Keep in Mind as you read this:
According to President Obama’s strategic plan [see footnote 1] transmitted to Congress on Nov. 24, 2010: “…numerous unofficial reports estimate that the overall strength of the LRA is only 200-300 combatants…” [NOTE: The LRA – the Lord’s Resistance Army – is the main focus of my blog today.]
This is worth repeating: “…the overall strength of the LRA is only 200-300 combatants…” Add that to this (from that same strategic plan): “The region in which the LRA operates is roughly equivalent in size to the state of California.”
I hope the same question occurs to you as occurred to me during the course of my research: “Why is the United States inserting itself, at great expense (as you’ll see), into what should be an affair easily handled by local authorities in order to chase down at most 300 (also according to the plan) ‘lightly armed’ desperados?” By the way, this LRA isn’t financed by or aligned with any outside group, managing to obtain sustenance only by attacking remote villages.
Barack Obama’s letter
Within the text of the following quote, I insert my own comments in brackets:
QUOTE [see footnote 2 for source]:
"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 said in letter sent Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and Daniel Inouye, the president pro tempore of the Senate. Kony is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army.
…
What is the Lord's Resistance Army?
According to the State Department, "since 2008 alone, the LRA has killed more than 2,400 people and abducted more than 3,400. The United Nations estimates that over 380,000 people are displaced across the region because of LRA activity."
[By way of comparison, according to the Wikipedia article on the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, “Over the course of approximately 100 days…over 500,000 people were killed.” At that time, the United States didn’t do squat. And now? Against 300 combatants, we decide to micromanage because of a guilty conscience? Not really. I maintain that Obama’s 100 Special Operations troops are part of an ongoing and gradually expanding plan to dominate Africa.]
Obama said the United States since 2008 has backed regional military efforts to go after the Lord's Resistance Army…since that time the United States has provided more than $40 million in support.
[Since it’s obvious from reading Obama’s strategic plan that the US intends to maintain this level of spending, maybe someone should point out: It would be cheaper just to bribe the LRA’s combatants to lay down their arms. Let’s see: $30M divided by 300 = $100K per bought-off combatant.]
…
"I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive…”
[These 300 fighters do not threaten US national security. Who’s Barack Obama trying to kid? Actually, we have more homegrown gangbangers in each major US city that present a far greater threat, but it’s easier to misdirect our efforts against gangbangers thousands of miles away. As for his “constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations” – he does not have the right to do so entirely on his own. Congress would be well within its rights to impose limits and to threaten impeachment upon violation of those limits. But I’m sad to report that only a non-Dem/Pub Congress filled with independent legislators would insist upon those limits.]
…
In early October 2010, the U.S. military had more than 1,700 troops deployed in sub-Saharan Africa, the Pentagon said. The majority of them -- around 1,380 - were deployed in Djibouti. But U.S. troops had at least a small presence in 33 different nations in sub-Saharan Africa.
[Small presence = “toe hold.”]
:UNQUOTE.
Barack Obama’s Strategic Plan
I am going to quote portions of this Plan, interspersing my comments along the way.
QUOTE:
Recognizing that the LRA presents a unique and changing threat…
COMMENT:
What’s “unique and changing” about the LRA, which now consists of only a small, ragtag band scattered across a wide area?
QUOTE:
Furthermore, as it has in the past, the LRA could regroup and increase its capacity, especially if it receives any significant outside support.
COMMENT:
Nowhere in Obama’s report to Congress are any potential sources of “outside support” identified. That reference was surely inserted into the report (as was the next item quoted below) to build up the LRA as a more sinister threat than it really is – or ever could become. LRA is too unique in its belief system to attract outside supporters, who would themselves have nothing to gain by any kind of alliance. [NOTE: LRA is vaguely Christian and has nothing to do with Islam.]
QUOTE:
Although the LRA has come under sustained military pressure, its leaders have reportedly been able to maintain some strategic planning capability as demonstrated by the survival of Joseph Kony and several other senior commanders.
COMMENT:
How does the survival of a handful of leaders demonstrate any kind of “strategic planning capability?” If someone were to take a swing at me, trying to punch my head, and I duck – would I be demonstrating “some strategic planning capability?” Did Obama bother to even read this nonsense (compiled by his staff) before signing off and sending it to Congress?
QUOTE:
In northern Uganda, the United States Government provided a total of $168 million in assistance in FY 2010, focusing primarily on transitional and longer-term development programs…In FY 2009, the United States Government provided $165 million.
COMMENT:
Wow! That’s a lot of money. However, the purpose of that money is to ensnare the Ugandan government into a dependency relationship with the US. All we would ever have to do is threaten to cut off or reduce that amount, should the Ugandan government ever decide to get uppity. Of course, the Ugandan military, after developing a long-term relationship with the US military, might decide to lean very heavily on their civilian government should it become too anti-American.
It takes only one quick look at a map to see how strategically located Uganda is, which the US might wish to exploit.
QUOTE:
…As demonstration of the extraordinary bipartisan cooperation on this issue, at the time of signing, the legislation had 64 total Senate co-sponsors and 201 total House co-sponsors, which made it the most widely cosponsored bill on sub-Saharan Africa in recent U.S. history….
COMMENT:
This cooperation struck me immediately as being profoundly significant. These days, it’s virtually impossible to get anything like it. So why, in this case? Simple – both the Dems and the Pubs are on the same page here, knowing how important African resources will become in the near future. Any time those bastards get together in the spirit of bipartisanship, watch out!
QUOTE:
Statement of Policy
The policy of the United States is to work with national governments and regional organizations in the area toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the LRA conflict by: (a) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the LRA, to apprehend or remove from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other top leaders, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining LRA fighters; (b) targeting assistance to respond to the humanitarian needs of populations in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan currently affected by the activity of the LRA; and (c) further supporting efforts of the Government of Uganda and civil society to promote comprehensive reconstruction, transitional justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda.
COMMENT:
This was worth quoting in its entirety, since this is the essence of the matter – our overall policy. Don’t you find it rather odd that the US would target “assistance to … the Democratic Republic of the Congo…” as part of a strategy to combat the LRA’s (maximum of) 300 lightly-armed combatants? I wouldn’t be surprised to find similar overlaps in other statements of US policy. The modus operandi seems to be overlap and integration of effort by multiple US and international agencies. I encourage you to read the blog I posted below this one for a more complete picture.
That part about “reconciliation in northern Uganda” is also a bit curious. The plan is to reintegrate LRA fighters, who have abandoned the cause, back into Ugandan society. Like that’s going to work! One of the major knocks against the LRA has been its systematic use of brutality in its campaigns – including hackings and beheadings. I don’t see how victims’ families and friends could welcome back former LRA members with open arms.
QUOTE:
It is important to note that any U.S. strategy to mitigate and eliminate the LRA threat in central Africa presupposes several important assumptions [including]:
· Any reduction in military or diplomatic pressure, or the provision of safe haven by any state or non-state actor, could enable the LRA to regroup and rebuild its forces.
COMMENT:
Again, this is overkill against a group of less than 300 which, it is claimed, is a “threat in [all of] central Africa.” Perhaps the US is trying to send this message to any other potential uprising (which is what the LRA was originally – an uprising against the Ugandan government): “Terrorists [which is what we call all freedom fighters now] must know the US will employ shock and awe against even the smallest of enemies, so don’t even think about resisting your local governments, which we ‘support.’”
The only reason for adding that language about “safe haven” is to reiterate our oft-repeated them of not allowing terrorists to have any safe haven where they might be tempted to think about threatening US interests. Note here that I said “US interests” rather than “the United States.” All of Africa will be thought of as one huge “US interest” – though of course we won’t say so directly.
QUOTE:
…The LRA is broken up into small groups and spread across an enormous area in the northern DRC, the CAR, and Sudan. Much of the terrain is sparsely populated and covered in thick vegetation with few roads or means of communication, thereby enabling the LRA to evade capture.
COMMENT:
“Broken up into small groups” that can’t communicate or coordinate with each other – mostly focused on trying to “evade capture” – doesn’t sound like any kind of threat at all against US national security. And for this, we’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars? Again, not really. Tracking down small groups is not the purpose of our “investment” – let’s call it that, okay?
QUOTE:
…the splintering of the LRA has meant that smaller, highly mobile LRA units menace civilians across a wider territory.
COMMENT:
Where does the “highly mobile” assessment come from? It’s not mentioned anywhere in Obama’s strategic plan. Tell me: How is a group of bandits lacking access to vehicles highly mobile in an area “covered in thick vegetation with few roads” as mentioned in the previous quote? Not to mention: LRA units might very well be able to menace “civilians across a wider territory,” but each of those units (being splintered) will have fewer attackers! But…that wasn’t mentioned by Obama’s team.
QUOTE:
An important component is the integrated logistical, operational, and intelligence assistance at multiple levels in order to increase the likelihood of success in apprehending or removing Joseph Kony and his key commanders.
