Obama orders invasion of Uganda

[Donkey]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/

Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the military industrialists, but it is what it is.

On one hand, it's nice to have a leader that's not intent on ignoring central Africa, but on the other hand.... Jesus fucking Christ.

[dilettante]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/

Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the military industrialists, but it is what it is.

On one hand, it's nice to have a leader that's not intent on ignoring central Africa, but on the other hand.... Jesus fucking Christ.

I think that might be an abuse of the term.

IMO, 100 personnel who come by invitation doth not an "invasion" make.

[The_Dot]

Hmmm.

Where have we seen "advisors" sent in in "non-combat" roles before?

Oh, yeah - Vietnam.

Interesting that the President has chosen the 18th anniversary of the battle of Mogadishu to launch a new African adventure. Must admire the man's sense of history....

Anyone care to take bets on how much time passes before these advisors are calling "advisory" drone strikes?

[Donkey]

I think that might be an abuse of the term.

IMO, 100 personnel who come by invitation doth not an "invasion" make.
It's the unilateral deployment of combat personnel in a foreign country... the numbers are almost irrelevant.
Hmmm.

Where have we seen "advisors" sent in in "non-combat" roles before?

Oh, yeah - Vietnam.

Interesting that the President has chosen the 18th anniversary of the battle of Mogadishu to launch a new African adventure. Must admire the man's sense of history....

Anyone care to take bets on how much time passes before these advisors are calling "advisory" drone strikes?
Yeah. "Advisers" my ass.

"Combat equipped" says it all.

[Michael]

"Advisors in non-combat roles" translated from US military speak is in reality, Green Berets.

Just sayin'.

[The_Dot]

Or 1st SOF-D. Some manner of special forces folks.

[Michael]

Or 1st SOF-D. Some manner of special forces folks.

Navy Seals seem to be used as 'hit squads'. The Green Berets are the ones that are usually used for the 'counter-insurgency' stuff (training the locals).

The first boat load of US "advisors" in Vietnam were Green Berets.

[The_Dot]

Absolutely. Not sure who is handling the COIN role these days in the spec-ops community.

Counterterrorism is way more sexy -> more budget -> more toys....

[Michael]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/

Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the military industrialists, but it is what it is.

On one hand, it's nice to have a leader that's not intent on ignoring central Africa, but on the other hand.... Jesus fucking Christ.

Yes, this is a difficult one to like or dislike. The LRA is indeed a truly horrific organization and seeing the end of that does seem highly beneficial to just about everyone.

That being said, having the US poking its nose into yet another country, with the same tried and true pattern of political penetration is disturbing, no matter how small the effort may officially appear to be. This stuff just doesn't usually end well (or it never ends).

[Donkey]

Yes, this is a difficult one to like or dislike. The LRA is indeed a truly horrific organization and seeing the end of that does seem highly beneficial to just about everyone.

That being said, having the US poking its nose into yet another country, with the same tried and true pattern of political penetration is disturbing, no matter how small the effort may officially appear to be. This stuff just doesn't usually end well (or it never ends).

Yeah... if it was just helping end the reign of terror of some hyped up religious warlords, it would be one thing.

But it's never just that, and it's part of a larger pattern.

[Tom Palven]

Hmmm.

Where have we seen "advisors" sent in in "non-combat" roles before?

Oh, yeah - Vietnam.

Interesting that the President has chosen the 18th anniversary of the battle of Mogadishu to launch a new African adventure. Must admire the man's sense of history....

Anyone care to take bets on how much time passes before these advisors are calling "advisory" drone strikes?

:rofl:

[dilettante]

It's the unilateral deployment of combat personnel in a foreign country... the numbers are almost irrelevant.


Really? What if the number was 1? Just one guy named Capt. Bob.

Let's say Uganda is having trouble with a mass-murdering group of well-armed militants (which they are), and they ask the US President for some help. And Obama says, well, Capt. Bob here knows a lot about dealing with mass-murdering groups of well armed militants; he can probably help you guys out. The Ugandan gov. says 'great, send him over'.

1) If Bob goes over to Uganda, is that an "invasion" of Uganda?
2) Does Congress need to craft and pass a piece of legislation specifically approving Bob going to Uganda?

I can understand concern about the deployment of US forces, and I think a Congressional committee should be informed and have full investigative powers over all deployments of troops over seas (even if it's just captain Bob).

But calling the deployment of 100 people, when they were invited by the host government an "invasion" or (as occurred in a USPOL thread on the same issue) a "war" just sounds like wild paranoia.

[Tom Palven]

Really? What if the number was 1? Just one guy named Capt. Bob.

Let's say Uganda is having trouble with a mass-murdering group of well-armed militants (which they are), and they ask the US President for some help. And Obama says, well, Capt. Bob here knows a lot about dealing with mass-murdering groups of well armed militants; he can probably help you guys out. The Ugandan gov. says 'great, send him over'.

1) If Bob goes over to Uganda, is that an "invasion" of Uganda?
2) Does Congress need to craft and pass a piece of legislation specifically approving Bob going to Uganda?

I can understand concern about the deployment of US forces, and I think a Congressional committee should be informed and have full investigative powers over all deployments of troops over seas (even if it's just captain Bob).

But calling the deployment of 100 people, when they were invited by the host government an "invasion" or (as occurred in a USPOL thread on the same issue) a "war" just sounds like wild paranoia.

Hey, it's just a little teensy invasion. Nobody's calling it an occupation, yet.

[pramjockey]

The part I'm trying to figure out on this - what's the corporate benefit here? There's an arguable one for at least 2 of the 3 wars we're involved in now. Where's the profit in Uganda/Somalia?

[Americano]

The part I'm trying to figure out on this - what's the corporate benefit here? There's an arguable one for at least 2 of the 3 wars we're involved in now. Where's the profit in Uganda/Somalia?

MIC always makes a buck with any military involvement.

[pramjockey]

MIC always makes a buck with any military involvement.

True. But we could just up training exercises and blow the shit out of the Nevada desert.

[Americano]

True. But we could just up training exercises and blow the shit out of the Nevada desert.

Not the same opportunity for expansion and longevity as military intervention in a foreign country?

[pramjockey]

Not the same opportunity for expansion and longevity as military intervention in a foreign country?

True.

But we could invade Texas or something. It's kind of like a foreign country.

;-)



Sorry. I'm just so disheartened. I wasn't one of those moonbeam-eyed "OMG Obama is gonna save the world" loonies (I thought he was a better option than Angry Old Man/Caribou Barbie), and now I look at the GOP "options" and I'm truly nauseated. Then I look at the rest of the world and I wonder where else could I go?

[Americano]

True.

But we could invade Texas or something. It's kind of like a foreign country.

;-)

That's not really the MIC style. Texans would put up a fight and high military casualties are politically undesirable.

Sorry. I'm just so disheartened. I wasn't one of those moonbeam-eyed "OMG Obama is gonna save the world" loonies (I thought he was a better option than Angry Old Man/Caribou Barbie), and now I look at the GOP "options" and I'm truly nauseated. Then I look at the rest of the world and I wonder where else could I go?

[Michael]

The part I'm trying to figure out on this - what's the corporate benefit here? There's an arguable one for at least 2 of the 3 wars we're involved in now. Where's the profit in Uganda/Somalia?

We're only at stage one. MIC makes its bucks later on in the process.

But that's beside the essential point that "any usage" of US military assets is a good thing - as that creates more demand for usage of US military assets - and that's what is most profitable for the MIC. Don't forget the MIC is playing a long game - they have their eye on 'perpetual war', not the nickels and dimes to be made off any given small operation. The politics are important and selling 'war as policy' to the voters is an important part of that.

[pramjockey]

We're only at stage one. MIC makes its bucks later on in the process.

But that's beside the essential point that "any usage" of US military assets is a good thing - as that creates more demand for usage of US military assets - and that's what is most profitable for the MIC. Don't forget the MIC is playing a long game - they have their eye on 'perpetual war', not the nickels and dimes to be made off any given small operation. The politics are important and selling 'war as policy' to the voters is an important part of that.

Fair enough.


Do you think the voters will buy this one? Wars in Africa don't seem to sell well here.

[Donkey]

Fair enough.


Do you think the voters will buy this one? Wars in Africa don't seem to sell well here.

I think this is one where we're just supposed to not worry our little heads over it. It wasn't presented or sold to the voter, they just kind of quietly did it. Not a lot of fanfare.

[Michael]

I think this is one where we're just supposed to not worry our little heads over it. It wasn't presented or sold to the voter, they just kind of quietly did it. Not a lot of fanfare.

Yes, that seems to be the plan.

Just remember that six months from now, when they decide to increase the size of the commitment, any objections to that will be dismissed with the argument, "well, you didn't complain about it when we announced the program, why are you trying to play politics now?"

[Dominick]

The part I'm trying to figure out on this - what's the corporate benefit here? There's an arguable one for at least 2 of the 3 wars we're involved in now. Where's the profit in Uganda/Somalia?
Coltan. Coltan is a main source for tantalum which is used a lot in electronics, specifically in cell phones. Everything in that region (Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda,...) is linked to that mineral.