Lowkey – Terrorist?

I’m pretty sure Lowkey would be OK with me sharing this:

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault Debate on ‘Human Nature and the Ideal Society’ (with English subtitles)

This debate is required viewing for anyone who appreciates the work of either of these two great minds.  It takes place in 1971 as the war in Vietnam rages on.  They discuss their respective specialties, human nature, the direction of society, society’s institutions, class warfare, capitalism, Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, and much more.

This article from Roar Magazine (which claims a share of the credit for translation) about the debate adds some interesting background information and contains a full transcript of the discussion.

There is also another complete version that doesn’t appear to omit anything except the additional commentary; though most would probably benefit from the clarifications of the commentator included in the first video.

I know some of you liberals are probably disappointed in me

I recognize that many would think that if I was truly a bleeding heart liberal I would be more supportive of our President and Democratic congressmen (and women!).

Sadly, if you haven’t noticed, President Barack Obama and his herd are just the other side of the coin called the corporate party.  Of course, I had no love for President George W. Bush or his herd either.  Hell, I actually voted for Obama the first time, but as Dubya so eloquently put it “fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me.. can’t get fooled again.”

My problems with our liberal leadership are many and varied.  A true liberal doesn’t allow tanks to roll through the streets inside of their own country.  A true liberal doesn’t offer to cut Social Security as an opening move in budget negotiations (what would the equivalent be in chess – perhaps playing without any pawns).  A true liberal doesn’t allow torture.  A true liberal doesn’t circumvent due process and the rule of law to catch the bad guys.  A true liberal doesn’t give up the liberty of his people, no matter what the cost, ever.

If the citizens that considered themselves Democrats or Republicans had any spine they would stand up for what they supposedly believe in, protest, make their representatives act on their beliefs, and never vote for either party again.  Instead it is apparent that the majority of people who consider themselves either a Democrat or a Republican merely support “their man” without question (let’s take that literally too – we have never had a woman president – Pakistan has).

I wish members of both political parties could have the courage to admit that both of “their guys” screwed up our economy, infringed upon our civil liberties, violated the Geneva Conventions, and engaged in thinly veiled resource wars in the name of “democracy” and “terrorism.”  Of course, that would mean admitting that we were wrong when we supported one side or the other.  It would mean admitting that all those arguments we had with people of the other party were really just us being the unwitting patsies of the plutocracy.  It would mean that we would have to actually do something other than repeat the canned phrases that we hear on MSNBC and FOX news.  It would mean we would have to admit that the two-party system is fatally flawed.  I can see why most Americans can’t bear to do that.  It takes some real courage to admit when you have been wrong and it has hurt just about everyone you know.

I will admit it to you now.  I was wrong for at least 80% of my life.  I thought the Democrats had my back.  They didn’t.  Anybody else?

I may sound radical but let’s think about our current situation critically.  Tanks are rolling around in our streets and DEMOCRATS are JUST FINE with it.  If that doesn’t qualify the United States as a military state and an authoritarian regime I don’t know what does.  Can you imagine what Democrats would be saying if George W. Bush had allowed tanks to roll around in our streets?  This is what is called a cult of personality, you know, like the Dear Leader in North Korea has.  Patriotism is all well and good but this rally around the flag mentality has gotten completely out of hand.  Stop being motivated by fear.  Start standing up for your rights and the rights of others.  The men and women in uniform that have died for us over the last 237 years deserve that we honor them by at least not being utterly ignorant and craven cowards.

It is with these things in mind that I have decided to refer to our current President as “Dear Leader” in honor of his cult of personality and his authoritarian regime.  I will also pray to our Dear Leader, never take his name in vain, and when Passover comes I will put the blood of a member of the opposing party (whichever party that is at the time) above my door to make sure that “my guy” knows I’m with him so he doesn’t kill my firstborn son.  That said, to use our Dear Leader’s favorite cliché, “Make no mistake,” I am as disappointed in the American people as I am with our leadership.  Now, get back to the herd and go back to sheep.. er.. I mean sleep.

