U.S. Troops Helping Secure Part of Central African Republic as Rebels Near Capital
U.S. helping rout out LRA in the south as an insurgency sweeps through the north
In October of last year, President Obama informed Congress he was sending 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to help hunt down Joseph Kony, later labeled a terrorist by the State Department, and his Lord's Resistance Army. Troops would be deployed to Uganda as well as the Congo, the Central African Republic and the newly independent South Sudan, the purported range of the LRA.
Those troops, President Obama insisted in each of his subsequent war powers reports to Congress, "will not engage LRA forces except in self-defense." The LRA, a veritable gang of war criminals, is not a new bugaboo for America. President Bush personally authorized the military to participate in a regional mission late in his administration to capture Kony, then hiding out in a Congolese national park.
The LRA is not the only rebel outfit operating in the region and contributing to instability. Last month, a break-away military group called the M23 (the March 23 movement, named after the date of a peace treaty rebels claim isn't being upheld) briefly took over a major Congolose city in the area, Goma.
And in the Central African Republic, a rebel alliance, comprised of break-away factions of rebel groups that also disputing a peace treaty, has captured its seventh town and is approaching the capital. Forces from Chad entered the Central African Republic from the north earlier this week to quell the insurgency, while U.S. troops are helping Central African Republic forces secure the south, where the Lord's Resistance Army's reach is near its furthest, hundreds of miles away from Uganda.
Kony himself, meanwhile, is believed by Uganda to be located as far out as the volatile Sudan-South Sudan border, where U.S. troops are also deployed. Nevertheless, humanitarian interventionists want those troops to "play a more operational role" in the hunt for Kony.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Has anyone explained to President Obama that Team America: World Police was a satire, and not a suggestion?
Obama doesn't do satire.
Really? Because it seems like every move has has made over the last four years has been a joke.
Not from his perspective, Hugh. Just from ours. Perspective is everything.
Speaking of the great satirists, I watched the episode of Southpark where they read Catcher in the Rye with my son.
The scene where a reader of The Poop who had to Pee goes and massacre's the Kardashian sisters and the subsequent backlash seemed so prescient...
It's almost like the outrage machine is mindless or something.
I watched the episode of Southpark where they read Catcher in the Rye with my son.
Your son was on South Park? Wow! The royalties! Will he receive the ever-popular residuals?
Our presence in sub-Saharan Africa is truly baffling to me. There is absolutely no reason (in terms of national security) for our presence there. I didn't agree with OIF, but I understood the argument being presented in that case. WTF is the national security argument for being involved in the CAR?! If there is one, I haven't heard it -- and if I haven't heard it, then it's a certainty that the same is true for 99% of the US population.
The national security argument is that the DoD provides workfare. Lots, and lots, and lots of workfare.
They're usually a little more subtle about it.
Heh. If China wants to fuck around in one of the most unstable regions of the world, they have my leave. Client states aren't that fun or easy to manage by proxy, as they've found out in the case of the Sudan.
This.
Because no one will sell rare earths to people in the U.S. in exchange for cash, and no one will reopen the closed rare earth mine in CA even if the price makes mining there profitable again. Clearly, only military force can allow access to such chemical elements.
That may be true. A military invasion of California, to secure her vast mineral and petroleum wealth for future generations of America, is probably justified.
National security?!!! Dood!!! Did you not see the Stop Kony videos??!!!
Yeah. I could see a native of Kenya, for example, wanting to ensure stability in that region, but it doesn't seem to be any of the business of the US president.
More World Policeman crap.
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY!
Freedom must look so appealing when it comes in the form of a belt full of .50 BMG incendiaries headed in your direction.
I guess Afghanistan just wasn't barbaric enough of a place to go to war.
I bet that dangerous lunatic Ron Paul doesn't even want us over there.
It's a good thing the adults are in charge.
Also, 100 troops? Large enough for a clusterfuck, too small to be useful, so it's the perfect deployment for this administration.
I always wonder how they decide on these numbers. 100 here, 47 there, 15 over here and 29 over there...
Sounds like a 5-year-old's strategy playing Risk.
Better roll some sixes, Obama.
So one day Australia will rule the world.
"That shitheel CinC Obama wants us to send troops in harm's way and risk a clusterfuck. How few do you think we can recommend sending to get him to STFU?"
"Sir, I recommend phrasing that more tactfully. Oh, and a platoon ought to suffice."
"Write the memo for my signature, Lt."
Obama seems to have the eagerness for war that GW Bush showed with the Iraq invasion, combined with the strategic vision of Clinton in Somalia.
It's likely an SF company, foreign internal defense missions such as these are right in their wheelhouse
It's interesting that the same people who hate mean old 'war,' since it's something Republicans do, absolutely LOVE 'humanitarian intervention.'
Western superpowers: Humaniterrorising Africans with bullets since 1625.
In October of last year, President Obama informed Congress he was sending 100 U.S. troops to Uganda
Can you spot the constitutional violation in this sentence?
"President Obama"?
Snap...
I think the US needs to mind its own business!
http://www.usa-privacy.tk