Reply
Fri 14 Oct, 2011 03:12 pm
@H2O MAN,
Well, Bush wouldn't do anything about this brutal rebel group that has menaced Uganda for two decades, so prezbo stepped in. Good for him.
He got support from a Republican:
Quote:The deployment drew support from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who has visited the region.
"I have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by the LRA, and this will help end Kony's heinous acts that have created a human rights crisis in Africa," he said in a statement. "I have been fervently involved in trying to prevent further abductions and murders of Ugandan children, and today's action offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight."
..so hopefully there will be non-partisan agreement.
Sure beats the 1 trillion spent to wipe out WMDs in Iraq.
@H2O MAN,
psssst...water dude...
viet nam is in Asia, not Africa...
@H2O MAN,
Has oil been discovered? gold?, silver?, copper?
More stunning hypocrisy from the world leader in hypocrisy.
"but the US supports and has supported similar atrocities and chooses to ignore comparable ones in other places, making humanitarian concerns unlikely in this case."
Quote:Obama Sends US Troops to Uganda to Fight Rebel Group
The deployment comes without approval from Congress or a thorough explanation as to why Ugandan rebels could possible concern the US
by John Glaser, October 14, 2011
President Barack Obama is sending about 100 US combat troops to Africa to hunt down and fight the leaders of the Christian rebel militant group the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in and around Uganda.
“I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield,” Obama said in letter sent Friday to House Speaker John Boehner. Joseph Kony is the head of the LRA.
Obama’s letter promised that US troops would not engage LRA forces ”unless necessary for self-defense.” But considering the deployment’s provocative nature, this caveat is probably meaningless.
“I believe that deploying these US armed forces furthers US national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa,” Obama said. How exactly a poor rebel group in Uganda is a concern for US national security was not specified.
Obama’s claim that the LRA is a legitimate national security concern is presumably supposed to simply be accepted without any evidence or explanation; truth by presidential decree. But it is also notable how quickly and easily, in disregard for the Constitutional requirements, the President can send American troops to far off places without Congressional approval.
Humanitarian intervention was again the hallmark of the justification for this military engagement. Obama noted that the group “has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and “continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan,” but the US supports and has supported similar atrocities and chooses to ignore comparable ones in other places, making humanitarian concerns unlikely in this case.
Obama’s military interventions were difficult to count even before this latest engagement. But his administration’s martial proclivities are proving to be vastly more wide-ranging than his hawkish predecessors.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/14/obama-sends-us-troops-to-uganda-to-fight-rebel-group/
@JTT,
Gold. It seems the price is soaring
@panzade,
Quote:Gold. It seems the price is soaring
There ya have it.
But really, Pan, you've got to ask yourself -
Why would the US pick this little god forsaken place when they have dictatorships around the globe doing the same things?
Quote:US-Supported Philippine Army is Detaining Innocent Children
The US has continued to welcome widespread human rights abuses from the ally, as economic and military support increases
by John Glaser, October 12, 2011
The Philippine army has fabricated stories that children taken into custody are rebel “child warriors,” Human Rights Watch has reported, urging the Philippine government to end the practice.
In each of the cases investigated, the army made a media spectacle of the abducted innocent children, publicly branding them rebels and continuing to harass those children finally released and their families. These violate multiple domestic and international laws.
“The army is concocting stories of rebel child soldiers that are putting children at risk for propaganda purposes,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government should get the military to stop this despicable practice and investigate the officers involved.”
The government of the Philippines is one of the biggest recipients of US military aid in all of Asia, with $163 million slated for 2012, despite recently hosting one of the worst waves of human rights violations in its history. Numerous embassy cables released by WikiLeaks acknowledge systematic extrajudicial killings, abduction, and false arrests perpetrated by the US-supported security forces.
The United States conducts a so-called counterinsurgency operations there against an elusive group allegedly tied to al Qaeda, and reportedly numbering at no more than 12 individuals. A total of 17 US forces, out of about 600, have been killed efforts in the Philippines, and the Department of Defense has indicated it will stay in the country indefinitely.
The US values the Philippines as a reliable client state and a counter to China, thus humanitarian concerns have been irrelevant. The Obama Administration recently announced that it is preparing a major increase in arms shipments to the Philippines, despite such ongoing human rights abuses.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/12/us-supported-philippine-army-is-detaining-innocent-children/
@Irishk,
I must admit I know nothing about Uganda's economic value. I do know that there is genocide going on there on a large scale. Should the rest of the world turn a blind eye?
35 years ago I hitched from Cairo to Capetown. I was in Kenya, wanting to go to Uganda. A border guard in Kenya gently warned me against doing that. Two days later, American Peace Corp workers and their counterparts from Europe came streaming out in droves.
@realjohnboy,
Quote:I do know that there is genocide going on there on a large scale. Should the rest of the world turn a blind eye?
If you want to maintain the status quo, that's exactly what the world should do, RJB.
What good is having a Black President without American involvement in Africa?
Let's be honest. At some point the U.S. has to include Africa in its military efforts, since otherwise American Blacks might think the U.S. involvement around the world is racist, by avoiding Africa.