COMMENT:
This “integrated…assistance at multiple levels” isn’t for the sake of “apprehending or removing” anybody. It’s for the purpose of building an infrastructure that will make it easier for the US to operate in furtherance of its own plan to ultimately dominate all of Africa. This is important since the Chinese and the Indian economies, as well as our own, will become increasingly dependent on African resources. Not to mention any of those African countries which will seek to grow their economies after their Arab Spring turns into an Arab Summer of economic growth.
QUOTE:
United States Government assistance will be provided in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international law and with other U.S. efforts to support the further professionalization of the UPDF.
COMMENT:
A couple of things here. Of course, it’s important to the lawyers advising the White House to wrap the team in the trappings of international law right from the very beginning. As for the “further professionalization of the UPDF” – that is, the Ugandan military – this is nothing more than an attempt by the US to ingratiate US trainers and commanders with Uganda’s military. This working relationship paid huge dividends (for decades) in certain South American countries. But South America caught on and tries now in a variety of ways to hold the US at arm’s length.
Of course, if one local military is professionalized, neighboring countries will want to follow suit. This will do nothing more than start an arms race, which will do nothing for Africa. But would do a great deal for a US eager to sell those arms. Oh well, Obama's got to fight that 9.1% unemployment rate somehow and he doesn't much care how he does it. How perfectly ironic to have a black man (Obama) screw Africa.
Of course, if one local military is professionalized, neighboring countries will want to follow suit. This will do nothing more than start an arms race, which will do nothing for Africa. But would do a great deal for a US eager to sell those arms. Oh well, Obama's got to fight that 9.1% unemployment rate somehow and he doesn't much care how he does it. How perfectly ironic to have a black man (Obama) screw Africa.
QUOTE:
…the majority of LRA fighters…were abducted and forced to fight for the LRA in order to survive…
COMMENT:
Then I would have to question the loyalty to the cause of “the majority of LRA fighters.” Abductees don’t make the most reliable of fighters. If I was an LRA commander, I might worry that one of my kidnapped fighters might decide to shoot me in the back in the midst of battle. Or even while camped out in hiding.
QUOTE:
The Government of Uganda has significant architecture in place to support defectors [from the LRA]. Under this objective, the United States Government will work to spread lessons learned from Uganda to other affected countries in the region and support their implementation. This will help ensure a safe defection process, regardless of the defector’s country of origin….
COMMENT:
Undoubtedly, this is “architecture” that we paid for, which doesn’t assure its reliability. I’m sure the LRA knows there can never be any “safe defection process” – so why bother to pretend, unless that’s for the consumption of US voters back home?
QUOTE:
The United States has worked with its U.N. Security Council partners to ensure U.N. peacekeeping missions in the region increase their cooperation, coordination, and information sharing, so to more effectively address the LRA threat.
COMMENT:
Uh, huh. These efforts at “cooperation, coordination, and information sharing” are nothing more than an attempt to assure that Western powers are all on the same page, working together, in their attempts to re-colonize Africa.
QUOTE:
In addition, nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and other institutions have played a critical role in framing the problem and raising international attention (including popular U.S. support for congressional action).
COMMENT:
This sentence tells me the importance the US government places on properly propagandizing its efforts. “Framing the problem” is just another way of saying “Deflecting attention away from our long-range and gradual power grab by trying to pretend we’re going after this exaggerated local threat.”
QUOTE:
This strategy is consistent with the National Security Strategy of the United States (2010). … the National Security Strategy recognizes that “those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable.”
COMMENT:
Say, isn’t that one of the primary reasons that NATO and the US engaged in military action against Gadaffi in Libya – to protect “innocent civilians?” You’ll be hearing that excuse more and more as we proceed more deeply in our undermining operations against Africa.
QUOTE:
Along with health, education, and development assistance, the United States also funds and conducts a number of programs in Uganda designed to train and professionalize the Ugandan military and police, with a strong emphasis on human rights.
COMMENT:
The US government doesn’t give a rat’s ass about developing any foreign nation’s security apparatus with a “strong emphasis on human rights.” If it ever becomes “necessary” for Uganda’s military to torture suspected militants, I’m sure our government will give them a page from our book on how that can be done legally. Our failure to make Bush administration lawyers accountable for their sanctioning (of torture) memos speaks volumes of our own commitment to “human rights” – when push comes to shove.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party
“This blatant attempt to undermine the entire African continent is just one more reason why we need an independent Congress (no Dems, no Pubs) to rein in Executive excess.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
Scroll down to read the 2,000 or so words I retyped from the on-line pdf file pertaining to the LRA (as quoted from Obama’s strategic plan itself):
“I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, consistent with section 4 of the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), the enclosed strategic plan entitled, “Strategy to Support the Disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army.”
Footnote 2:
No comments:
Post a Comment