COIN case: LRA Lords Resistance Army

[Bob's World]

My biggest concern? We are focused on a "threat" rather than a "problem." Intel driven strategy. Foolish.

When our senior civil and military officials can talk about Uganda in terms of problems then my inner alarm will likely stop ringing. This is a country with a history of colonial disruption, a country divided north and south by two major ethnic groups, a country that has recently been deemed to be sitting on vast amounts of oil, a country with a "president" who rose to power in '86 as the leader of the Coup, and who recently was extended for another long term in an election that drew cries of manipulation and corruption....

Bottom line, there are a lot of factors in play, and I will engage with my Africa-smart people to learn more about these factors so that I can offer an alternative voice to those who talk only in terms of "threats." I suspect there is probably an oil company or two who are very interested in the greater stability of keeping the same leader in power and reducing those who attempt to challenge him violently, and that those companies are doing some serious lobbying in Washington.

As is often the case, the US does not fight for oil, we fight for favorable distributions of oil profits. Uganda, like all oil producing countries will produce oil and sell it into the global market no matter what. Who profits most is always the critical issue that is fought over. Also, as is often the case, we thinly wrap such true motivations in terms of "liberty" or "democracy" or "human rights." That is a line that is losing it's luster. At least that is what Smedley Butler thought as he looked back at his long career of such service.

[davidbfpo]

My title after reading Zenpundit's article 'The Limbaugh Rush to Erroneous Judgment', Zen's article is a comprehensive demolition of Limbaugh and adds some context to why the LRA needs attention:http://zenpundit.com/?p=4402

[davidbfpo]

This subject popped up a few posts ago. Yes capable European nations have not been keen on an African commitment, for a host of reasons and the draw-down of French garrisons is one illustration.

Yet at the same time European nations have sent troops to Africa, invariably wearing the UN's blue berets; I recall an Irish Bn. in eastern Chad when refugees crossed from Darfur and IIRC Austrians along the Eritrea-Ethiopia ceasefire line awhile back. Just checked the IISS Military Balance and there are none currently, except the French in Ivory Coast.

Further back and in a non-military role so much lower profile has been the work of IIRC Italian and Norwegian parties in conflict resolution, such as ending the RENAMO -v- FRELIMO conflict in Mozambique.

There is some remaining European capability to deploy in Africa, invariably reliant on USAF strategic transport and hired Russian or Ukrainian planes. Missing is any will at the national level.

Back to the LRA and Uganda finally. Why the Commonwealth has not been able to offer help eludes me. Rwanda and Uganda are both members. If I was in government that is an option I'd pursue, as a successor to the US help.

[Fuchs]

Germany had even 250 paratrooper blue helmets in Congo to help secure some elections a while ago.


The lack of Commonwealth support may be related to the fact that Uganda has been a de facto dictatorship for 25 years under Museveni AND it'S utterly irrelevant as a raw materials source.

[carl]

I think it might be helpful to note that the Ugandan army ejected the LRA from Uganda several years ago. The area where the LRA operates now is a very long way from the Ugandan border.

Rush Limbaugh is just being Rush. He is, in my opinion, the very best when it comes to US domestic politics, but he is absolutely clueless when it comes to military affairs abroad. He also never could figure out why Abu Ghraib was such a big deal.

[Ken White]

I think it might be helpful to note that the Ugandan army ejected the LRA from Uganda several years ago. The area where the LRA operates now is a very long way from the Ugandan border.

Thus:

"Yet again, I'm not that concerned with this mission -- I'm concerned with what will follow this mission. Mark my words, there will more and worse...."

[ganulv]

I’m hoping Mahmood Mamdani chimes in on this one (and it makes sense that he would be interested in doing so, given that he grew up in Uganda). His book Saviors and survivors: Darfur, politics, and the War on Terror (WorldCat record for the book; via YouTube, Mamdani debates John Prendergast) is worth the time of the contributors to this thread. I don’t know enough about the region to judge the historiography and analysis of the current situation given in the book, but I recommend it solely on its strengths as a polemic. Mamdani’s politics are unmistakably to the left but I don’t think he can be categorized as a liberal (in the sense that we use the term in the U.S., at least) given that he calls the book a brief “against those who substitute moral certainty for knowledge, and who feel virtuous even when acting on the basis of total ignorance.”

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Davidbfro,

My title after reading Zenpundit's article 'The Limbaugh Rush to Erroneous Judgment', Zen's article is a comprehensive demolition of Limbaugh and adds some context to why the LRA needs attention:http://zenpundit.com/?p=4402

Zenpundit could have added a little more context. First the LRA is Christians killing Christians (if you accept the LRA are Christians). Second, Southern Sudan is largely Christian, so I suspect (do not know) they're killing Christians in Southern Sudan also. According to numerous articles that reference Wikileaks we suspect or know that Khartom (the Muslim capital in Northern Sudan) has been providing support to the LRA. Finally, we're reportedly sending advisors to Southern Sudan to assist their forces battle the LRA also. Rush has been an idiot for years, and the fact that he actually has a loyal following is an indicator that our education has failed to produce critical thinkers. Disagreement with the decision to send troops is fine and those voices should be heard (and they may turn out to be right), but twisting the facts to make a case during election season is typical Rush.

