US to send troops to Uganda to help fight LRA rebels

[Gerald]

US President Barack Obama has said he is sending about 100 US soldiers to Uganda to help regional forces battle the notorious Lord's Resistance Army.Although combat-equipped, the troops would be providing information and advice "to partner nation forces", Mr Obama wrote in a letter to US Congress.A small group is already in Uganda, and the troops could later be deployed in other central African nations.The LRA is blamed for mass murder, rape and kidnapping in the region.'Kill or capture'"I have authorised a small number of combat-equipped US forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of (LRA leader) Joseph Kony from the battlefield," Mr Obama wrote on Friday.But he stressed that "although the US forces are combat-equipped... they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defence".Mr Obama did not provide any details about the deployment duration, but a US military spokesman later told the BBC that the "forces are prepared to stay as long as necessary to enable regional security forces to carry on independently"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15317684

Note: 14 October 2011 Last updated at 21:01 GMT

[Platapus]

Swell.

And what exactly is in Uganda that is worth a single American life?

http://www.afrol.com/articles/21834

"Uganda becomes oil producer"

Oh, figured there had to be a reason. :nope:

Lemme guess there are tired poor huddled masses yearning to be free that happen to be on top of valuable oil reserves. :damn:

Swell, just swell. :x

[Gerald]

There are many problems with sending troops, even if it seems innocuous on paper ... it could easily be more, and then it will be conflicts and problems, :shifty: these kinds of auctions should be solved in another way.

[Jimbuna]

Someone found oil there? :o

[Gerald]

They have gold and other minerals.

[Tchocky]

Troops for oil costs more than it's worth. We've all seen that with Iraq, whether you believe that was the motive or not. I don't think the math works out.

It's always a good idea to fight against something like the LRA. Whether it works with your countrys foreign policy or internal politics is a different matter. Also whether the role of the troops is what you say it is - well that's another matter again.

[MothBalls]

Someone found oil there? :oThere's oil there?

BOMB THEM!

[yubba]

Yet they said that about Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, I feel that I'm missing some one, hate to think they find oil in Mexico.

[magicstix]

Yet they said that about Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, I feel that I'm missing some one, hate to think they find oil in Mexico.

Uhm, Mexico has a *lot* of oil, actually... So does Canada... So do we for that matter...

[Oberon]

Poor sods, getting caught up in another African mess. Still, I guess they're making their presence felt before China buys up the rest of Africa and its oil.

[yubba]

I guess that it's better to drop off our troops into far away $&*t holes to die for a barrel of oil, for it is too far for them to walk home.

[CaptainHaplo]

Cmon people - consistency here....

People screamed about how Bush sent troops into Iraq and those on the right wanted to justify it because it saved Iraqi's from genocide.
Now, the right is yelling "WHY ARE WE DOING THIS" - uhm - to try and save lives....

Why is that answer good enough to justify Iraq, but not good enough for this? Especially considering the very limited forces used.

The LRA has been at their work for what, 20+ years now? How many times did we hear people talk about "why isn't Obama doing something about it" after he got elected. The same question was asked about Bush.

Now something is getting done. Late - absolutely. But at least there is action.

I don't like the vast majority of the President's policies, but this is a good move.

[Platapus]

Uhm, Mexico has a *lot* of oil, actually... So does Canada... So do we for that matter...


The two largest suppliers of foreign oil to the United States are Canada and Mexico.

[Platapus]

I don't like the vast majority of the President's policies, but this is a good move.


I might agree that "someone" needs to "do something" in Uganda. However, it has not been demonstrated that this someone needs to be (or should be) the US or that the something needs to be our military.

I guess the older I get the more cold-hearted I get, but I still wonder what is there in Uganda that is worth a single American life?

American lives are kinda important to me. As a former military member, I understand that American military may need to die to support US national agendas. But I would have a hard time looking a soldier in the eye and say "you need to die for Uganda".

[magicstix]

I might agree that "someone" needs to "do something" in Uganda. However, it has not been demonstrated that this someone needs to be (or should be) the US or that the something needs to be our military.

I guess the older I get the more cold-hearted I get, but I still wonder what is there in Uganda that is worth a single American life?

American lives are kinda important to me. As a former military member, I understand that American military may need to die to support US national agendas. But I would have a hard time looking a soldier in the eye and say "you need to die for Uganda".

I think the problem isn't necessarily what the President is doing, but more his flagrant disregard for the law and the outright lying in his reasoning for the deployment of the troops. He's said that it's a national security issue (it's not) he's said he's carrying out Congressional mandates (he's not) and he's dropped the letter on us on a Friday like a document dump to avoid media scrutiny.

