Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
They are?

How so?

I see no evidence of success anywhere so please enlighten me.
Fair enough, and I'll attempt a feeble defense. First off, these are not war zones, so the military remains largely subordinate to the Department of State (DOS), and DOS is seldom about winning. They want to maintain control of the military strategy they don't understand. I question if they understand our political objectives, but that is a different argument.

Second, these operations take time, and more importantly they take the support of the supported nation. If your comment about the Ugandan forces not being disappointed is correct, then the FID approach won't work. At that point we need to reconsider what our way forward should be, to include leaving altogether. That would be a short term failure, but could contribute to long term success for more important missions when countries realize we're finally serious about them stepping up to the plate to address their own security problems. In Uganda I think our objectives extend well beyond killing Koni, so things may not be as bad you portray them.

If we're starting to provide support to Nigeria that will be a test case to watch.

To add to your argument I just saw a news flash about a potentially major terrorist attack on a Kenya coastal town. Still waiting for details. Carl has a point, we often have no intention on winning. It seems we prefer to take half steps for ever, which simply prolongs the fighting, prolongs the suffering, and creates a culture over generations that no nothing but war. We accused the Sri Lankan government of "winning" their war against the Tamil separatists the long way. We miss the point they won, and that country is being reconstructed. The level of hate and discrimination there is probably less than we experienced after our Civil War, but we only read history, we don't take lessons from it. We and the UN faulted the S. African mercenary unit who quickly and effectively suppressed the rebels in Sierra Leone. The more I think about we might be allergic to winning? Winning in most situations requires aggressive pursuit of the adversary, but doing so in a way that doesn't undermine our legitimacy at home and internationally like the French did in Algeria. No body said it was easy, but darned if we don't spend millions educating our officers to fight (I think), and instead we now have a movement to develop a military composed of nation builders. That is seen as more relevant because we're not allowed to win by fighting, so we put our hope in economic development.