Obama sends troops to Africa
the president wrote a letter to Congress today informing them that he sent about 100 combat troops to Africa to hunt an rebel leader, according to a link sent to us by our buddy, jeff Schogol at the Stars & Stripes;
The initial team of advisors deployed Wednesday, and the number will rise to about 100 during the next month, Obama wrote in a letter to Congress. The first troops were sent to Uganda, but forces could also move into South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, subject to the approval of those nations, Obama said.
“I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield,” Obama wrote.
The Pentagon claims that the troops will be mainly Special Forces soldiers and they will not be engaged in combat operations outside of an advisory role except to defend themselves. I wish those troops a lot of luck, they’re probably going to need it since Obama needs a few more military victories before next November.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
Is this a rerun of an article from the mid ’60’s? Sounds so Johnsonesque: Just a few….. Mostly Special Forces….. Not to attack, only to defend…..
Nah, no comparison this time……..
Who’s regime are we propping up in this one?
Will this only be “a matter of days”? One that’ll stretch into months and months?
And, what has Kony done to the detriment of the national security of the U.S.?
Ya dont send SF civil affairs and trigger pullers to a combat zone cause its just a non-combat op. If that were so, they would send DoS.
This deployment is borne out both an AFRICOM training and assistance exercise in 2009, and the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
It’s not terribly out of the norm.
I saw this story tucked away in a corner on the Fox website earlier today and said “Whoaaaaaa!” Obama sent a note to Congressional leaders. I imagine that the missive read something like this:
“Gentlemen: I wish you to know that although there have been many unfortunate obstacles placed in the path of my Jobs bill, I am confident that we can, together, put aside our differences, find common ground, and do what is in the best interest of the American people that we proudly serve. Best Wishes, BHO
p.s. I just sent about 10 dozen Special Forces troops to Africa. Not to worry.“
Here’s the target: Joseph Kony.
Joseph Kony (born 1961) is the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a guerrilla group that is engaged in a violent campaign to establish theocratic government in Uganda, which he claims is based on the Ten Commandments.[1]
The LRA has earned a reputation for its actions against the people of several countries, including northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. The LRA has abducted and forced an estimated 66,000 children to fight for them, and has also forced the internal displacement of over 2,000,000 people since its rebellion began in 1986.[5]
Rather like Clinton’s 1-year commitment to Bosnia. And we just got Mladic? Yeah – another 10 years in Bosnia + another 10 for Uganda. Yay.
This is pretty standard work for SF. There’s a religious nut running around that part of the world tearing it up. Sending over SF to work with the locals to enhance physical security and get rid of this shit bag is what SF does when it’s not knee deep in fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It all fits nicely into the new push in the continent already realized in things like AFRICOM. My guess is this came up from the Pentagon onto the President’s desk, not the other way around.
Joseph Kony is a leader of a fanatic CHRISTIAN sect. Cult. Whatever.
I hope we get him before he flies planes into buildings.
/sarc off
Whoops! Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony
@7 – “My guess is this came up from the Pentagon onto the President’s desk, not the other way around.”
I think that’s dead on. When AFRICOM stood up in 2007, they were already looking fondly on some success on the continent that the Brits enjoyed in 2005. This specific deployment has been in various stages of work since early 2009, but was conceived as a planning test bed at the COCOMs inception.
SF is probably being sent (Special Operations). NOT CA (Special Operations) and the lawyer from the Bay area!
I just got done talking to my dad (a ‘Nam vet) and he said that the same shit happened before ‘Nam. What the frak is this douchenozzle getting us into?
Well, sure…why not…Blackhawk down anyone?
We can send troops to hunt down radical “Christians” that are killing Muslims…but heaven forbid we stick around and mess up radical Muslims that are killing Christians.
Looks to me like the President is showing his true self.
Most of you who read and comment here are much younger than my 71 years, and aren’t as familiar with the lead up to what became the shitstorm of the 20th century- Vietnam.
Our first “boots on the ground” was a few SF “A” teams. Just advisors. Oooops, advisors need air re-supply, send some H-21’s, some H-34’s n H-37’s, but better send some HUEYS along as well. Oh, and yes, better arm them. And let’s throw a few divisions in with the few “A Teams”.
See where this is going?
Johnsonesque, very.
If the Lord’s Resistance Army is religious, then the Pope is a devout Hindu. The LRA is a lawless band of marauders that’s been operating for about 20 years. Why we are now going after them and Kony is being speculated but we have elected officials in government (e.g. OBAMA)who are supposed to TELL US what the hell is going on!
Obama’s base want’s us in sub-Saharan Africa. It will show the colored people of the world, we care! Sub-Saharan Africa will now love us. Of course, the Vietnamese were colored……guess it just depends on which “colored” people we want to help. Clinton let the Ruwandans die in herds…Obama will not let that happen. Election’s only a few months away. Always remember, bad news is released on Fridays so by Monday the media forgets. Had Bush or any other Republican done this…my God, the media would be crankin’ overtime. Now..about closing Gitmo…
Honor and Courage
It’s amazing or amusing….I haven’t quite decided which….how something that is not only normal for ODA business, but normal for Administrations of both parties…. is some conspiracy of the left.