Going in there for humanitarian reasons is certainly noble, but it should be done within the law. What he's done here is unilaterally gone off on a military adventure in Africa without consulting any of the other branches of government.

The honest thing would have been to say "here's what I want to do, here's why" and make his case before the American people and Congress. We have checks and balances on power for a reason.

[the_tyrant]

this is interesting: http://www.lracrisistracker.com/

frankly I think this is progress
I mean, compared to the mercenaries and gun runners this is much better

[yubba]

The LRA has been at their work for what, 20+ years now? How many times did we hear people talk about "why isn't Obama doing something about it" after he got elected. The same question was asked about Bush.

Now something is getting done. Late - absolutely. But at least there is action.

I don't like the vast majority of the President's policies, but this is a good move.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was a pretty good end run around congress and the consitution, that's what the problem is, where in the consitution does it say the President can just send troops into foreign lands anytime he feels like it ????

[Oberon]

Oh aye, there's nothing wrong with the motive behind it...however the whole of Africa is one giant mess and has been for over a century, this is essentially a PR move, probably in light of the upcoming elections, most likely to appeal to the left and to the humanitarians. No doubt there will be connections found between the LRA and Al'Qaeda, if there hasn't been already. So that will be an attempt to touch base with the centrists. He knows he'd never get it through Congress before 2013, and so he goes around it...again.
America is getting war weary...you do not combat war weariness with more wars. Simple fact. You either go for a quick and decisive victory to boost morale, or you bug out and go isolationist for a decade or two until people have forgotten or until someone declares war on you.

There is a deeper strategic meaning behind this though, and that is the second African colonization (or third, I guess) by Chinese businesses and oil companies. Europe isn't particularly interested in Africa at the moment (well, aside from Libya obviously) and the UK has too much history there to get involved, so the only people who can counter the growing Chinese weight in Africa is the US, and as oil gets more and more precious, there will be a new rush to carve up the oil reserves in Africa to make sure that America is the one still standing when the traditional sellers start to run dry.
Whether or not this will be a consistent approach or whether the next government will overturn it and leave Africa to China remains to be seen.

[CaptainHaplo]

I think the problem isn't necessarily what the President is doing, but more his flagrant disregard for the law and the outright lying in his reasoning for the deployment of the troops. He's said that it's a national security issue (it's not) he's said he's carrying out Congressional mandates (he's not) and he's dropped the letter on us on a Friday like a document dump to avoid media scrutiny.

Going in there for humanitarian reasons is certainly noble, but it should be done within the law. What he's done here is unilaterally gone off on a military adventure in Africa without consulting any of the other branches of government.

He also stated its a mission in support of foreign policy - which it is (although a policy I disagree with), and under the war powers act he can deploy troops for a limited time frame. Thus - it is legal. Whether we like it or not.

I guess the older I get the more cold-hearted I get, but I still wonder what is there in Uganda that is worth a single American life?

While I agree with the sentiment to a point - we could have said the same thing about Europe in WW1 and WW2. When I say this is a "good move" - I am speaking not about the policy which I disagree with, but about the consistency in acting where there is a specific need to help preserve human life. Of course - then one has to ask - where is the consistency regarding Iran or Egypt or Syria then........

[magicstix]

He also stated its a mission in support of foreign policy - which it is (although a policy I disagree with), and under the war powers act he can deploy troops for a limited time frame. Thus - it is legal. Whether we like it or not.



While I agree with the sentiment to a point - we could have said the same thing about Europe in WW1 and WW2. When I say this is a "good move" - I am speaking not about the policy which I disagree with, but about the consistency in acting where there is a specific need to help preserve human life. Of course - then one has to ask - where is the consistency regarding Iran or Egypt or Syria then........

The War Powers Act is explicitly designed to check the President's power. The President is either required to go to Congress first, or may act without Congress if the US has been directly attacked or attack is imminent.

If an attack on the US was imminent, it's unlikely we would've ever heard about the commitment of troops until after they took out the threat, so the fact that the President has informed Congress more than likely proves that this is not in the national security interest in and of itself.

[TLAM Strike]

Am I the only one suprised that the 1st murderous sub-Saharan rebel army Obama decides to send troops against it the "Christian" one? :hmmm:

[CaptainHaplo]

Am I the only one suprised that the 1st murderous sub-Saharan rebel army Obama decides to send troops against it the "Christian" one? :hmmm:

TLAM, I don't miss the irony. However, just because they claim the mantle and blessing of the Almighty, doesn't make it so. Their actions are so anti-thetical to the commonly understood meaning of "Xtian" (at least here in the west) that the claim is ludicrous.

While one can debate theology all day long, the reality is that no organization that puts kids in the sex market, commits genocide and other horrors, is going to be taken seriously as a "Xtian" group in today's world. A few centuries ago - many groups that are now "mainstream" did exactly that - and were accepted. But not today.

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM, I don't miss the irony. However, just because they claim the mantle and blessing of the Almighty, doesn't make it so. Their actions are so anti-thetical to the commonly understood meaning of "Xtian" (at least here in the west) that the claim is ludicrous.

While one can debate theology all day long, the reality is that no organization that puts kids in the sex market, commits genocide and other horrors, is going to be taken seriously as a "Xtian" group in today's world. A few centuries ago - many groups that are now "mainstream" did exactly that - and were accepted. But not today.

Any time a group claims religion as an excuse for war its BS. But the point still stands that President Obama is sending troops to combat the LRA but not any of the Islamic militias and rebels that have been murdering civilians all across Africa. If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.

[CCIP]

Any time a group claims religion as an excuse for war its BS. But the point still stands that President Obama is sending troops to combat the LRA but not any of the Islamic militias and rebels that have been murdering civilians all across Africa. If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.

On the other hand, if you do it unselectively, will you ever have enough resources to do that?

And in fairness, the US does occasionally hit the Islamic militants in Somalia etc. with drone strikes. To be honest, I don't think 100 boots intended for training and intelligence support are going to be any more effective than a predator or two making a hit every once in a while. Or, in other words, not terribly effective at all.

[Kongo Otto]

To be honest, I don't think 100 boots intended for training and intelligence support are going to be any more effective than a predator or two making a hit every once in a while. Or, in other words, not terribly effective at all.

100 or 200 men can stabilize countries in the region, no doubt about it. The UK and the French did that on some occasions the last 30 years.
Doesn't matter if they are called LRA or Eastside Boys or RUF, they have many names down there. If you hit them real good and without mercy they are really fast in running and surrendering these guys down there are not Talibans or Al Quaida.

[magicstix]

100 or 200 men can stabilize countries in the region, no doubt about it. The UK and the French did that on some occasions the last 30 years.
Doesn't matter if they are called LRA or Eastside Boys or RUF, they have many names down there. If you hit them real good and without mercy they are really fast in running and surrendering these guys down there are not Talibans or Al Quaida.

Unfortunately these troops we're sending are probably going to come back home with some worse than usual psychological scars. Going up against the LRA means they're going to be killing more than a few children soldiers.

[Kongo Otto]

Unfortunately these troops we're sending are probably going to come back home with some worse than usual psychological scars. Going up against the LRA means they're going to be killing more than a few children soldiers.

Of course you kill more than a few Child soldiers, you whack them all.
That's the deal down there in the region, it was the same when the French were in Kolwezi 1978 and on many French Ops afterwards, whack them all and go home when the Job is done.

[Jimbuna]

There's oil there?

BOMB THEM!


LOL :DL

Poor sods, getting caught up in another African mess. Still, I guess they're making their presence felt before China buys up the rest of Africa and its oil.

Never a truer word....they've certainly got the $ :hmmm:

[Platapus]

If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.


Come on, be realistic. When in the history of the world had any country taken any military action that was not selective?

[Osmium Steele]

The new movie, "Machinegun Preacher", is about a man named Sam Childers. He built and runs an orphanage in South Sudan and has literally fought the LRA on numerous occasions to keep them away from his orphanage.

He gave a radio interview in 2007 in which he claimed the LRA was funded by the imams in northern Sudan, and that Joseph Kony, the LRA founder, and the LRA kill christians whenever they find them. He'd be in a position to know.

Joseph Kony is christian by background, but is just a whackjob. His 11th commandment prohibits bicycle riding?!?

I cringe everytime the MSM calls the LRA a christian army, as if their actions prove some kind of moral equivilancy between Christianity and Islam. To my knowledge, there are not 100 million screaming, chanting, marching, effigy burning christians worldwide who support the LRA's actions.

[the_tyrant]

The new movie, "Machinegun Preacher", is about a man named Sam Childers. He built and runs an orphanage in South Sudan and has literally fought the LRA on numerous occasions to keep them away from his orphanage.

He gave a radio interview in 2007 in which he claimed the LRA was funded by the imams in northern Sudan, and that Joseph Kony, the LRA founder, and the LRA kill christians whenever they find them. He'd be in a position to know.

Joseph Kony is christian by background, but is just a whackjob. His 11th commandment prohibits bicycle riding?!?

I cringe everytime the MSM calls the LRA a christian army, as if their actions prove some kind of moral equivilancy between Christianity and Islam. To my knowledge, there are not 100 million screaming, chanting, marching, effigy burning christians worldwide who support the LRA's actions.

That movie looks quite good:yep:
I'm going to go see it with my friends