-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A lot of people seem startled that President Obama just announced that 100 US troops are going to central Africa to aid in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army, a loathsome group that has been brutally terrorizing the region for 24 years. But it’s actually not that surprising, and is in fact explicitly authorized by an act of Congress (which is more than we can say for the intervention in Libya). The Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 establishes, among other things, that US policy includes
providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;
The bill passed with no real opposition — by unanimous consent in the Senate, and by voice vote in the House. A lot of people on Twitter seem to think that in sending troops to Uganda (they will also be operating in South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of all of those countries’ governments) Obama has suddenly entangled the US in a new war. In fact, this is a relatively mild escalation in an existing mission; a Pentagon spokesman says that US troops will be in Africa “for a few months in an advisory role.”
While it’s true that the fight against the LRA is not at the indispensible core of our national interests, it’s not irrelevent to our national interests, either. Aiding in our allies’ security shores up American hegemony and promotes American values. In the absense of an alliance with the US, a semi-democratic regime like Uganda’s would most likely turn to China (which has certainly been courting Uganda and other African countries), and it would likely move in the direction of Beijing’s values rather than Washington’s — in other words, it would likely backslide into autocracy.
Maybe you don’t think the US should care about that at all, but when the footprint is small, the risk of casualties is low, and the potential humanitarian benefit is high (it’s hard to overstate how horrifying the LRA is), this sort of action — as the overwhelming support for this mission in Congress indicates — tends to be fairly uncontroversial. As it should be.
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/14/why-us-troops-are-headed-to-af
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Solo| 10.14.11 @ 4:08PM
And...what are the chances that we will end up with yet another brutal Kleptocrat who likes us slightly better than he likes the Chinese? And at what cost?
If Obammy wants to end corrupt oppression of an innocent peoples, he should be sending troops here to Chicago to end the Kleptocracy that his fellow democrats have established over the last 100 years.
Then, I'd be impressed.
elmo| 10.14.11 @ 4:16PM
No offense, but I would like to see China take the lead in Africa, especially with money, food, and other "humantarian benefits". Let them bear the burden for the entire continent. Regime and media talking about suffering women and children, sounds like a "Waco" problem genreated by the feds to me.
Rufus King | 10.14.11 @ 4:21PM
"Aiding in our allies' security shores up American hegemony and promotes American values."
Great rationale for supporting these African nations. We should apply the same rationale to the Middle East and start supporting Israel!
PattyMor| 10.14.11 @ 4:35PM
Great, another day, another war, and few billion dollars more. We're blocking out the Chinese with borrowed money from China. Make sense? No, but nothing the 'Bamster makes sense in the normal world. It must be something George Soros wants for his New Order Worder.
PattyMor| 10.14.11 @ 4:35PM
Great, another day, another war, and few billion dollars more. We're blocking out the Chinese with borrowed money from China. Make sense? No, but nothing the 'Bamster makes sense in the normal world. It must be something George Soros wants for his New Order Worder.
1blumutt| 10.14.11 @ 11:11PM
This needed to appear twice. Good comment, PattyMor!
L A Stich| 10.14.11 @ 4:38PM
I'm sure Kristol approves, too.
He never met a war that he wasn't willing to send someone else's children into.
Martin Owens| 10.14.11 @ 5:49PM
"The footprint is small, the risk of casualties is low, and the potential humanitarian benefit is high..."
Uh-oh, where have we heard THAT before?
shauna| 10.14.11 @ 6:16PM
Ditto, that!
C Bowen | 10.14.11 @ 5:57PM
Tabin thought Iraq was a threat and still is allowed to post at this web site.
I would have been shocked if he wasn't anything but Obamite on this issue.
Timothy P McKenzie| 10.14.11 @ 6:59PM
Well, that's a relief. How great is it that there aren't entrenched mass murdering gangs killing Americans closer than Central Africa.
Stefan Stackhouse| 10.14.11 @ 7:14PM
WHY, OH WHY, OH WHY must we intervene in yet another dusty backwater on the other side of the world, spending money we don't have interfering in the affiars of places that matter not one bit to us?!?!? Is there to be no end to this BS?!?
sotto voce | 10.14.11 @ 7:14PM
So Congress passed this law in 2009, but Obama is just now sending in troops? Shouldn't the question be: Why now?
CalMark| 10.14.11 @ 7:16PM
"In fact, this is a relatively mild escalation in an existing mission; a Pentagon spokesman says that US troops will be in Africa "for a few months in an advisory role."
Uh-huh. That's how Vietnam started, too.
CalMark| 10.14.11 @ 7:33PM
P.S. This is based on a bill slipped through by a Democrat Congress. New Congress in 2011, in case nobody had noticed. It's unethical to resurrect a moribund law for such things.
