I haven't noticed Westerners having much problems with the intervention. On the contrary, they point out the difference between the lack of backlash France gets for conducting a campaign in one of its former colonies and a backlash there is anytime USA tries something similar anywhere in the world.

Yeah, cuz France isn't just trying to grab up all their oil. They did their empire thing, those days are come and gone.

''Yeah, cuz France isn't just trying to grab up all their oil. They did their empire thing, those days are come and gone. ''

My prediction is that the US will become ever more isolationist in direct proportion to its increasing self sufficiency in oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer
and http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWimiO9uUXim1DYt1BUyR25k4uqA?docId=CNG.e0843333a301cd62e11c5aa64af78d26.611

France feels a responcibility to help former colonies when they ask for help.

The US extends it's empire by bringing new countries into its economic system...

Mali has Many neighbours who are sending troops to help - is that imperialism?

Certainly not every Westerner. But a large number, both of uninformed newsreaders and of, unfortunately, ill-informed journalists rushing to cover Mali.

This is a picture of a convoy of journalists trying to get into the village of Diabaly after it was retaken by French forces

http://images.scribblelive.com/2013/1/21/da8e9b40-36a9-45fa-80c9-ef60c9696d15_500.jpg

I mean Jesus.

Anyway it's certainly not the majority in the West, but there are definitely uninformed elements who think this way. All the talk of uranium for France... etc.

Given the sources of American oil imports, the "it's for the oil" argument always cracks me up.

Uninformed elements dabbling in every issue but heck, even someone like The Economist framed it the way I described it.

fulhamish that seems a pretty naive viewpoint to me. Why would we stay isolationist when there are so many natural resources over the world to exploit? There's money to be made, son!

ulytau please explain your words, I don't understand.

@ yellow yep the rare earth eleemnts for one, in every computer I think and mostly from China.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/06/21/behind-chinas-rare-earth-controversy/
I have a couple of friends trying to strike it rich in Australia looking for these as we speak. Look out for the marines arriving in the outback.

@ yellow the US imports a lot of oil from Canada, more and more from those delicious tar sands, it is also a very good customer of a certain Pres.Chavez in Venezuela.

Iraq accounts for something like 5% of American oil imports. The price of overthrowing Saddam there was higher than switching that source for something like oil transported from Vladivostok. The price of staying in Iraq and rebuilding it so that it could actually produce oil was even higher. Anyone who thinks occupying a country for oil is a reasonable source of oil should never run any business :)

Not to mention that funding a coup against Chavez would be more cost-efficient anyway.

I don't see how France CANNOT intervene here, since an outright Islamist state just a few hours from Europe is unacceptable. But they don't even look like they're pretending to have an exit strategy here. Can the French people handle a long anti-insurgent campaign after Vietnam and Algeria?

Apparently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/16/in-france-the-mali-intervention-is-more-popular-than-gay-marriage/

Of course it's popular in France, anything that reminds the glorious old days when France was a world power is popular in France.

They're basically the European Americans in this regard. Which is incidentally the reason the USA is so unpopular there, they envy them the fact they still are the world power :)

That's all probably true. But considering how low their tolerance was for casualties in Afghanistan, I wouldn't be shocked if support plummets after some of France's precious youth die in the desert. France was never attacked from Mali, their patience won't come close to ours in Afghanistan. And there's every possibility Mali may be that kind of conflict.

Afghanistan was an American endeavor which no Frenchman was interested in. This is their thing, it gets them a nice PR boost and they have lots of meatshields in local forces and regional expeditionary troops once they arrive in bigger numbers. Not to mention it was Hollande who decided to go there, so the traditional anti-war left is seriously weakened in their mudslinging, basically reserving it to communists. It may still go bad but it may also show that Hollande is actually worth something as a president.

OK, full, uly, I take your point, but I don't think it's the government looking to make/save money, it's private investors with government clout who are looking to use American influence to get at the resources of other countries. It has nothing to do with who we as a nation import from, it's about businessmen looking to expand their resource base and turn more profits.

The business Americans do in Iraq total around 10 billion USD. That's a drop in the ocean given the number of corporations in question. And the profit margins are not stellar anyways, the capital could as well be invested somewhere else. More numbers and less Confessions of an Economic Hitman please.

