Gazing in the Congo (DRC): the dark heart of Africa (2006-2017)

[carl]

My quick search didn't turn up Tom's "ROE for Somalian pirates"; I'd be very interested in exactly what he said if someone can find it.

However, I did find Tom's post from this thread in 2007 (#101), which bears on the subject:



Looks to me, from that comment, that a good argument can be made that a lot more armed common rabble, of the right character and attitude, would be a positive thing.

But, that is neither African elite nor UN-think; the common rabble must be unarmed - sound familiar ?

Regards

Mike

I think that comes from his book, Journey Into Darkness, I think. It had to do with our original effort in Somalia. The main point is if you are trying to restore some semblance of order in that part of the world by suppressing organized (sort of) armed groups, you don't fool around. You tell them they will die if they don't comply and then back it up.

Right on, arm the common rabble. But in the glorious DRC, the common rabble is pretty darn poor and a rifle, ammunition and things to keep it going aren't so cheap. You get a few guys together who can work a scam to pay for weapons or get somebody else to pay then, those guys have a huge advantage over the common rabble. So in this case, Tom's rules may be good.

Stan would know better than I if the right character and attitude is common in the DRC.

[jmm99]

The statement was actually made by a Lt. Gen. (relaying a remark he heard), with Tom affirmatively replying (from Journey into Darkness, p.52):

LG Owens: If they have a gun, shoot 'em. If someone picks up the gun, shoot him too. Keep shooting until no one picks up the gun.

Tom: Sir, that is exactly what needs to happen.

So, let's adopt that ROE "exactly" (literally) for use worldwide. One result would be the likely deaths of Tom and me; each of us owns guns, and based on perceived character wouldn't comply with a mandate to give them up.

Or, are we "good guys", who for some reason are exempted from the literal rule ? Or, do we live in a "good" country, which for some reason is exempted from the rule ? Or, is there something missing from what should be called "Owens' Rule" ?

Regards

Mike

[carl]

The statement was actually made by a Lt. Gen. (relaying a remark he heard), with Tom affirmatively replying (from Journey into Darkness, p.52):



So, let's adopt that ROE "exactly" (literally) for use worldwide. One result would be the likely deaths of Tom and me; each of us owns guns, and based on perceived character wouldn't comply with a mandate to give them up.

Or, are we "good guys", who for some reason are exempted from the literal rule ? Or, do we live in a "good" country, which for some reason is exempted from the rule ? Or, is there something missing from what should be called "Owens' Rule" ?

Regards

Mike

I'm glad you found the quote, and I'm glad I wasn't completely wrong about it, only mostly wrong.

As for the rest, different histories, different cultures, different religions, different climates, different diseases, different crops, different livestock, really bad snakes, different character of bodies of fresh water, different everything. Mostly though-TIA.

So let's not adopt that ROE exactly for use worldwide. Because, IAA, it ain't Africa. Now that is not to say that things can't get to a place where arming the flyover people isn't a very good thing, like it is here. But in the DRC, north of Goma (or if they ever decide to go where the FDLR is), right now, that particular rule of engagement is the best way to go about it.

[jmm99]

I'd say you got the quote mostly right.

My questions go to the reasoning behind the rule.

My first thought was that the rule ("shoot anyone with a gun") is a "status" rule, which follows this kind of sequence:

1. Define your enemy.

2. Identify your enemy.

3. Kill your enemy.

The US normally defines its enemies in terms of states or groups - in fact, I can't think of an example, as a matter of national policy, where the US has deviated from states or groups.

However, nothing in the logic of the status sequence requires using states or groups to define our enemies. It would be perfectly logical to define a killable enemy as anyone we see who is taller than the level of a truck axle. That in fact was a very common Mongol rule for prisoner "handling".

So, defining our enemy as "anyone with a gun" is perfectly logical as a status rule. The rules we have on the floor (the Cruz and Owens rules) are more restricted: Cruz "any Congolese with a gun"; Owens "any Somalian with a gun". Note that those rules combine statuses, a gun toter + an ethnic.

Again, there is nothing illogical in combining two statuses; but what is the general standard behind selecting one ethnic group to be killed if gun-toting and another ethnic group to be given a pass. Or, is the rule simply to be developed on the spot based on the best judgment of the unit commander (and, if so, at what level of command).

My second thought was to look at the rule as a conduct rule. In the US SROE, unit self-defense is always in effect; but that requires a threat to "life or limb". The arguments usually involve the degree of threat. The logical sequence is:

1. Identify threat.

2. Neutralize threat.

Neither the Cruz nor Owens rules, as stated, have a threat element; unless one contends that anyone having a gun, and by that alone, is a deadly threat worthy of killing. Perhaps, that was and is the case in the Congo and Somalia.

Apparently, everyone who's spoken here on the issue seems to think that Cruz and Owens have/had the right idea.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Since this morning FARDC and M23 resumed fightings. The FIB is stuck between its 2 mandates of Protection of Civilians and active force operations... So they do nothing for now.

M23 rebels clash with army in eastern Congo

General Sultani Makenga, M23's military commander, told Reuters its forces were attacked at 4 a.m. local time (0200 GMT) at Kanyamohoro, around 15 km (10 miles) north of Goma, the largest city in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

"They attacked us," Makenga told Reuters by telephone. "We are going to defend our positions."

An army spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

A Reuters reporter in Goma said the fighting was intense and on-going.

The resumption of hostilities comes days after peace negotiations broke down in the Ugandan capital Kampala, triggering a military build-up on both sides.

http://www.trust.org/item/20131025080636-8c4ty/

[jmm99]

no, it's not too late to discuss the real issues - which are underlying policy issues, primarily driven by different a priori logics, for military and political strategies and their consequent "rules of engagement". The bases ("reasonings") for those a priori logics may be rational or irrational, but they do exist.

Briefly, on my two points above:

1. There can't be a legal debate because, in effect, there is no international law (simply a flock of legal opinions, many of which are totally or partially anachronistic); and there is no court to enforce whatever "international law" one may assert - unless you happen to be one of the strong, where "might makes right" will prevail. I'm not knocking the conviction of Chuckie Taylor Sr; but the same result was reached (and more quickly) against his son, Chuckie Jr, in a US District Court sitting in southern Florida.

2. It's not too late because the issue of who is killed, and for what, will keep on recurring in Africa and elsewhere. In fact, if Andy Basevich is correct in his article, Bashing ‘Isolationists’ While at War in the World (by Andrew J. Bacevich and Tom Engelhardt, October 25, 2013), we are about to see a movement to push a US pivot toward Africa:

Hey, Private First Class Dorothy: when that next tornado hits Kansas, it’s slated to transport you not to Oz, but to somewhere in Africa, maybe Chad or Niger or Mauritania. And that’s war, American-style, for you, or so reports the New York Times’s Eric Schmitt from Fort Riley, Kansas, where an Army brigade is gearing up for a series of complex future deployments to Africa. Here is the money paragraph of his report, if you want to understand Washington’s present orientation toward perpetual war: “But with the United States military out of Iraq and pulling out of Afghanistan, the Army is looking for new missions around the world. ‘As we reduce the rotational requirement to combat areas, we can use these forces to great effect in Africa,’ Gen. David M. Rodriguez, the head of the Africa Command, told Congress this year.”

In the view of our leaders these days, having extra troops on hand and keeping them in cold storage in this country is like having extra money around and stuffing it under your mattress or parking it in a local bank at next to no interest. Why would you do that when you could go out and play the market – or, in the case of the U.S. military, pivot toward Africa? So many “partnerships” to forge as you lend a helping hand to the counterterrorism struggle on – and the destabilization of – that continent using that brigade in Kansas, Special Operations forces like the ones recently sent on raids into Libya and Somalia, and the drones whose bases are spreading in the region.

In Washington, war and preparations for war remain the options of choice, no matter the traffic jam of U.S. military disasters in this century. Despite all the recent talk about pivoting to Asia, preparations of every sort, not just at Ft. Riley, suggest that Africa may prove the actual pivot point for this country’s endless war policies in the coming decade, as TomDispatch has been reporting now for the last year or more. In the meantime, Andrew Bacevich, author most recently of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, offers a little primer on just how to cut any critics of the relentless American global mission impossible off at the knees. Just call them “isolationists” and go right on with your next operation. It works like a dream. ~ Tom ...

Of course, Roger Cohen of the NYT is calling for a re-pivot toward Europe in his op-ed, The Handyuberwachung Disaster (October 24, 2013).

So, with the pivot toward the Pacific, and the pivot toward Africa, and the re-pivot toward Europe, President Obama will have to learn some very fancy dance moves - on a limited budget to boot. But, wait; he also may have to learn how to say Handyuberwachung in 35 languages, if this Guardian article is accurate: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts (by James Ball, 24 October 2013).

So, I think it's a fair inference that we are not going to see consensus within the "international community" in the near future; and that will be reflected in variations (and not some little hypocrisies) in respective "rules of engagement".

Let's contemplate the fun and games, if the US pivots toward Africa. The World could see forces operating under UN, US, Cruz, Owens, and exotic Congolese "rules of engagement", with a German court in Hamburg deciding whether extrajudicial executions occurred and who committed war crimes.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Third time in a row:

DR Congo troops seize military base from M23 rebels

Kinshasa (AFP) - The army in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo gained ground from M23 rebels in fighting on Monday, seizing back control of a major military base as the UN Security Council prepared to hold emergency talks on the crisis.

"We have taken the military base at Rumangabo," which lies about 40 kilometres (25 miles) north of Goma, the strategic capital of embattled North Kivu province, Lieutenant-Colonel Olivier Hamuli told AFP.

"We fought, but not for very long - the enemy is demoralised by the strength of (our) firepower," Hamuli said on the fourth day of an offensive against the M23, following the suspension of peace talks in Uganda.

http://news.yahoo.com/dr-congo-troop...104930595.html

A good old Mama giving a high 5 to a UN Force commander after FARDC + FIB entered her village:https://twitter.com/KoblerSrsg/statu...228608/photo/1