US Army Intervention in Northern Mali: AFRICOM General Bewildered

“The only alternative that could not exist is the American military presence in northern Mali,” stated AFRICOM’s combatant commander with certainty.*

Taken by surprise or guided by uncontrollable vested interests? The Americans are displaying extraordinary confusion toward the French excitement to intervene militarily in northern Mali. “The first step, and necessary step, is the re-establishment of legitimate government in Bamako,” said the commander in chief of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), General Carter F. Ham, yesterday.

Ham, speaking at a press conference at the U.S. embassy in Algiers, contributed further to the confusion in affirming that while the U.S. “[does] encourage further discussion about Mali in the Security Council,” which could allow a legitimate government to be reinstated, “we think it is primarily the responsibility of the neighboring countries to help Mali address their challenges,” but he notes “it is up to neighboring countries to help Mali to gain this stability.”**

Taking these declarations at face value leads us to believe, then, that the Americans are giving the possible political solution a chance. As Gen. Ham affirmed, diplomatically, “ultimately, the situation in northern Mali can only be resolved politically or diplomatically.” Next, the U.S. Africa Command commander stated with great certainty that “the only alternative that could not exist is the American military presence in northern Mali.”*

Asked again by journalists about the position the U.S. would adopt in the event of a military intervention in northern Mali and about the U.S.’s possible plans to block the Security Council’s military action in the region, all Ham could comment was, “well, we don’t know exactly… but we’ve made no decisions so far.” The U.S. military general has neither excluded nor pushed for the possibility of military action.

For him, it’s a simple question of priorities, which he in fact pigeonholes into four categories. The first, according to him, is to quickly re-establish a legitimate power. The second concerns the regional population’s preoccupations, the third seeks to stamp out the terrible humanitarian crisis in which Algeria plays a key role and, finally, the fourth priority focuses on the presence of terrorist groups that are rendering an already complicated situation even worse. It is in this last point that the Americans’ acquiescence to military intervention begins to show, and the U.S. Africa Command general knows it. Indeed, they see the military solution not as an aim, but as a detail within a set of measures and steps to take. Except that even at this level, the Americans are skeptical.

Has the U.S. Africa Command clearly identified the terrorist organizations in the region, besides al-Qaida? Are the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and Ansar Dine terrorist organizations? The general explained that “if Ansar Dine seeks to achieve political objectives by way of peaceful means, we clearly cannot qualify the organization as a terrorist one.”*** He added that his presence in Algiers was a product of precisely this desire to understand the nature of the organizations acting in the region. “I have had discussions during my visits here to Algeria, to include today, to try to gain a better understanding of the various groups that are acting in northern Mali. As is obvious to you, we are not from this region. We do not have the same understanding of the various actors in the region. And so we are trying to better understand…” he said.

Algeria has already explained its position regarding the organizations that are rife in northern Mali: It considers the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and Ansar Dine to be nationalist movements that have the right to express their views on the unification of Malian territories. On the other hand, two known and identified terrorist organizations are al-Qaida and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa. The American general, in spite of all this, used his fleeting visit to Algiers to congratulate the Algerian security services who secured the U.S. Embassy there following the protests across the Arab world, after the release of the anti-Islam film. Nonetheless, the situation remains highly complicated. It is much further complicated by the fact that the Westerners who are really pulling the strings are driven by policies which are obsessed with economic and military calculations.

Bouteflika Welcomed Carter Ham

President Bouteflika received Gen. Carter Ham, commander in chief of the U.S. Africa Command, yesterday. The interview took place at the Djenane El Mufti residence, in the presence of Deputy Minister for National Defense Abdelmalek Guenaizia, Deputy Minister of African and North African Affairs Abdelkader Messahel and Lieutenant General Ahmed Gaid Salah, who is also the chief of staff of the People’s National Army — Algeria’s Armee Nationale Populaire or ANP. The U.S. Africa Command commander in chief’s visit to Algiers fits into the premise of regular consultations between the two countries and forms the basis of what will be a strategic dialogue to be held in Washington on October 19.

*Editor’s note: The original quote according to the U.S. Africa Command transcript was “… the one course of action that we are not considering is U.S. boots on the ground in Mali.”

**Translator’s note: The second half of the quote could not be sourced and appears to be the author paraphrasing General Ham.

***Translator’s note: General Ham appears not to have made the statement attributed to him. What he said about Ansar Dine at this press conference was, “And so we are trying to better understand what is the role of Ansar Dine, what is the role of MUJAO [Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa], what is the role of MNLA [National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad] in the northern Mali context. So when you ask if a — if a specific group is a terrorist organization or not, I have to respond that the United States has a very formal process to make that determination.” The author’s interpretation of Ham’s statement clearly defends Ansar Dine and affirms that it’s a peaceful, non-terrorist organization. It is unknown if this was an intentional misquote on the author’s part of if he is intentionally promoting the cause of Ansar Dine or showing bias in Ansar Dine’s favor.