PDA

View Full Version : US troops to remain in Uganda until army leader captured or killed...



Rockntractor
11-18-2011, 08:58 PM
Uganda mission is likely to go on until LRA’s Kony is dead or captured, U.S. general says
By Craig Whitlock and Greg Jaffe
About 100 U.S. troops that President Obama ordered to Uganda last month to help crush the cult-like Lord’s Resistance Army will likely remain deployed until the group’s leader is captured or dead, according to the top U.S. commander for Africa.

Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command, said most of the American forces have landed in Uganda and are beginning to coordinate the efforts of four central African countries as they comb a huge expanse of jungle for Joseph Kony, the messianic founder of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Kony and his rebels are accused of killing, maiming, kidnapping and raping thousands of civilians in Uganda, the Central African Republic, Congo and South Sudan.

Obama administration officials have been vague about how long U.S. forces will remain in central Africa. In congressional testimony recently, a senior defense official said that the mission would last for a matter of “months,” though allowed that it would be reviewed over time.

Ham said the plan is to keep troops in the region until Kony is killed or brought to justice. “That’s the mission,” Ham said in an interview Thursday during a visit to Washington.

The Lord’s Resistance Army has been fighting against the Ugandan government and attacking civilians for nearly a quarter century, but Ham predicted the group “will probably wither” if Kony is apprehended.

“This is not like another organization where if you take the top guy out somebody else can step in,” Ham said in his first public remarks on the Lord’s Resistance Army since Obama deployed the U.S. troops last month. “It really is about him personally.”

Kony is a self-proclaimed prophet whose group emerged from northern Uganda in the late 1980s. The Lord’s Resistance Army is known for its brutality and for conscripting children as soldiers and sex slaves.

The International Criminal Court indicted Kony and four other commanders in 2005 on war-crimes charges. Kony and his core group of about 250 fighters, however, have dodged their pursuers by retreating to jungle hideouts across central Africa.

A smaller group of U.S. military advisers assisted a previous Ugandan-led offensive against the Lord’s Resistance Army in late 2008 and early 2009. That operation backfired as Kony’s group escaped and responded by massacring several hundred of civilians.

Congress and human rights groups have pressed the White House to try again, prompting Obama last month to send about 100 Special Operations Forces to the region. Obama has said the troops will primarily advise and train African forces looking for Kony. He said they will not participate in direct combat missions, but are authorized to open fire in self-defense.

It is the largest deployment of U.S. forces to an African conflict zone since Marines landed in Liberia in 2003.

Ham said most of the U.S. forces are based in Uganda, but that a “small number” are working at a joint operations center in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said joint activity in the Congo will likely remain limited until after that country holds elections Nov. 28.

In the past, Kony has been able to exploit a lack of coordination among Ugandan, Congolese, South Sudanese and Central African Republic soldiers simply by ducking across the border whenever his pursuers get close. Ham said U.S. trainers will address that weakness by formalizing communications links among the regional forces.

“If we can help apply pressure -- constant pressure -- I think we have a reasonable chance of success,” Ham said. “It’s moving in the right direction. Is it going to be successful next week or the week after? Unlikely, unless there’s the proverbial lucky opportunity.”

Ham and other U.S. officials have said they believe Kony and his senior deputies are currently in the Central African Republic.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/uganda-mission-likely-to-go-on-until-lras-kony-is-dead-or-captured-us-general-says/2011/11/18/gIQARntuXN_blog.html

something about the whole thing stinks. They were supposed to do some training and get out, having only 100 men their puts them in a dangerous position.

Elspeth
11-21-2011, 04:34 PM
I've been looking for more information on this and can't find it. This was a small operation, just supposed to get Kony and get out, right?

noonwitch
11-21-2011, 05:46 PM
This guy and his group are really evil bastards, for what it is worth.


I think that it is important to stop this group from spreading it's damage to nearby US allies, like Kenya and Tazania. There are a lot of americans in Kenya, for example, as there are a lot of christian missionary programs there.

South Sudan is a new country that is under attack from both sides-the muslims in the north and Kony's group from the south. They are in no position to defend themselves without some help.

AmPat
11-21-2011, 11:01 PM
They should look in Pock-e-stahn. They seem to be good at hiding evil bastards.:cool:

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 11:30 AM
This guy and his group are really evil bastards, for what it is worth.


I think that it is important to stop this group from spreading it's damage to nearby US allies, like Kenya and Tazania. There are a lot of americans in Kenya, for example, as there are a lot of christian missionary programs there.

