Uganda: In which I support Obama. (Oh, it hurts!) — Updated

Posted by: Phineas on October 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm

**Posted by Phineas

News broke today of President Obama’s decision to send 100 American soldiers, armed for combat, to Uganda:

President Obama said Friday he is sending a small number of U.S. combat troops to central Africa to assist in a regional effort to neutralize the Lord’s Resistance Army, a guerrilla force originally from northern Uganda that has been accused of terrorizing civilians in several countries.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama announced the deployment of “approximately 100” combat-equipped personnel to act as “advisers to partner forces” that are targeting the leadership of the insurgent group.

He said he ordered the deployment under a law enacted in May 2010, the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act. His letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and the president pro tempore of the Senate, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), said he was keeping Congress informed of the move consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

“For more than two decades, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa,” the letter said, adding that the group “continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

With limited U.S. assistance, Obama wrote, “regional military efforts have thus far been unsuccessful in removing LRA leader Joseph Kony or his top commanders from the battlefield.” Therefore, he said, “I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa” to help regional forces achieve that goal.

Here’s a summary of the 2010 law; it appears this assistance is authorized by section 4(3):

…an interagency framework to plan, coordinate, and review diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military elements of U.S. policy across the region regarding the LRA…

Emphasis added. An excerpt from Obama’s letter to Boehner is here.

This news set off a predictable flurry on Twitter, with people comparing this to Obama’s commencement of a war in Libya, bringing up analogies to Vietnam, and other reactions.

At the risk of getting labeled a RINO, I support Obama’s decision. Let’s keep a few things in mind:

First, the LRA is a bunch of religious psychopaths who are in no way Christian. From their entry at Global Security:

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, operated in the north from bases in southern Sudan. The LRA committed numerous abuses and atrocities, including the abduction, rape, maiming, and killing of civilians, including children. In addition to destabilizing northern Uganda from bases in Sudan, the LRA congregated in the Bunia area in eastern Congo. They linked up with the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) and other rebel groups that were battling with forces from the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD).

The LRA continued to kill, torture, maim, rape, and abduct large numbers of civilians, virtually enslaving numerous children. Although its levels of activity diminished somewhat compared with 1997, the area that the LRA targeted grew. The LRA sought to overthrow the Ugandan Government and inflicted brutal violence on the population in northern Uganda. LRA forces also targeted local government officials and employees. The LRA also targeted international humanitarian convoys and local NGO workers.

The LRA abducted large numbers of civilians for training as guerrillas. Most victims were children and young adults. The LRA abducted young girls as sex and labor slaves. Other children, mainly girls, were reported to have been sold, traded, or given as gifts by the LRA to arms dealers in Sudan. While some later escaped or were rescued, the whereabouts of many children remain unknown.

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs placed the number of abducted children held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates varied substantially.

As far as I’m concerned, these guys fall under the First Rule of Texas Common Law: they need killing. Clearly local security forces have been unable to destroy the LRA, so assisting them with advisers to help coordinate their efforts and provide them with training –as authorized under law– make sense. And, since they’re going into a dangerous environment, arming them is only reasonable. I’ve read before that these advisory missions work best when the advisers can take the field with the troops they’re training, so it would be foolish not to issue them weapons for self-defense.

Why here and why now? Why not Darfur, south Sudan in their civil war with the north, or any of a dozen other places?

Frankly, those are good questions. For the record, I would have armed the Darfuris and south Sudanese, but, then, I’m a warmongering neocon. Though I confess to begging the question, I can only conclude that this mission was settled on as a relatively inexpensive (1) way to do both a moral thing and meet our national interests.

What is the American national interest? I don’t know the specifics (Oddly enough, I wasn’t included in the negotiations that lead to this.), but both Uganda and South Sudan are friendly governments — we midwifed South Sudan’s “birth,” for example. In a region increasingly threatened by jihadist movements from Somalia and Sudan, we have an interest in supporting stable allies. Think of it as not only doing the right thing (helping friends against a deadly threat), but building relationships for future cooperation, too.

This isn’t an uncommon or unusual or sinister action for us to take: we have military advisers in the Philippines helping against the jihadist Abu Sayyaf movement, for one. American advisers are also in Mali and Senegal, Chad, and other African countries, training them to fight al Qaeda.

And it’s not just al Qaeda or other jihad groups. The last ten years saw an average of 1,000 US advisers visit Colombia to help that country confront drug traffickers and communist rebels.

Some people were fretting that this was another “hot war” like  Libya or Vietnam, both of which analogies I think are way off. Unlike Libya, this is not a conventional war started by a president who decides to ignore the War Powers Act (2). Unlike Vietnam, we are not fighting a client state that’s getting aid and diplomatic cover from two nuclear-armed superpowers.

This decision to send advisers –yes, potentially into harm’s way– to Uganda is more akin to our existing military advisory missions than it is to “starting another war.” It is an extension of our existing diplomacy.

It’s also, given the horrific nature of the LRA, a good and right thing to do.

(1) No, I’m not callous to the risk these individuals might face. But 100 troops is a small commitment even for the stretched US military and, relative to our budget, it won’t cost us that much. A much larger deployment, of course, would require a reevaluation of costs relative to national interests.
(2) As far as I’m concerned, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, but, until voided by the courts or repealed, it is the law and Obama broke it.

UPDATE: Regarding national interests, a little digging shows Uganda provides the largest contingent of troops, over 5,000 (link in French), for the contingent fighting the Islamist al-Shabaab in Somalia. This could easily be a case of “We helped you with what you said was a vital interest, now how about some help in return?” (via The Jawas)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

16 Responses to “Uganda: In which I support Obama. (Oh, it hurts!) — Updated”


  1. Iva Biggin says:

    Might as well register as a dung-o-crat Mr. P. I’m sure you will be a great asset to our fuhrer

  2. Craig says:

    You are right on. And we do need to be consistant and speak out when Obama does something right. Although you do wonder if Obama knows that these (Uganda, South Sudan) are largely christian nations?

  3. TexasMom2012 says:

    It sounds like the right thing to do especially if our troops are given the authorization to strike back if attacked. As long as the ROE are not so restrictive that they inhibit our troops ability to defend themselves, then alright. My problem is that I simply do not trust Obama, period. So I want Congress to keep a close eye on what goes on here. Especially since they completely abdicated their responsibility with regards to actions taken in Libya. It feels like Obama doesn’t think that there are any limits to his power. And that is truly frightening to me. I hope our troops can quickly target and eliminate The LRA, but I am truly leery of giving Obama any more power to engage in even more countries. So far, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, South Sudan, Uganda, Congo, the Philliphines, I count at least nine active conflicts that we are involved with and that doesn’t include major concerns like North Korea, Syria and Iran. When will Obama feel the military is stretched too thin? How much more can be cut from the Defense budget while Obama continues to spread our military around the globe? I am truly concerned that our guys will not have enough equipment for the next conflict.

  4. Carlos says:

    I am with you most of the way on this one, Phineas. Murderers are murderers in any language and culture.

    However, the question arises: When will we send a group of “advisors” to any country in Africa or the middle east whose purpose is to control out-of-control muslims marauding Christians? Like in Egypt and elsewhere?

    I didn’t think so.

  5. Eric says:

    Fully armed advisers is an oxymoron u morons! Are u still buying what the pres is selling. Lybia…HELLO! How soon we forget the lies we’ve been told. Shame on us.

  6. SpeakEasy says:

    Eric, it is obvious you have never served in the military. Sending advisors in there without the means to defend themselves would be foolhardy and irresponsible. These are people, not chess pieces. I could accept the option of not sending them at all, although, like our host I believe it to be the right thing. But if you send them in make sure the can get back out.

  7. John says:

    If I was a congressman I would have a hard time explaing to Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Smalltown, Nebraska why it is there son is coming home in a box on this one. This is not a vital interest, and outside of Suez there are no vital US intersts on the entire continent of Africa. This is misguided, at best.

  8. Sarah says:

    This may be the “moral” thing to do but when you’re committed to fighting in three other countries and your own country is teetering on the brink, perhaps it’s time to step back and let someone else show how compassionate they can be with taxpayer money. If Obama feels compelled to act, let him send in a kill squad. Oh, but wait… then he couldn’t claim credit as the freaking savior of the world.

  9. J3 says:

    The President states that this “is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States”. He doesn’t bother to explain how or why it is in our interests, but, just like everything else he signs (e.g., Obamacare Bill) or says (e.g., “Pass my Jobs Bill, pass my Jobs Bill!”), he thinks the waving of his pen or a rabble rousing declaration takes anything from concept to reality. Simply writing, in effect, a decree doesn’t remotely equate to an articulated justification to the Congress or the American people. Be a leader, square your shoulders to the men and women in this country, and make your case! In 24 years of service, I’ve never described a CINC as furtive….until now, and it is sickening.

  10. Great White Rat says:

    I wasn’t convinced about this one until I saw the update. If the government of Uganda is helping in the WOT (and remember, for a country the size of Uganda, 5000 troops is a big committment), then I’m all for helping them now. You don’t ask others for help and then refuse to help them, if you can, when they need it.

    Carlos – your question is a good one. The difference is that in cases like Egypt, the marauding bands of killers have the support of the government, so we will never be asked to help control them.

  11. Carlos says:

    My point exactly, GWR. It would never occur to this administration that there might be a religious bias in the asking for help or, in this case, a religious bias in granting the request.

    That said, if this group is little more than a marauding band of murderers they deserve to be hunted down like the murdering animals they apparently are.

    And when they’re found, any bets on whether a drone is used to complete the task?

  12. Timbok says:

    1. Our special interest is this – Uganda is our friend and we help our friends in times of need. They have been attempting to stop Kony for two decades without any success, why shouldn’t we help them kill or capture this creep?

    2. This operation will not cost much and we’re helping good friends get a bad guy. Nothing to worry about here.

  13. SpeakEasy says:

    For the record, during my two tours in Iraq, there was a large contingent of Ugandan soldiers providing security for US forces on our base which freed our forces to work forward. They were professional, reliable and good-natured people. With that in mind I believe we owe them our support. The question is, since this has been a problem for two decades, why now? Could it have anything to do with Solyndra, Fast and Furious or Obama’s nose dive in the polls? I would say, yes, yes and absolutely yes. Obama only cares about Obama.

  14. I will NOT submit! says:

    LMAO…Im former airborne, ranger, spec ops, sniper and theres NOTHING in all of africa worth US intervention there…been there, done that! As a writer over at IOTW stated, “Barry’s just going for an Nobel, or trying to up his status while NOT and NEVER committing to the REAL threat to the entire world…ISLAM!!!

    “Barry-Hawk” anyone?

    What an effing retard!

  15. Carlos says:

    My suspicions about the news were somewhat confirmed today when I talked to a friend who lives in that region of Africa. He told me that the real masauders, rapists, pillagers of the region are invariably muslim, and, although he is unfamiliar with this specific group, that the group is undoubtedly a response to such marauding islamist groups.

    Islamists are just like the Democraps: they accuse others of what they would be doing/are doing, and this may be the case here.

    After all, if a person is not a muslim, to a muslim that person doesn’t exist as a human anyway.

  16. John says:

    Mark my words. All is not as it would appear, and everyone who justifies this as paying off a debt to an ally will rue the day we ever became involved. This is not a vital interest. It is time for America to retreat from empire and concentrate on the Republic. Past time if you heed George Washington’s advice on foreign entanglements.