Smart move from Hollande. It's a good cause, it distracts attention from his domestic troubles a bit, plus he's on the political left, it's easier for lefties to pull this off (just like "only Nixon could go to China", a good example of something only a right winger could do)

"More numbers and less Confessions of an Economic Hitman please."

ROFL. Fair enough.

@ ulytau

Well if one were to accept that the Iraq war was not about oil and the profits gleaned by the corporations post-war, then it must have been about neutralising the Iraqi military. I wonder why?

Surely, given post-war history, no one seriously believes it was about unseating a dictator?

Correction:

''Surely, given post WW2 history, no one seriously believes it was about unseating a dictator?''

What about general sphere of influence housekeeping? Internationally accepted casus belli is hard to come by in the post-bipolar world, and the WMD argument made Iraq pretty much a freebie in this regard. Given the fact Middle East is one of the priority regions for American geopolitics and Iraq lies in the heart of Middle East, I don't see much reason for the need of more reasons. The bottom lines of American corporations and their share price don't revolve around Iraq. Although studying the correlation would make for a nice thesis topic.

@ulytau, I like the use of the word ''housekeeping''. Remind me how many died again? Do you really believe that the establishment can be so cynical in the absence of financial gain?
I say follow the money: '' Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0

There is no recession victims in this list of death dealing merchants: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/10-companies-profiting-most-war-330249

What is cynical about the hegemon doing what hegemoning is about? The USA is the global policeman at the end of the day and that means sacrifices - bloated military and casualties. Casualties that are pretty much negligible given the scope of its operations and how high they used to be throughout history.

The links you provided show that arms sellers gain money from selling weapons to governments, not that they rely on their profits on long-term occupation of a country. Because they don't. They profit whether there is war or peace, because even in peace, the gearing up for war requires weapons. These corporations would gain much more if instead of spending on paying for the subsistence of troops abroad, the US government paid them for pet project superweapons that are hard to assess and therefore show great promise of abnormal profits hidden in over the top prices. I guess someone interested in military like Gunfighter could enumerate you the number of projects that were slowed down because the government has to wage war instead of buying new shiny toys with poor performance/high operational costs in actual combat.

Another interesting analogy with your ''policeman''. Policeman gain their authority from a higher authority, I wonder what you have in mind?
Weapons need testing. The latest fighter needs to be shown to shoot down that of the competition etc. What better way than to have a nice war? All those destroyed weapons will need replacing. An added bonus is that nine times out of ten it will destabilise, rather than stabilise, a region, Iraq being a perfect case in point. You might even get local countries demanding weapons in order that they don't go to war. How deliciously perverse. Follow the money my friend, just as with the banks.

"The latest fighter needs to be shown to shoot down that of the competition etc"

There hasn't been a war which tested the US high-tech equipment for decades. You need war to train the strategy, tactics, organization... if you have to leave the testing of equipment to wartime, you must be in a pretty dire position. Do you think the US government regularly spends billions of dollars on jet fighters that need further testing?

"All those destroyed weapons will need replacing."

Saddam's army made a pretty bad showing in this regard. Most of the casualties come from the improvised bombs made by insurgents. Even then, the total casualty count for Abrams was like 30 over the course of 10 years. That's less than 1% of Abrams the armed forces currently have. You don't build your business on that.

I'm following the money, I just don't see the gold mine you claim there is. Contractors rake in cash in war and peace alike. Sure they make more in war but is that amount substantially higher to be worth the hassle of cooking up a war? Show me the gold mine on the income statements of the interested corporations. That should be pretty easy if what you claim is true.

How would you call someone who makes sure everything is quiet and everyone behaves? Let's call it that.

"The latest fighter needs to be shown to shoot down that of the competition etc"

I can't even think of a fighter model that was needed to be combat tested before the government approved production....at least since WW2. The F-35 certainly won't be tested.

As for other vehicles? MRAPs, humvees, etc. Those underwent extensive changes throughout Iraq. And woe be unto the contractor whose vehicle didn't live up to its claims after being rushed through production.

So my opinion may be a little biased, and I don't have time at the moment to look up numbers to back my claims, but I would think these contractors would perfer high levels of production during peacetime to high levels of production during wartime. Wartime requires innovation. *Fast* innovation. And if your product doesn't work right then and there, your contract is over. I'd be interested to look into the manufacturers of army uniforms, after their new uniform flopped.