Canada reluctantly drawn into Mali’s war
Slowly, inexorably, Canada and the world are being drawn into Mali.
The wise people say intervention is necessary. They say we must prevent the West African nation from becoming a springboard for terrorist attacks on Europe.
The wise people almost always say intervention is necessary. Fifty years ago, equally wise people urged intervention in Vietnam to prevent what was then called the “domino effect” — the fall of Southeast Asia to Communism. We all know where that went. Today the dominoes of North Africa are said to be in danger from Islamic terrorists.
For practical politicians, all of this is a nightmare. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is loath to involve itself in another war. As a result, Washington speaks softly and carefully.
Canadians too have been made weary by the Afghan experience. Prime Minister Stephen Harper knows that. That’s why his office has been so reluctant to admit that Canada’s very, very limited commitment to the war in Mali is gradually expanding.
Ottawa originally agreed to send one cargo plane for one week to help French troops in Mali. The French have now publicly asked for more. Mali’s ambassador to Canada says Harper agreed to expand its commitment. The Prime Minister almost certainly has. As the head of a government allied to France, he doesn’t have much choice.
Ah, France. Remember Dien Bien Phu? That was the prolonged battle in 1954 that put an end to France’s vainglorious attempts to subdue its then-colony Vietnam. France’s failure was the catalyst that drew the U.S. into that war.
This time, Paris seems to have again drastically underestimated its foes. According to reports from Mali, the insurgents — a mixture of ethnic separatists and jihadists — are fighting hard. The French went in last week without enough troops and without enough logistical support. That’s why they are now desperate for Canadian, British and American help.
Nor, when the French sent in troops, did anyone on the Western side appear to understand how quickly fighting in obscure Mali could spread. This week’s terror attack on the Amenas gas field in Algeria is a grim reminder that nothing about war is simple.
Algeria has been going through its own internal conflicts since the 1990s. Until now its valuable oil and gas fields were largely spared. That state of affairs has obviously changed.
So what are we to do? In Canada, the opposition New Democrats want a parliamentary debate before committing any more Canadian troops or matériel to Mali. My guess is that the government would be happy to agree — if for no other reason than to share the blame.
The NDP backed Canada’s limited participation in the Libyan war. There is no reason to expect it would act any differently toward Mali.
Alas, Parliament isn’t set to return until Jan. 28.
The rest of us can be forgiven for being confused. Until last week, a significant number of Canadians would have had trouble locating Mali on a map. Now we are being told its fall to these rebels — whoever they are — would threaten Western civilization.
And perhaps it would. But forgive us if we are ever so slightly skeptical. We have heard these stories before.
We were told we had to intervene in Somalia to prevent chaos. We intervened. There is still chaos.
We were told we had to drive Saddam Hussein from Iraq because he was like Hitler. The U.S. intervened. Saddam is dead. But now Iraq is a de facto ally of Iran — which we are told is run by people like Hitler.
Then there was Afghanistan. What was that about again? After 11 years and thousands of deaths, it is hard to remember.