South Sudan is a new country that is under attack from both sides-the muslims in the north and Kony's group from the south. They are in no position to defend themselves without some help.

While these are all valid issues, the most important one is that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare war, and that this deployment of troops requires more than Obama's usual empty rhetoric. The lives of American Soldiers are on the line, and we have an obligation to their families and the nation not to risk them casually.

AmPat
11-22-2011, 11:51 AM
While these are all valid issues, the most important one is that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare war, and that this deployment of troops requires more than Obama's usual empty rhetoric. The lives of American Soldiers are on the line, and we have an obligation to their families and the nation not to risk them casually.

LTC,,
These considerations only matter when a GOP administration can be blamed. This is a DUmmyRAT president, he is not restricted by the limits of that pesky little document called the Constitution of the United States (he was a Constitutional law professor you know?), or that rule of law non-sense that used to be precedent. He need not fear the Press as GOP administrations do since they are his propaganda ministers. Body counts only occur under GOP wars. No, our community organizing, never had a job, never been in the military Marxist knows much more about military matters than those imbeciles that have made a career of military life.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-22-2011, 12:22 PM
While these are all valid issues, the most important one is that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare war, and that this deployment of troops requires more than Obama's usual empty rhetoric. The lives of American Soldiers are on the line, and we have an obligation to their families and the nation not to risk them casually.

Congress gave no more authorization to Iraq or Afghanistan than they have to Uganda. Your double-standard here is comical.

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 12:25 PM
Congress gave no more authorization to Iraq or Afghanistan than they have to Uganda. Your double-standard here is comical.

Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been no congressional authorization for Uganda, or Libya, for that matter, nor any consultation with the congressional leadership prior to the commitments. Your ignorance would be comical if you weren't registered to vote.

noonwitch
11-22-2011, 12:27 PM
While these are all valid issues, the most important one is that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare war, and that this deployment of troops requires more than Obama's usual empty rhetoric. The lives of American Soldiers are on the line, and we have an obligation to their families and the nation not to risk them casually.


The precedent on sending forces without declaring war was set long before GW Bush or Obama. Korea (Truman), for example, comes to mind, as do Grenada (Reagan), Panama(GHW Bush), and Kosovo/Bosnia (Clinton).

AmPat
11-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Congress gave no more authorization to Iraq or Afghanistan than they have to Uganda. Your double-standard here is comical.

Your ignorance is noted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,AGAIN!:rolleyes:

Bailey
11-22-2011, 12:37 PM
Congress gave no more authorization to Iraq or Afghanistan than they have to Uganda. Your double-standard here is comical.

How much more wrong can you be?

AmPat
11-22-2011, 12:38 PM
The precedent on sending forces without declaring war was set long before GW Bush or Obama. Korea (Truman), for example, comes to mind, as do Grenada (Reagan), Panama(GHW Bush), and Kosovo/Bosnia (Clinton).

Can we stop with the gratuitous quibbling? Nobody was speaking of a "declaration of war." This Dictator in Chief never even consulted Congress. That is a far cry from ANY other president. O Blah Blah the Marxist, has declared war twice now without so much as a F U to Congress. That is a special kind of "precedent.":mad:

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 01:13 PM
The precedent on sending forces without declaring war was set long before GW Bush or Obama. Korea (Truman), for example, comes to mind, as do Grenada (Reagan), Panama(GHW Bush), and Kosovo/Bosnia (Clinton).

The War Powers Act, which Obama supported as a senator, wasn't passed until after Vietnam, so Truman's actions in Korea don't apply, but he was operating under a mutual defense agreement which the Senate had approved.

In Grenada the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, had requested US intervention, and under the War Powers Act, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and cannot keep armed forces remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The entire operation on Grenada was from 25 October – 15 December 1983, well within the timeline of the act.

The Panama invasion followed Noriega's 15 December announcement declaring a state of war with the U.S and the 16 Dec chooting of a US Marine lieutenant by the PDF and the detention and assault of a US Navy lieutenant and his wife, also by the PDF. The Panama invasion combat operations were from 20 December 1989 – 12 January 1990, well within the War Powers Act timeline. In both cases, congress was notified within the statutory timeline.

Clinton skirted the War Powers requirements by acting under a NATO umbrella. Enforcement of treaties which authorize force and which are ratified by the senate constitutes congressional authorization to use force. It was a bit dubious, since NATO is a defensive alliance, and no NATO member was under attack, but it could be argued that the security of the neighboring NATO member states (Italy, Greece, etc.) was threatened by spillover from the conflict, escalation and refugee flow.

Obama's attack on Libya, under NATO auspices, did not meet the criteria of the Kosovo campaign, as no NATO member had been attacked, threatened with attack, or was in proximity to the conflict. In addition, by denying that US troops were involved in combat operations (the "kinetic" OPS ruse), Obama deliberately flouted the requirement to notify congress within 48 hours, and the ongoing campaign went on well past the two month deadline for combat operations. The Uganda campaign is even more dubious, as there is no treaty or other legal document that commits the US to the defense of any of the belligerent parties, and the open-ended commitment is a direct violation of the War Powers Act.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-22-2011, 02:04 PM
Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been no congressional authorization for Uganda, or Libya, for that matter, nor any consultation with the congressional leadership prior to the commitments. Your ignorance would be comical if you weren't registered to vote.

Actually there has been authorization from Congress to use force in Uganda. And really, though this highly debatable, it seems like the scale of the intervention in Uganda is much more in tune with the spirit of this type of legislation.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-22-2011, 02:06 PM
Obama's attack on Libya, under NATO auspices, did not meet the criteria of the Kosovo campaign, as no NATO member had been attacked, threatened with attack, or was in proximity to the conflict.

Quickly type in "the Mediterranean" into Google images to prove yourself horribly wrong.

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 03:03 PM
Actually there has been authorization from Congress to use force in Uganda. And really, though this highly debatable, it seems like the scale of the intervention in Uganda is much more in tune with the spirit of this type of legislation.
Citation, please. And as for the scale, what is your expertise in the matter? One hundred persons is a detachment, not even a full company. They don't have the manpower or equipment to protect themselves, sustain their operations or operate for any length of time.

Quickly type in "the Mediterranean" into Google images to prove yourself horribly wrong.

No, you google the straight line distance from Tobruk to Sicily (the closest part of any NATO member to Libya), then explain how you expected refugees to walk across the Med from Libya. Guess there are more Christians there than we thought. :rolleyes:

Because I am in a charitable mood, I'll explain this. Proximity in this context means a common border or being close enough to be impacted by spillage of conflict or refugees. Italy and Greece bordered the former Yugoslavia, and the flow of refugees and combatant troops in pursuit of other combatants threatened to involve them in the Kosovo conflict. Nothing that could have happened in Libya would have involved the nearest NATO member, unless Libyan forces would spill across the Mediterranean and pursue rebels into Rome, Milan or Athens, which was about as likely as you joining the USMC.

Sometimes, Shoeboy, your inability to understand the basics of military science truly stuns me. But at least now we know why you didn't pick Von Clauswitz as a screen name.

Arroyo_Doble
11-22-2011, 03:33 PM
The War Powers Act, which Obama supported as a senator, wasn't passed until after Vietnam, so Truman's actions in Korea don't apply, but he was operating under a mutual defense agreement which the Senate had approved.

In Grenada the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, had requested US intervention, and under the War Powers Act, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and cannot keep armed forces remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The entire operation on Grenada was from 25 October – 15 December 1983, well within the timeline of the act.

The Panama invasion followed Noriega's 15 December announcement declaring a state of war with the U.S and the 16 Dec chooting of a US Marine lieutenant by the PDF and the detention and assault of a US Navy lieutenant and his wife, also by the PDF. The Panama invasion combat operations were from 20 December 1989 – 12 January 1990, well within the War Powers Act timeline. In both cases, congress was notified within the statutory timeline.

Clinton skirted the War Powers requirements by acting under a NATO umbrella. Enforcement of treaties which authorize force and which are ratified by the senate constitutes congressional authorization to use force. It was a bit dubious, since NATO is a defensive alliance, and no NATO member was under attack, but it could be argued that the security of the neighboring NATO member states (Italy, Greece, etc.) was threatened by spillover from the conflict, escalation and refugee flow.

Obama's attack on Libya, under NATO auspices, did not meet the criteria of the Kosovo campaign, as no NATO member had been attacked, threatened with attack, or was in proximity to the conflict. In addition, by denying that US troops were involved in combat operations (the "kinetic" OPS ruse), Obama deliberately flouted the requirement to notify congress within 48 hours, and the ongoing campaign went on well past the two month deadline for combat operations. The Uganda campaign is even more dubious, as there is no treaty or other legal document that commits the US to the defense of any of the belligerent parties, and the open-ended commitment is a direct violation of the War Powers Act.