@Foofie,
Quote:Let's be honest. At some point the U.S. has to include Africa in its military efforts, since otherwise American Blacks might think the U.S. involvement around the world is racist, by avoiding Africa
Isn't Libya in Africa?
My guess is that this is a pay off for the Africans supporting us in getting rid of Gadaffi, and to insure that if he shows up in some African nation that he will handed over to the Hague for a properly exercised death sentence.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Let's be honest. At some point the U.S. has to include Africa in its military efforts, since otherwise American Blacks might think the U.S. involvement around the world is racist, by avoiding Africa
Isn't Libya in Africa?
My guess is that this is a pay off for the Africans supporting us in getting rid of Gadaffi, and to insure that if he shows up in some African nation that he will handed over to the Hague for a properly exercised death sentence.
O.K., but we might be starting the "fixing of Africa project." It was too big a job for Tarzan, Jane and boy (and Cheetah). Plus, the African natives now speak more than Bwanah ("Sir" in Zulu, I think). This might just be the right time for humans to return to Africa, now that we know how to protect ourselves from vitamin D poisoning.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Let's be honest. At some point the U.S. has to include Africa in its military efforts, since otherwise American Blacks might think the U.S. involvement around the world is racist, by avoiding Africa
Isn't Libya in Africa?
My guess is that this is a pay off for the Africans supporting us in getting rid of Gadaffi, and to insure that if he shows up in some African nation that he will handed over to the Hague for a properly exercised death sentence.
The African Union was the only organisation that kept supporting Gadaffi. I support the intervention, the LRA are obnoxious, and should have been stopped years ago. Instead of looking at Vietnam as an example, look at what happened in Sierra Leone.
I do not support the intervention.
I doubt one hundred special forces are going to make much of a difference.
There's just too big a chance of the USA getting drawn ever deeper into it.
(Funny thing . . . I read JTT's posts on this thread and I still can't figure out
whether she is for or against intervention.)
@George,
George wrote:
I doubt one hundred special forces are going to make much of a difference.
There's just too big a chance of the USA getting drawn ever deeper into it.
Our experience in Sierra Leone could be taken as a precedent.
Quote:The situation in the country deteriorated to such an extent that British troops were deployed in Operation Palliser, originally simply to evacuate foreign nationals. However, the British exceeded their original mandate, and took full military action to finally defeat the rebels and restore order. The British were the catalyst for the ceasefire that ended the civil war. Elements of the British Army, together with administrators and politicians, remain in Sierra Leone to this day, helping train the armed forces, improve the infrastructure of the country and administer financial and material aid. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of the British intervention, is regarded as a hero by the people of Sierra Leone, many of whom are keen for more British involvement. Sierra Leoneans have been described as "The World's Most Resilient People".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone
I am not concerned about this Uganda/South Sudan campaign becoming a Vietnam. It doesn't sit well with me that this was announced on a Friday afternoon. It quickly got the support of a prominent Republican senator, though. with knowledge of affairs in Africa.
There is no doubt, I think, about the magnitude of the atrocities: killings in the tens of thousands, rapes, dislocation of some 400,000 people. There are some truly evil people involved in this.
The notion of the U.S. as the "world's policeman'" troubles me.
But there is more. Far more people die in Africa, I would contend, from malnutrition and disease. The developed countries wring their hands and the countries affected continue, for the most part, tolerating corruption and exploitation.
@realjohnboy,
Quote:The notion of the U.S. as the "world's policeman'" troubles me.
What troubles me is what is the point? The only reason to have anything to do with Africa is to get resources, but the Chinese are doing almost all of the deals, at this point military policing actions in Africa can only advance the Chinese interests at the expense of our own.
As a neo-con, this doesn't bother me in the least, because I do believe that it is American interest to help put an end to the sort of atrocities being committed by the LRA.
However, I'm a big fan of consistency and I see nothing consistent between this action and Obama's explanation (at the time of the Libya invasion) of when American military intervention is justified. There is certainly nothing consistent between support for this action and virulent opposition to neo-con policy.
Unless a huge deposit of Unobtanium is found to reside with Uganda, there is nothing about this move that speaks of real politik
Didn't I hear President Obama tell us that we can't be the world's policemen and intervene in every humanitarian crisis around the globe? Didn't I hear him tell us that real American interests must be at stake to justify American military action?
I couldn't see any real American interests at stake in Libya and I sure as hell can't see them at risk in Uganda.
As for the law of unintended consequences, it isn't suspended because one of these actions meets our personal sense of propriety or because we happen to like the current American president.
The Administration, to the extent it has said anything about this small bomb that was quietly dropped in the news shadows of a Friday evening, stresses that these 100 men are there as advisors only and will fire only if fired upon.
We needn't go as far back as Vietnam to find an example of how easily an advisor presence can turn into a combat role. I hope that doesn't happen with these young men and that they can be effective and safe in whatever mission they are being assigned.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Our experience in Sierra Leone could be taken as a precedent.
Quote:The situation in the country deteriorated to such an extent that British troops were deployed in Operation Palliser, originally simply to evacuate foreign nationals. .....
Evacuation is a completely different function. Here I also worry that these 100 "advisers" might succumb to mission creep - an old US problem.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace