I, and my colleagues at Invisible Children, have worked on the issue of the violent rebel group The Lord's Resistance Army ("The LRA") for 8 years. They have raped, murdered, and mutilated their way through central Africa for 26 years. There are few people in the world who know more about them and their pervasive brutality than we do and I applaud this new and decisive action taken by our President.
Friday, President Obama announced that his administration is deploying around 100 troops to a region in central Africa that has been brutalized by the LRA and their violent cult leader Joseph Kony.
These troops will work alongside the regional efforts already underway to protect civilians from LRA atrocities and to remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield.
The addition of well-trained and well-equipped US Military personnel will give the ongoing efforts a much greater chance at success. The President should be applauded, the troops should be honored and the United States should be proud of undertaking a larger role in this global and local coalition for the following reasons:
There is not a single circumstance on the planet today that more clearly warrants international military support on humanitarian grounds than that of Joseph Kony and the LRA.
This is a unique situation going on in the world today. There is none other like it. Joseph Kony is holding hostage hundreds of thousands of people in central Africa, through his army of abducted fighters who are fighting for self-preservation and fear of Kony's supposed spiritual powers. When it comes to criteria warranting international assistance, the LRA would satisfy every one of them. All of the boxes have been checked.
We applaud President Obama for taking this action.
However, others do not agree. The key objections to this action surround three ideas: an over-extension of our resources, starting another war, and an absence of National Self Interest.
It will be heard: 'America is in debt, we have an employment crisis, and it isn't our job to meddle in other problems that don't involve us.'
It is true that this conflict does not involve the United States, but as the world's only super power, with specifically unique military capabilities, there are certain rare instances in the world where crimes are so egregious, and the solutions so clearly attainable, that it would be unjust to stand by and watch.
Here, the US is only deploying around 100 military personnel in an advisory role to help support the Uganda military already in pursuit of the LRA's leadership. These troops are specifically instructed not to engage in offensive action against the LRA. Their job is to raise the level of technical support and training available to the Ugandan Forces already in pursuit. This is a pragmatic and reasonable expenditure of our resources in response to the highly supported legislation mandating such action back in May of 2010.
Secondly, United States involvement in solving this conflict is not the 'start of another war.' In the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Somalia, the United States was entering a widespread cultural conflict with thousands of actors and deep ideological rifts between the people. As history has shown, these circumstances prove to be long and arduous commitments with heavy casualties and frustrating success. Why? Because we're fighting an ideological enemy that continues to win converts and often accelerates conversion in response to American involvement. In this case, we have an entirely different situation. The LRA has no ideological support. As enumerated in the facts above, they are not tied to a legitimate government, they are not supported by any community or group of people, and they have no demands. They are simply a violent cult surviving on the fact that the world will ignore their atrocities so long as they are perpetrated on communities at the bottom of the economic spectrum. President Obama's actions are changing this.
Thirdly, National Interest is an evolving idea. It has historically been relegated to the simplistic desires of economic advantage, maintenance of access to materials and commodities, and local security. The widespread support of the legislation that led to this action shows a changing tide in citizenship identification. A growing number of young Americans now identify globally as readily as they do nationally and feel a responsibility to help when others are facing the most extreme levels of human brutality. Isolationist sentiment is unattractive when it comes to the most extreme abuses of human rights.
Lastly, in certain circumstances, it is actually our job to 'meddle in other problems' and bring our unique capabilities into an equation. Not only is The President implementing an overwhelmingly supported bi-partisan 2010 bill called The LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, but he is also fulfilling a promise made by the United Nations Security Counsel. This is something that the United Nations ratified in 2005 in the General Assembly called The Responsibility to Protect. I encourage you to look it up and learn about it. It roughly states that the leadership of the world should step in and aid countries that are unable or unwilling to protect their own people from unmitigated slaughter if certain benchmarks of brutality and disregard are met. Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army are indeed some the worst perpetrators of brutality in the world today. And they've moved with impunity for 26 years.
President Obama is fulfilling the mandate given him from bi-partisan United States legislation and as a member of the Security Counsel of the United Nations under The Responsibility to Protect.
This is something that should be celebrated and supported. The Youth of America and Invisible Children say thank you, and our thoughts and prayers are with the brave troops that are representing the United States in this noble and just mission.
Katherine Marshall: The Modest Heroine of the 2011 Opus Prize: Lyn Lusi
Cara Jones: Obama, the LRA, and Future Interventions in Africa
Here are relevant comments by Asia Times columnist Pepe Escobar:
http://alexeybraguine.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/the-axis-of-african-evil/
Their- the third person plural possessive adjective, used to describe something as belong to them.
They're- the contraction of "they are" and is often followed by the present participle (verb form ending in -ing).
There- Adverb that means the opposite of "here." Pronoun that introduces a noun or clause. Adjective that emphasizes which person. Noun that means "that place."
2. President Obama has good political reasons to want to intervene against violence committed in the name of Christianity, given all our interventions against violence committed in the name of Islam.
It serves his larger goal of denying that the political wing of Islam, Islamism, has declared war on the United States and its allies.
The problem with denying the religious motivation of our enemy is that it also denies us the ability to identify him before he starts shooting or blows something up.
This explains why we are constantly playing defense in this war.
Despite the fact that anyone of us would do the right thing, Republican/Tea Party members will howl!
U.S. administrations see international problem. Solution = Send In the Troops!
Whatever you do don't criticize the warmongers, that would make you a traitor.
No wonder the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest or the world combined.
Now someone for the children is doing the ideological work for the administration.
What about the United Nations or the African Union?
Why this endless arrogant unilateral war making?
Black American and White American to fight in other war why not help out in Africa.
We tried this in Mogadishu in 1993, the idea being that if we took out one petty warlord it would collapse his support structure and that this group/tribe/clan of thugs would stop hurting people and let the UN feed them. It was absurd then and it's absurd now. And what's more; we knew it then just like we know it now. How do I know? Because I was there. On 3-4 October we lost 18 of America's bravest young men in an effort to save a savage people from themselves. We killed over 1100 of them (not enough in my oppinion) and what has changed there. N O T H I N G. All of this can be wrapped up in four words: the tyranny of compassion. I left every bit of mine in those filthy streets of Mogadishu. As far as I'm concerned, I would rather see every man, woman, child, and elderly cleric in Africa die and rot before losing one more American life there for "humanitary reasons."
You refuse to "stand by and watch." Really? Other than venting at people like me on the HP what are you doing? Honestly, could you even point to Mali or Uganda, or Senegal or Somalia on a map if it weren't already labeled for you? Yea, that's what I thought. Going to pick up a rifle and head over there? Got orders for AFRICOM? No, you'll pontificate and blog and comment while you "watch" someone else goe over there for no other reason than to pacify the Congressional Black Caucus and to make people like you feel better about themselves. That's what's truly disgusting.
What you are saying now is exactly what was being said about Somalia in 1992/93...that it was a token, poorly armed force and that if we took out their petty warlord (Aidid at the time) the Somalia National Militia would collapse.The next thing I knew we were fighting for our lives and firing into crowds and strafing entire city blocks because we were surrounded by thousands of armed African thugs. It took them three days to bury their dead. Three days.
The point is, there are no less than a dozens of these thugs waiting in the wings to take over if we eliminate Mr. Kony. And here's another little fact that you won't read in the news. It ain't like the movie Blood Diamonds where all the child soldiers are reluctant participants and would gladly go back to kicking around a soccer ball if they were only given the chance. That's not the real world. Tthat's not Africa.
I spent 25 years on the pointy end of this kind of stupid policy driven by people who "refuse to stand by and watch" but in the end that's exactly what they do; watch while others carry the load of their feel-good intentions.
Let them all kill each other. I'm quite happy to stand by and watch that.
Any country's involvement in tribal and civil unrest has proven to be ineffective and drawn out. Tribal, by the way, includes clans and similar groups throughout history... witness Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of others.
Until a people become sophisticated enough to develop a sense of community beyond their own interests, they won't unite after the bloodshed is stopped... and a recurrence is inevitable. That is the social argument for staying out.
The constitutional argument is simple. Even though this kind of action has been done before, it was as unconstitutional then as it is now. Inserting this country into a conflict within the borders of another because it is the "right thing to do" can never be condoned. There must be a threat to the US or its citizens.
Tolerance of this activity only brings more of it... Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Pakistan... There is even talk now of entering Mexico!
Consequently, when a power emerges that can dominate the individual tribes/ clans, the odds of something like this happening go skyrocketing.
If they united, they could overwhelm almost any oppressor.
Frankly, you could draw an analogy to current situations in the USA. Conservatives have been very individualistic and the 20% of the population who are progressives have had their way at destroying the constitution. They, however are uniting under the tea party banner.
"Until a people become sophisticated enough to develop a sense of community beyond their own interests..." This sounds a lot like you'd LIKE for the US to be a community like that - in fact I dare say the you sound like you lack the sophistication as you put it, to look beyond yourself and see this for what it is.
By trying to aid with the end of the last 26 years of war in Uganda, by stepping in to TRAIN (not fight) a people to defend themselves - the US is displaying the sophistication "to develop a sense of community beyond their own interests." And to say that they are wrong for doing this is to say that in essence the US should never strive for the humanitarian sophistication or the respect of the world at large.
I like the fact that the guys are going out there to train the local armies which are already formed (they sound united to me, just saying) - not to fight. The likelihood of there being an American casualty is super low that way AND they still help someone. It sounds win win to me. But not everyone will see that and not everyone will agree about it so if you don't see it, it's nothing to me - least I tried to show you.
Peace man, that's all we want.