Obama sending 5 US military officers to South Sudan amid outbreaks of ethnic violence

AP via Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, January 10, 4:09 PM | Robert Burns contributed to this report

[Pan_Yan]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is sending five American military officers to South Sudan amid recent outbreaks of violence in the newly independent African nation.

The White House said the U.S. forces will join the United Nations mission in the capital of Juba and focus on strategic planning and operations. They are not expected to engage in combat operations, but will be armed for personal protection.

Obama issued a memorandum Tuesday declaring that the U.S. officers could not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court during their deployment because South Sudan is not a party to the ICC. The White House said prior administrations used similar designations when sending U.S. forces to United Nations missions in Haiti and Liberia.

The first of the small group of U.S. forces is expected to depart for South Sudan later this week. The Pentagon said there were no plans to expand the U.S. contribution to the U.N. mission.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Well Ron Paul is going to be pizzed.

[sten]

5??

I’m guessing these guys wouldn’t take the retirement package

0bama will fix that

[GreenHornet]

Why doesn’t he send Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? I’m certain they would be able to reason with their African brothers and bring about a peaceful solution.

[Parmenio]

Obama issued a memorandum Tuesday declaring that the U.S. officers could not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court during their deployment because South Sudan is not a party to the ICC.

This is a very curious statement. Actually, U.S. officers could not be prosecuted because the U.S. is not a party to the ICC. That's the way you would expect an American president to say it.

[JerseyHighlander]

The areas of South Sudan that are having outbreaks of violence have over 90% illiteracy, the “police” force does not exist, the “military” is one local war vet with a machete and a ragged uniform, and the conflicts are based on a range from anything from witchcraft accusations to child rape.

NO infrastructure at all, the country is the size of France and has less than 50 miles of tarmac roads.

What exactly can 5 guys wearing US uniforms do there?

However, in the capital there might be legitimate uses of US military personnel regarding training military and police forces command structures, like what was done in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

BBC. had a program, This World, 2011 Return of the Lost Boys of Sudan, which is a really good program, has a sequence of them driving through the conflict areas.

[Pan_Yan]

I noticed that too. I’m used to our President making strange statements, and usually they worry me because he starts using that lawyerly language we either lose rights, money or men. Or all three.

[Pan_Yan]

I agree that South Sudan has some tremendous challenges but it also has some great potential. They have thrown off the yoke of the Islamists in the North, they have oil revenue and they appear to favor capitalism. Another encouraging trend is they are developing close ties with Israel, the first country to recognize them as independent. I can't help but find myself rooting for them after all they've been through.

[Glenn]

I’m certain they would be able to reason with their African brothers

Arab brothers.

[freebird5850]

Here we go again, Barry is going to start another war.

[hedgetrimmer]

I vehemently oppose any of our troops being commanded by the United Nations. The rules of engagement will get them killed, after they have trained or conducted the missions the criminals at the UN want them to do.

The worst places in the world are UN protectorates, Haiti and Kosovo, and that should be proof enough that no American should go into harms way for this despicable organization.

[TheOldLady]

Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

[Cen-Tejas]

...........agreed, until a committee of officers and enlisted men have final say over ROE’s in a particular conflict instead of liberal democrat politicians and their lawyer hacks, no young son of any mom or dad in America should be ordered into combat............

I’m seeing this “committee” as something resembling a military jury. And, every single person on it should be required to have been in combat.

[map]

The article claims that 60,000 are affected by the violence, but does not explain or identify the parties to the violence.

[Pan_Yan]

The article claims that 60,000 are affected by the violence, but does not explain or identify the parties to the violence.

The 'journalist' could have done a better job explaining, but to be fair everyone is involved. The Christian and Animist South have been in rebellion against the North for most of the last 60 years, and then some. They finally won their independence, but that just created new problems. The South has most of the oil and therefore the wealth. The Islamists in the North have a big problem with that. The South has no access to the sea, so even though they have the oil they can't ship it. The President of Sudan (North) can't leave the country or he risks being hauled to The Hague. He's still working on ethnic cleansing. The borders have never been agreed on so the fighting has never really stopped in those areas. In the far south the LRA is still active and being pursued by several nations with help from 100 of our Special Forces. Darfur and the Blue Nile regions are technically in the North but most of the inhabitants want to join the South or overthrow the government. As someone pointed out upthread they have less paved roads than most small American towns. I think 60,000 is a narrow and conservative number which just includes either those in disputed border towns or those in direct contact with the LRA.

[map]

Thank you.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Pan_Yan.