@17 The Haitian Vacation (Operation Uphold Democracy-Uphold Aristide) same stuff-different day/party. Democrats in action!
re #17
I’m with you on this; It’s a moving target for people that hate the President. I’m busy looking for a Republican I can vote for in a couple years but that doesn’t change what I know about this: it’s not a conspiracy, it’s AFRICOM in action. This is exactly the sort of work that we’ve had on the horizon for some time now.
re #14
Sub-Sahara Africa is the last geopolitical frontier. The days when we could make things not our problem by simply refusing to interject ourselves is over. Opportunities to make smart choices with the power we have to tilt the course of events around the world to our favor should be seized.
I’m not the the left…and I don’t think this is a conspiracy…I just get a bad feeling that this administration will NOT support these guys if things turn bad…
It seems to me to be the attitude of those in power that “Special Forces” means “Invincible Super-Men that nothing bad EVER happens to.”
I really hope this doesn’t turn into another Gothic Serpent.
@ #14 – Frankly Opinionated … amen … history ignored is history repeated
@14 FO, there is usually a difference between how republicans and Dems get into a war. Johnson kept referring to it as “another Korea”, yet each time he took a step it was one where he COULDN’T get out. Rather than try to win the war his whole goal was not to lose, and that ultimately is what made it so. . . memorable. Now look at what Nixon did from ’70-’73, VERY different approach, and actually got results. Sadly by that point Johnson had pissed away so many lives that there wasn’t a way to “win” the war anymore.
Here. . . well how short exactly are African wars. I seem to remember the words “decades long” applied to ever official (and unofficial) war in the dark continent.
Frankly, I see no conspiracy in any of this or political electionering involved. This was justified with expanding some activities in Africa that began under the Bush admininistration. Nor do I see a Vietnam in the making(nor did I with Libya). Though for the last decade I’ve had to listen about the poor strategic decisions of the Bush “regime” from the left and assorted critics. This applies far more to the three years of Obama then the eight of Bush. Consider, Bush battled the Taliban(9/11) and Saddam(violation of peace accords and possible WMDs), two opponents, we had legimate feuds with that we did not create. In two military campaigns, that have rightly been critised for being poorly executed, they were conducted with vigor. It had objectives(admittingly these were altered over time), sustenance of matieral, and political will/capital. Obama started his run for president as a critic of the Iraq war promising a swift drawdown if elected. When he entered office he scrapped his plan for a hybrid plan that really had no practical connotation to his own pledge or his critics objections(he wasn’t won over to them). Fine, you might say, the President had an already signed SOFA agreement. Even today though, the discussions of how many troops should be left behind beyond 2012, is so miniscule(around 5,000 or so), they’d be irrelevent. They couldn’t train with, provide support to, deter Iran, or in anyway influence their surroundings. They would only be hostage to events swirling around them(in more ways then one). Libya is a war we got schlacked into by the Europeans, against a man who was a terrified tin pot dictator. Lets remember we could have quashed him at our leisure, anytime he chose to get in our way or threaten an American interest(ex. Nato ally like Italy, supporting terrorists or pirates). A war meant to take thirty days still goes on. Since this mission was important, but not important enough to commit our own ground forces, we are stuck with a montage of rebels,whose objectives(and leaders) we still can not ascertain. There is also Ethiopia, Somalia, and… Read more »
My God, thats a long post. Got carried away. Sorry.
Cedo Yeah that was a long one. I would have to say though that the monetary support for even a small squadron of SF types is actually pretty large. With the massive reduction in the budget, where the hell would these funds come from?
moreover the intervention in Libya, could have been accomplished with less than an actual brigade of ground forces. Neither “army” involved is showing much on the competency level, overall the price-tag would have been a bit less than 60 days of pussyfooting around.
I don’t mind that there might be actual legitimate ops in plenty of countries. I’ll even agree that there are plenty of places that there should be intervention. But for a president who is slashing the shit out of the military budget and giving it all to welfare programs. . . this seems like a bad fucking idea.
#26 Yeah Doc, the comment is way longer then Jonn’s origional post. I went off into to many tangents, I was taken aback there.
“With the massive reduction in the budget, where the hell would these funds come from?” Exactly. Last I counted, we’re in something like seven hot conflicts. There aren’t anywhere near that many operators, not even close.
“I don’t mind that there might be actual legitimate ops in plenty of countries. I’ll even agree that there are plenty of places that there should be intervention. But for a president who is slashing the shit out of the military budget and giving it all to welfare programs. . . this seems like a bad fucking idea.” I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know if you saw but even Panetta’s sounding the alarm. DOD has already factored one cut of 400 Billion, and Obama has floated around the idea of another 400 billion. This would be devastating, this would effectively destroy the force as we know it.