Louis Joseph| 10.15.11 @ 10:24AM
Check out this paper:
http://www.acus.org/files/publ.....domain.pdf
mrt| 10.14.11 @ 8:07PM
"The footprint is small, the risk of casualties is low, and the potential humanitarian benefit is high..."
"Days, not weeks..."
Bob K.| 10.14.11 @ 10:07PM
This little blog post you have written here says more about you, Mr. Tabin, than you probably intended.
Is there any place on the globe where you would not put American Troops in harm's way?
1blumutt| 10.14.11 @ 11:27PM
Why, if this agreed on May 10,2010 the wait (with lost of lives) until now to send troops in? Something smells "rotten" or "political." These words are interchangable. The establishment, crony anti-Constitutional political sludge is an ever-growing liability to this Republic.
Clint| 10.15.11 @ 12:15AM
American Warriors Are Not To Be Used As Cannon Fodder To ForceFeed Democracy & Used As Global Police Around The Globe.
Dai Alanye | 10.15.11 @ 2:01AM
We need to notice that the LRA, besides being genuinely evil, makes a reference to the Ten Commmandments, however hypocritically. So for Obama it's a win-win situation---operating against really bad guys who can be tied to Christianity or Judaism.
Will| 10.15.11 @ 6:37AM
Why not just send troops to Juarez, the same sort of things are going on there? This helps ensnare the U.S. even further in a no-win situation, and remove attention from domestic scandals tied to him and his administration. How much damage can be done in just four years? We may never know.
Pecos Pete| 10.15.11 @ 7:39AM
Ditto.
Bob K.| 10.15.11 @ 8:37AM
Mr. Tabin,
Headlines in my morning paper today:
"Gay military personnel ready for first convention." "The nation's only professional group for active-duty gay military personnel is holding its first conference in Las Vegas this weekend,.... . "
"The OutServe Leadership Summit is designed to highlight the diversity of gays in the military and the challenges they face...... ." From AP release by Lisa Leff.
Will there be a contingent of Gays in Uganda or is it "irrelevant to our national interests" in this instance? Are we or are we not also "promoting American values" in this mission?
Louis Joseph| 10.15.11 @ 10:22AM
http://www.acus.org/files/publ.....domain.pdf
Intelligent Design| 10.15.11 @ 4:06PM
We have no strategic interest in central Africa. Sending combat troops as "advisers" sounds a lot like Vietnam, the beginning of a quagmire where we ultimately lost 58,000 American soldiers and had over 200,000 wounded. This is yet another dumb move by Congress and Obama. It recklessly and immorally puts the lives of our soldiers at risk.
Intelligent Design| 10.15.11 @ 4:21PM
Since 9/11/01 there have been more than 17,800 Muslim terrorists attacks worldwide, leaving thousands of people dead and wounded.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Are we going to send U.S. soldiers as "advisers" to all those locations? We are wasting American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars with "nation building" efforts, as if we have the ability to save the world from violence. We should get the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc. and stay out of central Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and other cesspools of Islamic political ideology. Let them fight and kill each other. That is in our national interest. This approach does not preclude air strikes against Iran and various terrorist targets of opportunity. Nor does it preclude giving more military assistance to the only real ally we have in the Middle East: Israel.
Bob K.| 10.17.11 @ 8:50AM
The Terrorists here in Uganda are Christians. Gotta balance things out I guess.
Richard Baker| 10.15.11 @ 8:02PM
What exactly is our national interest in Central Africa? Regardless of Congressional approval, this sounds more like the furball in the White House trying to impress and shore up his support among black voters in America (you know, the ones who once questioned whether he was "authentic") with his support of "our black brothers in Africa." Right On, Right On, Right On!
Karl-Marx-Sucks| 10.16.11 @ 10:26AM
Gay in military can be very useful, but only if sent behind enemy's lines. Central Africa is as good place to send "gay, lesbian and trannnies special forces" as any. Once behind, they sure would know what to do.
The last I checked there was no war in Nevada.
Maurine | 10.17.11 @ 6:00AM
http://www.cheapuggbootoutlet.co.uk/
SHAMLEY| 10.21.11 @ 9:54AM
make $85/hour on the computer. like my sister sherry has been without a job for 7 months but last month her check was $7330 just working on the computer for a few hours. I started 5 days ago and am doing great! Read about it here: lazycash5.c@m(replace @ with letter 'o')
yisonng| 10.25.11 @ 12:28AM
slewing ring can also bear the larger axial load, radial load and overturning, can replace several sets of ordinary bearing combination to use function. http://www.1stbearing.com