Facing the French, Mali rebels dig in and blend in
In the face of fierce, all-night bombardment by the French military, Mali’s Islamist insurgents have hunkered down to fight again.
Barging into some of the mud-brick houses in the battle zone and ejecting residents, they have sought to implant themselves in the local population and add to the huge challenges facing the French military campaign to loosen their grip on Mali. …
Just five days into the French military campaign, it was becoming clear that airstrikes alone will probably not be enough to root out these battle-hardened fighters, who know well the harsh grassland and desert terrain of Mali and have spent months accumulating arms, constructing defenses in their northern strongholds and reinforcing their ranks with children as young as 12 years old.
Containing their southern advance toward Bamako, the capital, is proving more challenging than anticipated, French military officials acknowledged Tuesday. And with the Malian Army in disarray and no outside African force yet assembled, displacing the rebels from the country altogether appears to be an elusive, long-term challenge.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m still waiting for the NYT to hyperventilate about France’s unilateral decision to invade Mali without a UN Security Council resolution authorizing it.
Just kidding. This is different of course, the NYT has no problem whatsoever with Europe’s colonial tradition of intervening in the African countries they used to control. It’s why Europe was confused as to why the US didn’t invade Liberia about 10 years ago (even though the US technically never controlled Liberia) when there was much ruckus going down there.
Red Cloud on January 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM
So it begins.
BigGator5 on January 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM
It is going to devolve into a messy conflict there.
blatantblue on January 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM
The Tom Friedman op ed generator needs to touch on this to give us the right perspective
blatantblue on January 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM
It seems If the US is involved there always has to be a UN resolution first…if anyone else starts a military action the UN is no where to be seen…
albill on January 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Gee, the NYT is suprised by this? You’d think that, with all the conflicts of the past 20 or so years, everyone would know by now that you can’t win unless you have boots on the ground.
NavyMustang on January 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM
What really is needed is several billion in American taxpayer dollars….that should do the trick
Ditkaca on January 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Since I don’t read the New York Times, I can only assume that elsewhere in the pages are liberal editorialists laughing about the foolish conservatives who think their rifle will protect them from a government with an Air Force that will just bomb them into oblivion…
makattak on January 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Surely this is not nearly enough to resist a modern military. I have been reliably informed by the anti-2nd amendment crowd that it is not, and that no equipment would ever find its way out of the National Guard’s control.
Fenris on January 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Come on! This is the French we’re talking about here.
Mitoch55 on January 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM
I’m not optimistic. The French aren’t very good at stuff like this. Never have been. As I recall we attempted to clean up after one of their messes and it didn’t work out too well for us.
Tomolena1 on January 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM