What Are America's Goals in Mali?

Based on statements being made by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and both authorized and unauthorized US Defense Department sources, we can reach several conclusions about the emerging American position concerning support for the French effort to rid Mali, and perhaps West Africa, of al-Qaida jihadists. (1). AMERICA WILL NOT LET AL-QAIDA TAKE ROOT IN AFRICA. The Obama administration last year declared it cannot accept new terrorist sanctuaries in Mali or anywhere else and has promised to support French and African efforts to restore security. (2). AMERICA DOES NOT WANT ANOTHER AFGHANISTAN. After almost a year of political disorder in Mali, Washington is still keeping the conflict at arm's length to avoid being dragged into yet another war in a remote Islamic country with little infrastructure or military expertize. (3). AMERICA WILL NOT FINANCE THE ENTIRE MALI EFFORT. Washington probably does not want to assume the financial burden of a potentially lengthy fight against extremists, and is wary of the Malian government dominated by military officials who've chased out a president and a prime minister over the last 10 months. (4). AMERICA WILL SUPPORT WHAT IT SEES PRIMARILY AS A EUROPEAN RESPONSIBILITY. The US believes France can do the job, if America provides intelligence, airlift capability among the African nations providing troops, unmanned drones and other tactical logistics support, but stopping short of offering to send American ground troops to keep terrorists from carving out a safe haven in Mali similar to that in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. Defense Secretary Panetta said this week that the US must pursue the terrorist network "wherever they are," including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and North Africa. It may be that the US role in Mali will be somewhat like its role in Somalia, where the US has paid the bill for Ethiopian efforts to root out al-Shabab, an al-Qaida-linked group. (5). AMERICA NEEDS A MORE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN MALI. The US has cut most ties with Mali's government because it is a caretaker body influenced by the military's Captain Amadou Sanogo, who ousted the country's democratically elected president in March and helped oust its interim prime minister last month. By law, the US cannot provide military assistance to Mali's regime until democracy is re-established. Thus, it must work indirectly through its French and African partners to help fight extremists in Mali, making it difficult to sort out what the U.S. can provide, to whom and how. Secretary Panetta told reporters in Rome yesterday : "Lawyers basically have to review these issues to make sure that they feel comfortable that we have the legal basis for what we're being requested to do." (6). AMERICA EXPECTS A LONG FIGHT AGAINST AL-QAIDA AND NATION BUILDING IN AFRICA. President Francois Hollande says France won't leave until Mali is safe, which may turn out to be a mission with a difficult long-term goal. For example, US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has said that stabilizing Mali will require a government and a military that is strong enough to hold the territory and keep the peace after extremists are defeated. That is one of the reasons why America has demanded progress toward the restoration of democracy before intervention, a position that was recently softened as Touareg rebels in the Mali north and their jihadist allies rapidly advanced south. It may be that the US will leave the fighting to France and African allies and focus on "nation building" in Mali, a task that seems to have become, almost by default following President Bush's largely successful effort in Iraq, one of America's universal goals in fighting al-Qaida.