US troops now in 4 African countries to fight LRA

AP ^ | 2/22/12 | JASON STRAZIUSO

[EBH]

The U.S. announced in October it was sending about 100 U.S. troops — mostly special operations forces — to Central Africa to advise in the fight against the LRA and its leader Joseph Kony, a bush fighter wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, the top U.S. special operations commander for Africa, said the U.S. troops are now stationed in bases in Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and Central African Republic.

"We've already seen a decrease in the lethality of LRA activities, which we think is attributable in part to the pressure we and our partners are applying," Losey said in a telephone briefing to journalists.

Losey said counter-LRA actions will increase in frequency and effectiveness in coming months.

The LRA began its attacks in Uganda in the 1980s, when Kony sought to overthrow the government. Since being pushed out of Uganda several years ago, the militia has terrorized villages in Central Africa.

A top State Department official, Karl Wycoff, said that Kony has shown the ability to mobilize combatants and militant leaders to carry out "horrible atrocities" for the LRA, which he called "some kind of cult," given that the group has no clear agenda. He said the U.S. effort was not just aimed at Kony but at all the LRA leaders.

However, Col. Felix Kulayigye, the spokesman for Uganda's military, said the hunt for Kony was an important aspect of the anti-LRA effort.

[arrogantsob]

Wow, my God bless you and help you deal with your great loss.

[arrogantsob]

Wow, may God bless you and help you deal with your great loss.

[arrogantsob]

It is in our interest that central Africa not be destabilized any more than it is. What that means is not so clear.

[af_vet_rr]

Until someone makes a clear case of what is our mission, I oppose any president from unilaterally deploying troops without an explanation.

The fact is, that applies to many situations and deployments we are currently involved in and it's not just a problem with Obama - it was a problem with both Bushes, with Clinton, and going forward, regardless of who is elected, I don't see it changing. If they were being deployed now instead of last fall, I would say it was just election year politics.

We know the situation is bad. As a Christian and a human being, I know it's awful for those folks who suffer at their hands, but I know it's not for us to fix the world's problems, especially if we can't/won't even fix the ones closer to home. It would be one thing if there were dozens of UN members willing to commit a lot of troops to get rid of the LRA and to clean up the area. But that's not happening. We're not even willing to clean up the situation in Somalia, and that's an actual national security threat that quite a few nations are now having to deal with.

[wtc911]

I don’t need to “see your post”....anybody who described LRA as a strong pro-christian, as you did, has nothing of substance to offer.

[af_vet_rr]

And not a single GD voice in the media or useless, shit-scared GOP asking: “WHY?”

That's easy to explain: Who wants to be the journalist or politician who opposes it, when Obama and his friends in the media can then claim you're defending somebody who supports the rape and killing of 10s of thousands of children? Any politician who stands up to Obama will find themselves answering questions about why they don't want us to go after child rapists and mass murders.

As much as I loathe these kinds of situations, and I firmly believe that by the time the election rolls around there will be many times the American "advisors" there that there are now, Obama can get away with this deployment.

Personally, with as many private military contractors as there are floating around, I'd rather see everybody who really supports this to chip and hire PMCs to deal with it rather than the US being dragged into another mini-war where the rules of engagement and our mission are hazy.

[af_vet_rr]

It is in our interest that central Africa not be destabilized any more than it is. What that means is not so clear.

Keeping both the crazies like the LRA and radical Islam out of power would be one clear goal. That is in our national interest. The problem is our government is loathe to identify the spread of Islam as a threat to our national security. It'd be one thing if Islam spread peacefully and people made the decision on their own, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

This idea of putting a small number of advisers in there just feels like a mini-Vietnam all over again. Put in a small group of advisers, something happens to them, so we bring in more troops to support and protect them and help train more locals, and pretty soon we are right back in 1963-1964.

Because of the lack of clarity about our overall mission and because the argument hasn't been made by Obama in regards to our national security, we should not be involved.

[bIlluminati]

The leaders in that part of the world helped the U.S. get some nasty Moslems (pirates?) a while back, and we promised them help with Kony in return.

But this Administration doesn’t bother with things like explanations, because he prefers to rule by decree.

[arrogantsob]

There is a difference in making alliances with some Moslems against other Moslems as Bush had to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; providing assistance to Islamic drug gangs such as the KLA to take over Kosovo; and fighting this group.

Since this cult prefers to attack women, children and the helpless the troops themselves are not in great danger and assisting in the eradication of such evil might be enlightening. While such interventions must be carefully done this has nothing to do with Vietnam and there is little chance of such an involvement.

The problem is The Disaster is clueless and can only be counted on to be relfexively anti-American and incompetent to accomplish Good.

[Levante]

Thanks for your post, af_vet_rr!

[af_vet_rr]

There is a difference in making alliances with some Moslems against other Moslems as Bush had to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; providing assistance to Islamic drug gangs such as the KLA to take over Kosovo; and fighting this group.

Since this cult prefers to attack women, children and the helpless the troops themselves are not in great danger and assisting in the eradication of such evil might be enlightening. While such interventions must be carefully done this has nothing to do with Vietnam and there is little chance of such an involvement.

My concern is that mission creep will occur - at some point, our "advisers" will take a more active role or be seen as a thread, and the LRA will act against them. Like you said, cults/groups like the LRA rely on powerless people, and if our advisers help some of those powerless people to resist the LRA, the LRA will be forced to act. Plus the head of the LRA is a religious nut, he's got some nuts following him, all he needs is one "vision" to tell him to wipe out the Americans.

What happens then? Do we cut our losses or do we commit more troops? We'll commit more troops of course, not many Presidents would do otherwise.