So American by Portugal. The Man

Video

Lyrics:

If vain was a color to paint in you
Your heart would be the color blue.
Be a gradient from there until your body met your hair
Which remained a silver.

You are the one they call Jesus Christ.
Who didn’t know no rock and roll.
Just a mission made of guns that they give boys in Vietnam.
In a heart that always told you

There’s a madness in us all.
There’s a madness in us all.

So
Who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules?

They said
Every one of you will never try to lend a hand
When the police men don’t understand.

Boys all you boys
Think you’re so American.
Girls all you girls

Yeah you’re so American.
He may not be born of this land
But he was born of this world.
He was born of all the mothers
And the colors of our brothers
And the love that was started.

You are the one they call Jesus Christ.
Who may not know no rock and roll
There may not be a heaven
Or a place in which to send ya
But you know in the end

There’s a madness in us all. (x4)

So
Who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules?

They say
Every one of you will never try to lend a hand
When the police men don’t understand.

Boys all you boys
Think it’s so American.
Girls all you girls
Yeah you’re so American.

There’s two eyes for every one of us
But somebody got there first and took them all. (x2)

Man oh man
You think it’s so American

Man oh man.

Yeah you’re so American (x2)

There’s two eyes for every one of us
But somebody got there first and took them all. (x2)

I find the truth everywhere, even occasionally on Fox News. In fact, opening your mind to all ‘sides’ is the only way to see the truth.

Video

What if the only way to see the truth is to watch the right, the left, the center, the “radicals” on all “sides,” disregard most of what they all say, and then figure out the truth on your own based on a broad view instead of a narrow one? What if Denis Kucinich is the left’s version of Ron Paul and was just as valuable?  What if that’s the reason both of them were ignored and deemed radicals who were unelectable   What if we can agree on this? Wouldn’t that be nice.

I do not agree with everything Napolitano says, but there is a whole lot of truth to what he says.  I do not agree all his stances such as his views on abortion (pro-life) or on gay marriage.  That doesn’t mean he doesn’t see the big picture.  Don’t let the details deter you from seeing the broad strokes.

3 Step Plan for World Domination

For each state do the following:

Step 1:  Sign free trade agreements and open foreign corporate ownership.
***If step one fails then***
Step 2:  Back an opposition group or the military in a coup d’état.
***If step two fails then***
Step 3:  Military intervention.
***If step three fails then return to step one***

Immortal Technique – The Martyr – Not Safe For Work

Video

This is Immortal Technique’s latest album.  He sells his own CD’s so he can have full creative control.  He uses this freedom to say things that the establishment would rather you not hear.  This album is also free.  The man really wants to open minds and affect positive change.
“You can only get ’em off your back when you stand up!” -Immortal Technique

Something is wrong with our country when it fights for our “freedom” and the “freedom” of others by continually restricting the freedom of its own citizens and bombing citizens of other countries.

In Saner Thought

 The Drones

View original post

What have liberals done for us, where are they now, and who is speaking for them?

I ran across this clip from “The West Wing” the other day.  It really made me think (and convinced me that I have to watch this show).  How could it be stated more succinctly?  This is what liberals have done for us:

This make me wonder: where are the liberals now?  Why aren’t they stopping the constant attacks on our social safety net?  Ostensibly they are in the Democratic Party; but the Democratic Party is not the liberal party anymore.  There is no party for the liberals.  Don’t feed me that bull about the Libertarian Party being the party of liberals either.  Most Libertarians would like nothing more than to completely remove the social safety net in lieu of what can only be called social Darwinism.  If anything the Libertarian Party is the party of yes small government and austerity (you know what the Republicans claim to be).  But I digress, there is no place for liberals in any political party today.  There is just a huge ugly mess to clean up after the two ‘parties’ just trashed the house; and there are no parents to come back and scold them for the damage they have done.  Well, not unless the American people can start acting like responsible parents instead of spoiled selfish brats.

Why can’t you call the Democratic Party liberal?  Often the reason is subtle, like their perceived inability to act.  The main problem though is that you can’t call the Democratic Party liberal just simply because it opposes a slightly more conservative party.  We need to face the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have moved steadily to the right for the last twenty to thirty years.  Sadly, liberals, by in large, have not noticed that the Democrats no longer represent their interests; instead they represent banks, lawyers, and the corporatocracy, not in word, but in deed.

Let me illustrate how far to the right the Democratic Party has slid by reviewing some of what the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have done or allowed to be done since President Obama took Office:

I could go on but you get the point.

So who is speaking for the liberals now?  With the exception of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison I honestly have no idea.  We lost Denis Kucinich.  We lost Barnie Frank.  We lost Anthony Weiner .  Who else is left (pun intended)?

We could try for a new liberal political party.  One problem with this approach is that the Supreme Court has sanctioned the two-party system by allowing laws in various states that make third parties more difficult to form (I will address this in the future).  Another problem is splitting the ‘liberal vote’ which could mean a series of Republican wins and majorities for a long time to come.

So I guess it’s up to us guys.  We have to protest.  We have to push our politicians to represent our interests.  We have to make calls and write letters to our congressmen.  We have to get the money out of politics (or legalized bribery as I like to call it).  We have to push for run-off voting.  We have to push for an end to the two-party system.  We have to elect officials that will stand up for our rights.  If they don’t represent our interests we need to promptly attempt recall elections when possible, or at least vote them out after their term is done.  I wish I had better suggestions.  I welcome your ideas.  Seriously, help.

That’s gangster

That’s gangster.
Jeff Nguyen is a whirlwind of truth artfully demolishing the lies that hold the elite in power.  Check out this article of his at the very least.

Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Speech

There were many things liberals enjoyed hearing said in President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union speech.  There were even more things that liberals should have noticed that weren’t in the President’s speech.

I can’t help but notice that he didn’t try to justify his administration’s continued support of warrant-less wiretapping, indefinite detention of Americans suspected of being terrorists, extrajudicial killings of Americans abroad, the use of torture, extraordinary rendition, or the continued use of the Guantanamo Bay prison.  I did not hear him say that he would end the failed war on drugs.  I did not hear him mention the prison-industrial complex and the need to break its back.  I did not hear him mention the two new wars the United States became involved in (Libya and Mali).  I did not hear him defend the torturous treatment of Bradley Manning.  I did not hear him explain why more whistleblowers have been prosecuted under his administration than under any other.  I did not hear him explain why he resigned the Patriot Act.  I did not hear him explain that Social Security and Medicare are self-sustaining and do not contribute to the national debt.  I did not hear him explain how Social Security could be made solvent through the baby boom merely by removing the income cap on Social Security payments.

One thing I did notice in that liberals should be outraged about is the increased rate of oil drilling and the reduction in regulations – especially after the gulf oil spill; but the public seems to have conveniently forgotten about this tragedy and focused more attention on the daily fluctuations of gas prices.  The memory hole is always so close at hand here in America.

He is indeed a great compromiser.  He has compromised the values he was elected to uphold.  He has compromised the liberty of his citizens for the promise of more security.  He has compromised with the far right to pass mediocre center-right legislation left and right (pun intended).  He quotes Reagan constantly and I think there is a reason.  He behaves a lot like Reagan.  Ladies and gentlemen our president is equivalent of a Republican from the 1980’s.  That is how far our country has drifted in the last 30 years.

Republicans should think of a new word to describe their party and the far-right position on the political spectrum it holds because their previous position has been usurped by the Democrats and their President.  Perhaps the lesser of two evils was in fact the greater of two evils.  Would the Democrats in Congress would have allowed all this to happen if a Republican had been in office?  Wouldn’t they have filibustered the Patriot Act?  Wouldn’t they be demanding that American citizens be given due process by the courts rather than allow them to be killed abroad with little more than an executive committee masquerading as their constitutional right to ‘due process?’  Since ‘their guy’ won the Democrats in congress and the Democrats in the public are more than happy to endorse almost anything ‘their guy’ says is in their interests.

Divide and conquer has worked again America.  The liberals have been thrown a few bones.  The push for a higher minimum wage (which over the long-term does not fix structural economic problems and ends with the same levels of poverty).  The push for woman’s rights.  Gay rights in the military.  A health care law that was authored by the Heritage Foundation and is as much a corporate giveaway as it is means of giving the public insurance.

Yet overall the warmongers, the bankers, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, the international corporations, the lobbyists, and the moneyed elite have won again.  For allowing this to happen I can do nothing more than voice my opinion, disperse relevant facts, and admonish the American public for its inaction.  In other words, for shame America.  Wake up.  The two-party system is a joke.  At the very least we need a third-party that represents the interests of the actual left.  We need a more engaged citizenry.  We need a better educated public (and by this I don’t necessarily mean by educational institutions – read a book dummies).  We nearly need a miracle.  This is the downward spiral.

Who and what will lead our nation back from the brink?  We must risk something now while we still have the resources to risk or soon we will end up penniless and landless sharecroppers on the land of our forefathers (and the American Indians before them).  Speak out!  Protest!  Contribute in whatever way you can!  The longer we wait to act, the less power we have, and the easier we are to subdue.  I’d rather we took action now.  It will only get harder to reverse these trends as time goes on.

Hermann Göring at the Nuremberg Trials

“Of course the people don’t want war.  But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.  Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

Edit:  Essentially accurate.  Some ellipses should have been included.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

Banging the War Drums Again

Douglas Murray sure seems to have an axe to grind.

In his most recent article for the Wall Street Journal he disgorged his typical rhetoric about how most if not all of the blame for the violence in the Middle East lies at the feet of Islamic terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah aided by the state of Iran.  I do not in any way dispute that Iran has aided and will continue to aid these groups; nor do I dispute the venomous language that is often veritably dripping from the tongues of Iranian officials in regards to the very existence of the state of Israel.  I would counter that the United States is arming and aiding the state of Israel.  I assert that Israel is terrorist regime, and one bent on the near eradication of the Palestinian people.

I dispute the way Mr. Murray tries to frame the conflict.  He is all too happy to place the blame for the continued violence between Israel and Palestine squarely upon the Palestinians and the Iranians.  He selectively uses the political buzzword of the twenty-first century, terrorism, only to refer to activities that are perpetrated by Islamic fighters.  He also, laughably I would say, attempts to pinpoint direct causality in terms of retribution for this or that specific strike by one side or the other.  The oppression of the Palestinians is constant, and thus is a constant cause for retribution.

First let’s explore the word terrorism.  Merriam Webster defines terrorism as the “systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.”  By this definition Israel and the United States are the leading terrorist countries in the world.  The U.S. and Israel drop bombs on people all the time.  They target ‘terrorists,’ ‘militants,’ ‘extremists,’ ‘radical Islamists,’ and even political leaders.  There is often collateral damage, meaning unintended civilian casualties.  These bombings are done with a political purpose in mind, destroying the morale through fear and destroying the leadership capabilities of ‘the enemy.’  The fact that Mr. Murray insists on portraying only the ‘other side’ as terrorists or employing terrorism exemplifies his bias.

Now let’s explore why Iranians are so angry with Israel.  To do so let’s review a bit of pertinent history.  This Israel-Palestinian conflict goes back to the partitioning of Palestine in 1947.  The Jewish State was carved out of the land of Palestine after the atrocities of World War II.  This was a mistake, it was immoral, and it created more 1947UNPartitionproblems than it solved.  As Mr. Ahmadinejad has asked, “why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time.”  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Furthermore, what claim did the Jewish people have on that land beyond their religious claim?  This claim is substantiated only by a book that is literally taken as the word of God by most of the Western world.  israel_1949_armistace How did that claim triumph the religious claim of the Muslims and their own religious book?  Since when has religious belief legitimately determined political lines?

OK, let’s put that aside.  What happened next?  The newly created Jewish proto-state proceeded to take much of the land that was not explicitly given to them in the UN Partition by force in the Israeli War of Independence.  This war ended in 1949 with Israel occupying one third more land than was given to them in the 1947 UN Partition.  Israel annexed the northern portion of the UN Partition.  The Gaza Strip was left under the protection of Egypt, and the West Bank was left under the protection of Jordan.

Next came the 1967 war.  A war initiated ‘preemptively’ according to Israel, though there is Six_Day_War_Territories.svgno way to prove this, nor little evidence that Egyptian forces were about to attack Israel.  The Egyptians were then joined by the Syrians and the Jordanians.   In six days Israel took control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula.  Except for the Sinai peninsula the rest of this land is still being occupied by Israel.  Yet again, this was a war in which Israel was the aggressor and it took land by force. Shortly afterwards the UN issued Resolution 242 in which it stated that the acquisition of land by force is inadmissible by international law and ordered Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the war.  Israel eventually returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt (under a U.S. brokered deal), but has yet to withdraw from the rest of the territories it occupied in 1967 in defiance of UN resolutions and international law.

After the 1967 war the Israeli state steadily encroached upon the land they had left to the settlers_custom-fcd0dfe0bcb83adc3c546c70d891afe86b965038-s6-c10Palestinians by building settlements that crisscross the Western Bank.  This is part of a policy most eloquently described by Israel’s Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 1973 when he said: “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement in between the Palestinians and another strip of Jewish settlement right across the West Bank so that in 25 years’ time neither the U.N. nor the U.S., nobody will be able to tear it apart.”  And his plan has succeeded, at least insofar as the U.S. has any influence, and it does.

So, back to the original question, why are the Iranians so irate about the Israeli-Palestinian issue?  Because of the continued injustices perpetrated by the Israeli’s against the Palestinian people.  Why is it that Iran is such a bellicose spokesman for these people?  Because they, unlike almost every other Middle Eastern country, are not under the thumb of the United States.  Iran has already been repeatedly sanctioned by the international community for its nuclear ambitions, and is finding ways to circumvent these sanctions.  So at this point they have little to lose internationally by pushing for a resolution to these continued atrocities and much to gain domestically.

Mr. Murray’s writing implies that he expects Iran to nuke Israel ASAP.  If you think about it critically though, this is not realistic.  The United States has guaranteed the security of Israel since the Kennedy Administration.  Iran is surrounded by U.S. military allies.  The U.S. has military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and a CENTCOM forward base in Qatar.  The U.S. would surely invade Iran after such an attack.  The international community would willingly line up behind Israel and the U.S. if an Iranian nuclear attack were ever to occur.  The idea that Iran could go toe to toe with the United States (and its allies) after nuking Israel is ridiculous.  Israel itself may even simply unilaterally blow Iran off the map with its own nukes.

A nuclear attack against Israel would be suicidal for the Iranian regime and the ensuing war would surely cost the Iranians at least ten lives for every one it took from Israel much less the U.S.  Admittedly, for the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to say that his job “is to set Israel on fire” is extreme (and beyond reason – since when is the primary job of any country’s leader to destroy another country?); but unless he is truly a madman, the statement still translates into little more than extremely inflammatory, even genocidal, but ultimately toothless rhetoric.

Mr. Murray’s assertion that the International Community seems unwilling to pressure Iran on its nuclear ambitions is completely contrary to the facts.  The EU and the US have both sanctioned Iran’s oil exports.  The IAEA is constantly poking into the Iranian nuclear program.  The UN sanctioned Iran in 2006 and again in 2010.  Enough said there I hope.

Let’s call Mr. Murray’s article what it is.  It’s another call to arms.  It’s another attempt to rile public sentiment against Iran for being anti-Semitic with the effect (intended or not) of giving Israel some cover to continue its policies.  Instead of trying to shame Iran, sanction them, or attack them why don’t we try something different.

Let’s (the U.S.) act as truly neutral mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Let’s (the U.S.) allow the UN security council to start sanctioning Israel for their continued land grabs, terrorist attacks, and human rights violations against the Palestinians.  The actions of Israel against the Palestinians are a corollary to the actions of the United States against the Native Americans.  Both countries actions are tantamount to genocide.  I guess when put into that framework it is understandable that the U.S. would be hesitant to recognize the Israeli occupation for what it is.  Acknowledging and acting to stop the continued oppression of the Palestinians will take away any legitimacy the Iranians have when they say the Palestinians aren’t being treated fairly.  This will hopefully erode the regime’s support both internally and abroad as it might actually have to talk about domestic issues instead of being able to focus on the legitimate concerns in Palestine and banging the war drums against Israel and the United States.

I think it is obvious that everyone would be better off without the current Iranian regime.  I don’t want to capitulate to Iranian demands.  I’m not trying to be an apologist or an appeaser.  I want to see rogue regimes that oppress people everywhere eradicated.  Both Israel and Iran are on this list.  Anyone who says otherwise is clearly biased.

Furthermore, isn’t it logical for Iran to pursue nuclear capabilities if for no other reason than defensive purposes?  The United States has executed a successful coup against the Iran in the past, has encircled the country with military bases in the present, and the publicly left open the option of a war in the future.  In fact, both Israel and the U.S. have repeatedly threatened to attack Iran.  Once a country has nuclear weapons the deterrent to war against them becomes great.  That is not to say that I advocate nuclear proliferation.  What I am advocating is objectivity, reason, adherence to International Law, and human rights for all.  Is that really revolutionary?  What do you think?

The War in Mali

As of January 11th, the French are leading a campaign to liberate the people of Mali from an oppressive rebel regime in the north of the country.  The United States, Canada, Britain, Belgium, Germany, and Denmark have joined in, mostly in support roles.  The common enemy is an Islamic rebel group of ethnic Tuaregs that has been imposing Sharia law and attacking anything and anyone that offends their sensibilities (monuments, manuscripts, businesses, people, etc). The group was making progress further south until the last month when France intervened.

I do not doubt or disagree that the atrocities being perpetrated by the Islamic Tuareg rebels in the north are heinous and should be stopped.  I do wonder if this is another example of western governments capitalizing on Islamophobia and the fear of Al-Qaeda, which supposedly has had its back broken, but seems to crop up wherever resources do.  I wonder what kind of government will eventually replace the rebel government of the north.  Will the current government of Mali, which was installed by a military coup overthrowing a democratically elected president in early 2012, be reinstalled.  Will the Western powers hand the reigns back to this military leadership; or will they attempt to reinstall the democratic government that existed before the coup?  Both the United States and France publicly condemned the military coup that installed the current Mali government in early 2012, but maybe it will prove to be more useful than a democratically elected government.

Some say that the French and even the Canadians are involved in the conflict merely to take control of the strategically important reserves of gold, uranium, and oil in the country.  The Canadian Peace Alliance and the Russia Today are good examples that are clearly not connected by similar goals.  Considering that about 78% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power plants, it is a definite possibility.  It stands to reason that humanitarian intervention is at least a goal and a pretext, if not merely a pretext.  This situation reminds me of the U.S. military policy elucidated by Bill Clinton (I’d love to find a source on this if anyone can provide me with one) that stated future wars would be fought when there is a convergence of human suffering that should be eradicated and the strategic interests of the U.S. (I am paraphrasing for lack of a source).  It seems obvious to me that this is exactly what the French are doing.

It would be easier to dismiss the possibility that this is a resource grab if France had not “launched 37 major military operations in Francophone sub-Saharan Africa” between 1960 and 2006.  It would also be easier to endorse this war if the French president Francois Hollande had not said “The military operations will last ‘as long as necessary,” and then the French defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian had not promptly asserted that French troops would soon withdraw.

A consideration that should be on the minds of U.S. foreign policy makers is the influence the war in Libya had on this conflict.  The successes of the rebel forces have been largely due to an influx of arms that were smuggled into the north from Tuareg warriors who fled after the conflict in Libya.  In other words, America is not exempt from blame for the current conflict.

What would happen if I had my way?  I would see the international community, sanctioned by the Mali government (as at least France has been), take their leave after stabilizing the country.  What I instead foresee is the Western powers, especially France and Canada, sticking around and making sure that their companies have first dibs on any resources in the country.  My inclination is to say that a military dictatorship or a democratic puppet government would be much more pliable when it comes to granting foreign powers access to Mali’s resources (and the profits thereof) instead of a democratically elected government that actually represented the interests of the people of Mali.