Interesting indeed, if it happens, and I think necessary (provided they don't fuck up, which I'm sure they will). AQIM has really been on the offensive lately, down there, what with kidnappings, and the Mauritania attacks, and hostage killings. They're outgrowing "nuisance" status and need to be dealt with.

Earlier attempt in the same genre blogged on here, but that one was postponed.

Disagree. Useless on the security dimension. AQIM is a nuisance, cars and cigarettes kill more. "Regular" crime probably kills more too.

OTOH, this is political posturing, building political legitimacy with dumb westerners. Or a good training field for anti-guerilla weapons. Or just macho muscle flexing.

OK, but compared to cars and cigarettes, nuclear weapons are also a minor issue. The issue is not just killing, but killing violently and publicly, and demonstrating that the state is incapable of protecting tourists, embassies, citizens, itself, etc. Perception matters in politics, that's what terrorism is all about. You'll remember that the US didn't declare War On Drunk Driving in 2001, even though that probably killed more people than bin Ladin.

You'll remember that the US didn't declare War On Drunk Driving in 2001, even though that probably killed more people than bin Ladin.

Right. And the "War on Terror" is a smart fuzzy concept because...?

I'm afraid I am with Alle on this, while the threat of Al Qaeda can and is overdone in many places, in the Algerian context (and Malian) the potential for hook up with wider activities does render it more problematic.

Violent terror attacks on a regular basis have an outsized impact on stability and commerce.

Violent terror attacks on a regular basis have an outsized impact on stability and commerce

aha. Good point, but doesn't actually contradict mine. The disruption is a result of perceptions, not actual quantifiable reality. My "dumb westerners" comment. Military response is a way to address perceptions. Not necessarily the only one. (not that I'm against it btw).