Did The French Show Everyone How It's Supposed To Be Done In Mali?

@Acting Bog:

As a british serviceman (retired), it doesn't take me long to realise that you've never served together with the French (possibly never served at all ?)

So let me get a few things right:

- Do you really think that the French ran out of money and that the 20 million USD kept them "alive" ?!? Mate, the French operation in Libya has been estimated at 70 million EUR (announced in the press)... and the French defence budget is 63 BN (yes .. billion).. Come on .. 20 million resp. 70 million are peanuts for the 6th biggest economy !

- Logistic: France has got 14 active refuelling planes of type Stratotanker (C-135) and various smaller refuelling planes. Additionally, if there's 1 country in Nato (besides the US and UK) that has the logistics to carry men and heavy gear then it's France.. Additionally, most regular ground troops were actually moved in directly from Chad(!).. Obviously, you've never seen them in Afghanistan.. otherwise you would have talked differently abvout their capacity to deploy anywhere in the world.

They can't compete (very much like the UK) with the US.. but taking it's population and GDP into account, France is performing very honourably ! I understand that this is difficult to appreciate from your couch when you just got the media and the internet as only resource..

### Additional Info @Michael:

For you information since you're not very up-to-date:

- Did you actually know that France provides the 5th biggest contribution to the Foreign Legion with 50.000 "native" French people enrolled ? (by native, I mean those that were born French).

- Did you actually know that Jet Pilots, Helicopter pilots and Special Forces are all french (Commando Marins !) The Foreign Legion represents approx. 30-40% of the deployment over there.. Btw.. the captain that died over there was a frenchman not belonging to the FFL !

- France has never sent any other forces than the FFL: Completely wrong ! French forces were deployed along with the FFL in the Kosovo during UN mandate, fought in Kosovo during the NATO mandate. Same is true for Libya (pilots and special forces to mark the targets were deployed) and Afghanistan ..

Shall I move on with my list or is it sufficient to contradict your point already ?

France has indeed done a very good job in Mali - they moved faster than even I expected (and have I made a single post critical of the French for being "weak?").

However Afghanistan is quite a bit tougher than Mali - tougher terrain and, unlike in Mali, the Taliban actually had some public support (the Islamist in Mai were almost universally reviled by the population) and some "legitimacy," in the sense that some people believe the Taliban will eventually win, no matter what they personally want, and so there's no sense in risking their lives supporting the ISAF.

EDIT: In addition, French forces in Mali and Afghanistan have not just been French Foreign Legion - French Army marines are confirmed to have fought in Mali (just look up pictures, they've got the Troupes de marine patch on their sleeves) and regular French Army have fought in Afghanistan, alongside marines and FFL - 27e BCA, 8e RPIMa, 1er RHP, 6e-12e RC, and probably other units. Aso, the FFL is 40% French and is largely commanded by French officers.

The French have done a good job In Mali. No-one can really say otherwise.

But your generalisation that its only America in Afghanistan is frankly rather insulting, especially seeing as I wear a union Flag on my arm, and am currently extracting sand from every orifice, thanks to this country. Looking around this dust bowl there are Americans, Brits, French, German, Norwegian, Danes and a few flags ive never seen before in my life. This just goes to show that Afghanistan is not in the same context as Mali. I've not been to Mali *(as I'm tanning up in Afghan at the min) so i refuse to comment on how easy the operation is. And I admire the fact you're showing support of the armed forces of an ally, just try not to do it at the detriment of another country.

Umm, check your history and geography. First, US troops are not in Afghanistan to take down a government. We're there to fight the Taliban, of which the job is being done quite nicely, thank you. Second, although Mali is 1.9 times the size of Afghanistan, the terrain of Mali is primarily Sahara-like desert with jungle and mountains in the very south. Afghanistan is primarily mountainous. This matters because in the flat desert there's nowhere to hide and buildings (like terrorist camps) are easy to find. In Afghanistan we're dealing with cave networks and lots of nooks and crannies where the Taliban can hide. There is no doubt the French military is doing a good job in Mali, but to compare the two events is not just a different ballgame -- it's a different sport.

Different country. Different people. Completely different mission. The french are not nation building.

By the way, please explain what the French can do that we can't? Can they fight two major wars at once? Can they support over 150,000 troops deployed to a combat zone for several years? Could they defeat the 3rd largest army in the world in a matter of weeks like we did with the Iraqi Army?

Apples and oranges man. The French decided to go with a light and lean combat force in Mali, which works absolutely fantastic for what they are trying to accomplish. They want to get in and out and be done with it. Its also important to note that they are not fighting an all out insurgency. If you tasked the same force and strategy with what we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan; nation building and counter insurgency, it would be an absolute disaster.

One last thing... Remember Libya? We let the Europeans; primarily Britain and France, spearhead that conflict and look what happened. Do a quick google search and find out how long they were able to sustain the air raids before they had ran out of ordinance and needed the US to intervene. Mind you this was while we were fully involved in two other wars.

The situation in Mali was more similar to the beginnings of Afghanistan, in that it was not an insurgency, but conventional warfare.

The French intervention showed there were massive problems with the French military in that they can't afford to deploy troops - they asked America for $20 million to help fund the operation, and also asked for USAF support, refueling planes, etc. They also went to the UK with similar requests, because they don't have the money or logistics to maintain operations outside of Europe for very long.

@ArcticDust:

The French have done well, but still needed US support to go in there (as well as contracting out airlift capability). That's really not a debatable item at this point, it's been repeatedly shown.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/01/24/mali-air-war-...

Which shows a larger problem. I'd like to think I've been a pretty vigorous defender of Armées françaises as anyone here, but if they (like everyone else in Europe, especially the Brits-none of whom are HM Armed Forces, to be fair-who love to talk on and on about how amazing the Brits are) need US support to get involved in regional conflicts (in their own backyards, and in areas that they have very strong historical ties to)...how powerful are they?

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2013/01/serv...

Right firstly you need to know the facts. The Mali group are a rap tag lot that run away when they hear a gun shot. On the very first day a French fighter jet was shot down France has had to beg Britain and America for assistance. God help them if they actually fought a country.

Mali is not Afghanistan and to compare the two shows that you probably still get your lunches packed by your mom. The US military would role over France and it's "military" in an afternoon.

Let's get something clear - the "French" ground forces deployed and in combat are FRENCH FOREIGN LEGIONNAIRES.

France has not used regular French troops in combat (other than as UN "Peacekeepers") since they withdrew from Vietnam in 1956.