Nevermind the SuperCommittee which is scheduled to meet in the next few weeks. Biggest damn abdication of legisaltive power in American history. We your elected officials(President included), are afraid to carry out our duties, for fear of being held to account for said decisions. Therefore we decree the creation of a SuperCommittee, so no one can be. We will deny any connection to said body, no matter its poor legislation. Talk about a lack of intestinal fortitude.
“moreover the intervention in Libya, could have been accomplished with less than an actual brigade of ground forces. Neither “army” involved is showing much on the competency level, overall the price-tag would have been a bit less than 60 days of pussyfooting around.” Yep, I think a MEU or two and some Airborne/Ranger battalions would have been more then enough. An easily deployable and balanced force package. We may have been a little embarrassed by the ease of the ass kicking we delivered. We most likely would be kicking ourselves for not doing this in the eighties.
@24 – ” Really? More info, what exactly were they doing? The Brits have relations with a number of nations, mostly former colonies like South Africa and Kenya.”
AFRICOM studied the relative success of British International Military Assistance Training Team efforts in Sierra Leone against the Revolutionary United Front.
Troops in Africa!?!? OMG, welcome to 2002.
If some of the British Army is still in Sierra Leone, training and propping up the army, and, providing other aid, why are Spec Ops needed?
What I find far more troubling is the statement, “forces could also move into South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, subject to the approval of those nations, Obama said.” So, will it then be 25 or so per country, or 100 or so per country, or will it be more? Now, we’re talking about 5 countries, if you also include Uganda.
@30 – “If some of the British Army is still in Sierra Leone, training and propping up the army, and, providing other aid, why are Spec Ops needed?”
Uganda isn’t Sierra Leone; LRA isn’t RUF; the Brits aren’t nearly as invested in SL as they were in 2002.
“the Brits aren’t nearly as invested in SL as they were in 2002.”. But, they still are “invested” there, correct?
Care to touch on the other countries we may “also move into”?
@32 – “Care to touch on the other countries we may “also move into?”
Not particularly. This is the Foreign Internal Defense mission of SFODAs.
If you’re spun up about this, you won’t want to know the various other JCETs and SMEEs that SOCOM engages in globally.
“Troops in Africa?” Hell- all of the time (Biafra-1970- oops not suppose to talk about it, even today!, Chad 1979… oops not suppose to mention that one either! …Zaire 1980s on and on and on…). NO CAs or SEALs… sorry, just plain old boring SF. Oh well, someone had to be sent to the shithole. Hell if they make these ops open to the public… hundreds of phonies will claim their being there as well.
#28 “AFRICOM studied the relative success of British International Military Assistance Training Team efforts in Sierra Leone against the Revolutionary United Front.” K’, thanks for the info. Sierra Leone was against Taylor’s people right? Come to think of it maybe I did hear something about this.
#29 “Troops in Africa!?!? OMG, welcome to 2002.” Umm? The US has only traditionally really been involved in the periphery of Subsahara Africa. We have tended to have an arm’s length approach there.
#30 & #31 In regards to SFs. I don’t think a hundred will be adequate(I admit though not to be very knowledgable about this region). Why not the USA/USMC advisors, which we’ve been using in Iraq and Afghanistan to “force multiply” for the last few years unfettered. I think this is the mystic of SOFs overpowering objectivity.
Second, according to the article, they are going to advise Ugandan troops in there pursuit and yet only supposed to be in combat in self defense? Any one see a possible contradiction here(this is not the same situation as that in the Philippines afew years ago). This is going to hamper them in this endeavor. Hard to aggressively chase someone when you have to make sure not to initiate an engagement in his capture(though not impossible).
Again, I just think from a military point of view this is poorly thought out.
#33 Not spun up, so much as concerned we are vastly over stretched. Near every other contingency, is passed to the operators(wrongly), this is just completely impractical. They simply don’t have the numbers and are doing many tasks that should be assigned to the line units.
Question being: is sending a few SF operators into Uganga, The Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan in our national interest?
The LRA uses child-slaves as the bulk of its work and fighting forces. The SF would be put into combat against children. Considering how quickly and thoroughly our generals and admirals placed our combat forces in check against full-grown, adult terrorists – what will happen when pictures of Green Berets slaughtering 9 and 10-year olds come out?
Uganda has been, and remains a friend. The country also has a substantial number of Luo, which is the tribe Barack Hussein Obama Sr came from in Kenya.
The Democratic People’s Republic of the Congo – the communist successor to Belgian colonial rule, has been in a civil war for a few decades.
And then there’s the Sudan. Filled with a whole lot of people who love them some dead Americans. And dead Sudanese, too.
For the Progressives: why Uganda? Why not Syria? How is Assad any more legitimate than Kony? How is Assad any less murderous?
“why Uganda? Why not Syria?”. Nicely put, Dave, and a question that begs a coherent answer, careful you aren’t accused of being “spun up” about Syria.
@35 – “Not spun up, so much as concerned we are vastly over stretched.”
That wasn’t directed towards you, but your concerns are valid.
I thought Obama was all anti war? When we are going ot send special forces in to some third world country or otherwise, it should be to kill some people and break their shit.