bassole, the so-called “foreign affairs minister” for the tyrannical regime ruling Burkina Faso, told The Associated Press, claiming that war against rebels in northern Mali was inevitable. “ECOWAS must be preparing itself to intervene with the support of the international community.”
The UN’s “special envoy for the Sahel region,” a vast area along the Sahara desert, tried to sound more moderate, claiming military intervention would be a “last resort” and that there was still a chance for “peace.” To avoid being slaughtered by international forces, however, the rebels in the north would have to completely surrender to the demands of the UN and the “interim” socialist-led regime in the capital.
Meanwhile, as plans for the global military invasion are drawn up, humanitarian leaders have warned that such an intervention could lead to catastrophe — especially considering the already tragic plight of people in the region. As with other armed UN missions, analysts say the death toll will be high, and the results could be disastrous.
"There is a lot of talk how to 'liberate' the north, how to reconquer the north, but there is little consideration of what the humanitarian impact of whatever scenario would be," said International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) President Peter Maurer. "It remains a vulnerable region in terms of food security anyway, it has always been. But compounded with the insecurity of the politics and military planning, this becomes particularly dire and particularly sensitive."
Recent examples of armed UN intervention with support from Obama have included the violent overthrow of the Christian president of the Ivory Coast. Despite a ruling by the nation’s highest court that he had won the election, the former leader was replaced with a tyrannical Muslim central banker after the UN and Islamist militias marched to the capital, slaughtering thousands of Christian civilians along the way.
In Libya, the UN purported to “authorize” a vicious war waged by the Obama administration, which in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution never consulted Congress, as well as other Western powers and Islamist proxies on the ground — many of whom were openly affiliated with al Qaeda. The tragic results of that “intervention” — ethnic cleansing of blacks, tens of thousands of civilians dead, a nation in total chaos, al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups running wild, the killing of the U.S. Ambassador, and more — continue to intensify.
Photo: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Algeria's assistance for any future military intervention in Mali from Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, right, at the Mouradia Palace, in Algiers, Algeria, Oct. 29, 2012: AP Images
Installed by UN and Obama, Ivory Coast Regime Attacks Press and Opposition
UN Report: NATO’s Libya War Armed al-Qaeda
U.S.-funded Jihadist “Holy War” in Syria Seeks Sharia Dictatorship
UN, Obama Fighting Alongside Al-Qaeda in Libya
Al-Qaeda & the West Back Syrian Rebels Against Assad
UN-backed Forces Slaughter Christians in Ivory Coast
UN And Muslim Militias Arrest Ivory Coast President
Obama Defends Military Intervention at UN, Calls for More
Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy
UN Troops Accused of Sex Crimes Worldwide
Intervention in Libya Led to Attack on U.S. Consulate, Ex-CIA Chief Says
Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations
Libya: Now What?