Thread: Blowback from Libya as Mali facing collapse

This year, Mali's restive Tuareg minority has erupted into rebellion after four years of relative quiet, the army has mutinied and seized control of the capital city of Bamako, and today Tuareg separatists declared an independent state in the country's vast north.

Is this all NATO's fault?


Not exactly. But the law of unintended consequences is (as usual) rearing its head. In this case, the successful popular uprising against Muammar Qaddafi's regime in Libya, which was substantially aided by the air power of NATO members, has sent Mali tumbling back into chaos, something that neither France nor the US (two of the major backers of the war to oust Qaddafi) are happy about. Far from it.




The traditionally nomadic Tuareg and their independence aspirations were championed off and on by Qaddafi for decades. During his desperate and bloody war to hang on to power, Tuaregs that had settled in Libya fought on his side. And there are claims that even more Tuaregs were recruited to come to Libya and fight as mercenaries on his behalf.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor

As it stands northern Mali, also called Azawad, is essentially under the control of rebels and there is not only a fracture between the southern junta and supporters of the deposed government, but a fracture between the rebels as Islamist rebels who fought on the side of the NTC in Libya are opposing the Azawad declaration of independence. There is also talk of military intervention by ECOWAS, a Western African group.

This isn't blowback. The conflict between the Tuareg and the central government has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with NATO. Qadaffi may have provided a temporary respite by hiring away the local hotheads as mercenaries, but the source of the conflict remained. Its unfortunate of the suffering that will accompany the uprising, but it is not reasonable to blame it on the Libyan conflict.

Originally Posted by rathi

This isn't blowback. The conflict between the Tuareg and the central government has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with NATO. Qadaffi may have provided a temporary respite by hiring away the local hotheads as mercenaries, but the source of the conflict remained. Its unfortunate of the suffering that will accompany the uprising, but it is not reasonable to blame it on the Libyan conflict.

Maybe you should read the article before you comment. The link is pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Demon of Light

Maybe you should read the article before you comment. The link is pretty obvious.

A government so unstable that its existence was dependent on foreign leaders hiring away dissidents as mercenaries was already doomed. If a house falls down because somebody sneezes, do you blame the guy with the cold or the architect who built it?

The article is grasping at straws. There could be potential consequences with the new Libyan government, but the circumstances in Mali are hardly one of them.