Thanks (comments are open, but be nice) Post is below or HERE.
.
As the conflict in Mali grows, the United States needs to find a justification for entering the civil war. Recent military involvements in the Asia and Africa have not been popular with the population, and so there has arisen a method to “sell” the conflict. Intervention for humanitarian reasons or due to a civil war is a difficult sell, particularly to a nation built on revolution and currently stuck in a bad economy.
During the Cold War (1940s- 1990s) the default motto was to Stand Up To Communism. Since the 9/11 attacks on New York, the justification for intervention has defaulted to Stand Up To Islamic Terrorism. So there has been a very recent change American officials’ response to the Mali Uprising. In June of this year, both the Administration in Washington and the top US General in Africa said that there was no US threat from the Mali insurgents. In the last few days the Administration has changed it’s line to say that the Mali insurgency is more. Now the official line is “…they (Al Qeada) would use this a base of operations”. *
French Troops in Mali. (Harouna Traore/Associated Press)
The rhetoric of the change may seem slight. At its most basic level, it provides an immediate justification for the US Administration to help the government of Mali. However, it is detrimental in the long run.
If intervention is sold as a response to “Islamic Terrorism”, then there can be no negotiation with the rebels. Any actual and reasonable grievances of the Taureg people might have will be ignored in the push to wipe out the enemy. And, in the case of “successful” mission against the rebels, the US and others will immediately leave without considering any other support (economic or technical) that might be needed.
It wasn’t always this way.
In the period after the Cold War and before 9/11, the West tried to craft a reasonable set of criteria for intervention. The mass killings in Rwanda in 1994, and the lack of a Western response, are seen as a moral failing. After that incident, there was a period when international humanitarianism was considered a reason for foreign intervention. But the New York attacks in 2011 changed the mindset. Now the West is busy “fighting terrorism”. It is always easier to rally a populace against an enemy, than it is to sell a humanitarian mission. This was one of the worst side effects of the 9/11 attacks.