01.29.2013 08:46 AM


Does anyone else feel, as I do, that we are slouching towards war, and that there has been no real debate as to whether that is a good idea or not?


  1. Thomas Gallezot says:

    If France had a debate before intervening in Mali, Bamako would belong to Al-Qaeda. We intervened in Afghanistan were Al-Qaeda was bothering no-one -if anything the Talibans there are worst than salafists- and we will stay idle when Al-Qaeda camps at the front door of Europe? There is no debate, France needs all the help it can get from its allies.

  2. Philippe says:

    Yes, and it pisses me off. This is a BIG f*cking deal.

  3. Michael Reintjes says:

    No….minor support role and then out..

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I hope not. These things tend to take on a life of their own.

    But look at the bright side: it might just end in 100 years when Aghan and Iraqi army and police forces should finally make the grade.

    Flush billions first — and ask questions later.

    • Philippe says:

      Love it when Cons pontificate about fiscal restraint… yet going out to kill a few Muslims warrants neither debate now a second thought on whether it’s fiscally prudent.

  5. Ted H says:

    This analogy may be totally misplaced, but the Vietnam War was initially fought by France, later superceded by the US for fear of the domino effect. This time the dominoes are Al-Qaeda, not Communist. History repeating itself?

  6. dave says:

    If I go by vocab, I would say we are getting more involved. People trying to overthrow a government in syria are called ‘rebels,’ or ‘Syria Free Army’ and such, even thought they include some right wing religion based cadres.
    People trying to overthrow the government in Mali are ‘Islamists,’ ‘terrorists.’

  7. Stig says:

    Perhaps, if we knew more about, what Mr. Fowler was actually doing in Mali, beside getting kidnapped and randsomed, the current violence and Canada’s impending involvement, may have some kind of explanation.

  8. Kevin says:

    Maybe not war, but deeper involvement definitely. Look at the pattern. This is a government that’s allergic to criticism. They can’t ever be wrong. So first it’s a transport plane for a week. No outcry from Canadians? So then it’s a transport plane for more than a week. Still no outcry from Canadians? Then it’s a technical team to support the transport.

    Watch if there’s an outcry. If there is none, we’re in for more involvement. I’d bet the farm on that.

  9. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    I used to think it was a good idea to take the war to the Islamo-fundamentalist terrorists….fight them on their own turf, so to speak….and perhaps, help establish some kind of democracy and improve the lives of ordinary Afghans…and realized, later, sadly, what a folly Afghanistan was…….

    I hope we wont be sending any troops to die in vain in another futile attempt to prop up a failed state……..too bad about the ancient texts and books in Timbuktu, however…..but the whole lot of them arent worth risking one Canadian serviceman/woman’s life, imho……

  10. Sean says:

    No, there won’t be a war. Wars are so 1990s. There are no wars anymore. Now we have “counter terrorism” which has replaced “invasions”. We have “counter insurgency” which has replaced the “right of conquest”. We don’t have”victories”, we have “exit strategies”. We don’t “surrender”, we have “troop withdrawal” once citizens have had enough of death and wasted money. So don’t worry, no war in Mali.

  11. Michael S says:

    Mali is a sideshow. The more interesting question is our involvement in Niger, our JTF2 is training their French-speaking troops, and the US is making it a central operations point for drones. Something big is going down and nobody outside of a select circle knows what. Whatever it is, we’re in like flint.

  12. bluegreenblogger says:

    Well, Northern and Western Africa has a whole lot of resources coming into play right now. Not so much Mali, but their neighbours. Many billions at stake. The fighting in Mali is not likely to turn into a major war, because there is not much of a local constituency for the `rebels`who are actually mostly invaders. Hopefully no real war there, the riff raff will be chased from towns and cities, and hunker down in the backwoods. I would be surprised if there were a definitive ANYTHING happening there, beyond some flashy explosions, and a disappearing ènemy`.

  13. JH says:

    I don’t mind a little historical revisionism now and then. It makes for great debates by times. However, Canada was first in Afghanistan in 2001 – 2002 and Harper was not PM then. As well any increased particiaption was approved by parliament each time. Up until 2011 the opposition could have put a stop to that anytime they chose. Personally I think they should have.

  14. GPAlta says:

    I think Eric Margolis has some good background on the situation


    And if I’m reading him correctly, I think he is saying that this could explode to involve other countries.

    It seems like the interests we are protecting there are the financial interests of France, and that we have not given a moments thought to the decades of atrocities that have occurred with France’s blessings there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *