Francois Hollande was on a plane taking him from Paris to Abu Dhabi, confident that the decision to intervene military on Friday was a necessary one. French forces, which started out at 1,500 troops, have prevented Mali from falling into the hands of terrorists from the Sahel region. They want to turn the French ally into a haven for terror, to be used in preparing terrorist attacks against France in Africa and in France. Hollande affirmed to journalists accompanying him on the trip to Abu Dhabi, among them al-Hayat, that he took the decision on Friday, and not before. He said that he telephoned Algerian President Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika, who informed Hollande that he had closed the borders and given permission for French overflights over his country's airspace. Hollande also telephoned Morocco's King Mohammed VI and discussed Mali in his meetings with leaders in the UAE, in both Abu Dhabi and Dubai. France's political opposition and the media supported Hollande's decision to intervene, even though there are eight French hostages being held by jihadists in the Sahel region. The legitimacy of the French move is due to Mali's request for French intervention, and the green light from the United Nations Security Council. Hollande is aware of the dangers of this war, and the possibility that there will be casualties, as well as the killing of the hostages. But the move imposed itself, because the progress by jihadists in the Sahel would have toppled the regime in Bamako; there is a French community of 6,000 people in Mali, and they were under threat. The military operation is a complicated and difficult one, because the jihadists are using non-traditional means in their war, namely terror, and this is frightening. But Hollande knows this, and has taken a bold decision, despite the fact that the danger of a deterioration in conditions is not in France's interest. But his decision is better than seeing France's neighbors remain a hotbed of terrorist jihadists, with control over a weak country such as Mali. Hollande's decision to intervene has also given him a push in the eyes of the public; since the beginning of his presidency he has been criticized and blamed for not being decisive when it comes to government decisions. In this decision, the French president showed a decisiveness that surprised many of his critics. Certainly, Hollande is also aware that many Arabs and Muslims view this intervention as colonialism by the French, and this is especially true in the ranks of salafist-jihadist groups in North Africa that belong to al-Qaida. A large number of these people are Algerian jihadists who fought their country's regime, and were then expelled by the Algerian authorities to Mali. Another group is made up of jihadists who were able to get a hold of weapons from Libya. France is alone in this war, even though the British and the Americans have offered symbolic assistance to their ally. The chief of staff of African forces based in Bamako is a Nigerian, but this is clearly a French war, and a decisive one in the battle against terror. But it is disappointing to see this war in Africa rule out any possibility of foreign intervention elsewhere, to save the Syrian people from their own regime. The Security Council cannot act on Syria, and the White House is not moving either. Those familiar with the Syrian crisis say that Iran is the biggest stumbling-block, more so than Russia, when it comes to the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Military intervention is unlikely in Syria, even though the situation in this country threatens the Middle East and the world. Naturally, Syria is not Mali, and the situation and interests are different. But state terror in Syria has killed 60,000 people and led to the displacement of half a million Syrians, while no one has acted to stop this catastrophe. The excuse is that the situation in Mali is dissimilar to Syria is insufficient. Bloodshed is continuing, along with the destruction of the country and no one is working to confront these two developments, and this is unacceptable, irrespective of the excuses being used. The situation in Syria causes observers to intervene promptly in some places, in order to stop terror, while in others they allow the killing and oppression by a regime supported by Iran and Russia to continue. The excuse is that the world and its leading powers have no ability to end the situation in Syria.