Congress chose not to press the issue.

For my part, I wish they had. I would have liked to see the argument since at first blush, I agree that our action in Libya was an overreach by the Executive. The debate would have gone a long way to flesh out the president's rationale and also to start placing some limits on the Commander-in-Chief.

But to be fair, Republicans tend to give the Executive more latitude in such matters than Democrats.

AmPat
11-22-2011, 05:17 PM
Congress chose not to press the issue.

For my part, I wish they had. I would have liked to see the argument since at first blush, I agree that our action in Libya was an overreach by the Executive. The debate would have gone a long way to flesh out the president's rationale and also to start placing some limits on the Commander-in-Chief.

But to be fair, Republicans tend to give the Executive more latitude in such matters than Democrats. As evidenced by,,,,wait! There is no evidence.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-22-2011, 07:19 PM
Citation, please. And as for the scale, what is your expertise in the matter? One hundred persons is a detachment, not even a full company. They don't have the manpower or equipment to protect themselves, sustain their operations or operate for any length of time.

djones has posted it on here and there are other places to find it. There is a bill authorizing the use of force in Uganda that passed Congress. I dont want to look it up, but if you press me more I guess I'll have to. /groan



No, you google the straight line distance from Tobruk to Sicily (the closest part of any NATO member to Libya), then explain how you expected refugees to walk across the Med from Libya. Guess there are more Christians there than we thought. :rolleyes:

Because I am in a charitable mood, I'll explain this. Proximity in this context means a common border or being close enough to be impacted by spillage of conflict or refugees. Italy and Greece bordered the former Yugoslavia, and the flow of refugees and combatant troops in pursuit of other combatants threatened to involve them in the Kosovo conflict. Nothing that could have happened in Libya would have involved the nearest NATO member, unless Libyan forces would spill across the Mediterranean and pursue rebels into Rome, Milan or Athens, which was about as likely as you joining the USMC.

Sometimes, Shoeboy, your inability to understand the basics of military science truly stuns me. But at least now we know why you didn't pick Von Clauswitz as a screen name.

Actually there's a pretty huge problem with refugees getting in North African banana boats and sailing to Italy. A big part of the rise of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe is them getting into Italy then sneaking around Europe's open borders. France made news by even putting troops on the border.

So yeah, the affairs of North Africa definitely impact Europe's immigration situation. Its undeniable.

AmPat
11-22-2011, 08:02 PM
djones has posted it on here and there are other places to find it. There is a bill authorizing the use of force in Uganda that passed Congress. I dont want to look it up, but if you press me more I guess I'll have to. /groan




Actually there's a pretty huge problem with refugees getting in North African banana boats and sailing to Italy. A big part of the rise of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe is them getting into Italy then sneaking around Europe's open borders. France made news by even putting troops on the border.

So yeah, the affairs of North Africa definitely impact Europe's immigration situation. Its undeniable.
Stuff that straw man up your fat liberal butt Comrade. This is still not of the scale as a refugee problem along shared borders.:rolleyes:

Elspeth
11-22-2011, 10:51 PM
And he pointed to Obama’s decision this month to send 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to help that government repel attacks by a rebel group accused of atrocities. "My hope is, it’s a small operation," Preble said. Again, the president just sent the troops without authorization by Congress, even though "Uganda isn’t essential to national security by any stretch."

http://m.themonitor.com/opinion/dust-55904-one-bites.html

Still looking for this authorization.

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 11:30 PM
djones has posted it on here and there are other places to find it. There is a bill authorizing the use of force in Uganda that passed Congress. I dont want to look it up, but if you press me more I guess I'll have to. /groan
I guess you will.


Actually there's a pretty huge problem with refugees getting in North African banana boats and sailing to Italy. A big part of the rise of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe is them getting into Italy then sneaking around Europe's open borders. France made news by even putting troops on the border.

So yeah, the affairs of North Africa definitely impact Europe's immigration situation. Its undeniable.
Wow. Let me see if I understand this. You are claiming that the presence of French troops on their Mediterranean coast is justification for the US to bomb the crap out of Libya? That may be the stupidest argument that you have ever made here, and that's saying something. By your "logic", the presence of US troops in Florida would justify a NATO attack against any Caribbean nation in turmoil. That's beyond idiotic.

Still looking for this authorization.

Might be a while. Shoe's attention span is the product of the kind of schooling that produced the OWS crowd.