Yes capable European nations have not been keen on an African commitment, for a host of reasons and the draw-down of French garrisons is one illustration.

Yet at the same time European nations have sent troops to Africa, invariably wearing the UN's blue berets; I recall an Irish Bn. in eastern Chad when refugees crossed from Darfur and IIRC Austrians along the Eritrea-Ethiopia ceasefire line awhile back. Just checked the IISS Military Balance and there are none currently, except the French in Ivory Coast.

I don't include the UK when I speak poorly of Europe, because they never seem to be lock step with main land Western Europe. However, my point about European nations not assisting African nations military remains valid. Yes they occassionally intervene militarily as blue hats or independently, but supporting a collective program to develop African capacity has been limited. There are tens if not hundreds of European NGOs throughout Africa doing great work, and they should be recognized for their contributions. They are not the subject of my comment.

[Fuchs]

It's stupid to give a single man many hours airtime almost every day. He's bound to fill most of it with nonsense.

[Bill Moore]

http://af.reuters.com/article/invest...79F00Z20111016

Earlier this week, Uganda's parliament passed a resolution urging the government to withhold consent for Tullow's proposed deal with France's Total and China's CNOOC until laws were in place to regulate the industry.

There are also numerous minerals, I have no idea how much or how critical they are to the global economy. One point that isn't mentioned, but I have seen it during previous reading not related to this issue, is that some nations are looking at Africa as a potential bread basket. They want to develop State farms there (lease the land) so they can feed their own people.

I think we should consider both short and "potential" long term economic benefits that may not be readily apparent. Bob's World always smells a bad government, he can't accept the fact that there is evil in the world and that sometimes (even if it is rarely the case) the insurgents do not have popular support. I suspect the government in Uganda is corrupt, most in Africa (and the developing world for that matter) are. In this case it appears to be that the government is the lesser to two evils. I'm looking forward to his injects from the African experts. Too bad Tom Odom hasn't posted lately.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

If they do not have popular support, then they are not "insurgents."

As I have often stated, the primary source of causation radiates out from government. This LRA group was born at the same time the military coup put this government into power, and both have endured for considerable time. I doubt a group without a core of popular support (both the current government and the LRA) would have endured without such a base.

As I noted earlier in this thread, a quick bit or research shows that Uganda has two major ethnic populace bases, one in the south half, one in the North half. Are both halves equally represented by the government? Will both halves benefit equally from the new oil wealth??

As I have also noted, when the causation of poor governance that radiates out from government creates conditions of insurgency among some significant and distinct segment of the populace, it is often very self-serving individuals and organizations that form and grow to exploit those conditions. This does not excuse such actors, but nor does it grant amnesty to the government that is at the root of this causation either.

As a savvy Special Forces operator, you full well understand the nature of UW and the fact that one cannot go to a healthy, happy populace and conduct UW with any success. One must identify a populace where conditions of insurgency exist, and then exploit those conditions.

Insurgency is natural. It is human nature. But "insurgents" do not cause insurgency, they are merely the ones that exploit the conditions created by the government. Governments find this to be the most inconvenient of inconvenient truths. To such governments I simply say "Deal with it." You made this bed through your policies and actions. It is in your power to fix yourself, or to strike back at those who dare to oppose you. Most choose the latter, and most ultimately fall.

US foreign policy often, too often, sends us out to prop up and sustain such governments. We too need to evolve in our foreign policy. This too is an inconvenient truth.

[Dayuhan]

Here perhaps we see the risks inherent in getting too close to a model. Are you trying to fit the LRA into your model of what insurgency ought to be, or are you adapting your model to fit the actual conditions?

If they do not have popular support, then they are not "insurgents."

I think if you look into the LRA you'll find that by your definition they are not insurgents, more a roving gang of bandits. There's no political agenda, no effort to seize state power, no popular support base. The old premise that "insurgents" need popular support or the locals will rat them out to the government doesn't really apply here... there really isn't much of a government in most of the area (spread across parts of 4 countries, not just Uganda) where the LRA operates. They simply raid, pillage, terrorize, and move on. There aren't many places in the world where such a group could exist, but Central Africa is one.

As Ken correctly points out, the LRA is not a threat to the US at all, in any way. They aren't really a threat to anyone except the villagers in the area they terrorize. That's one reason they've survived: if the governments involved saw them as a threat they might do something about it... though of course government is minimal in Uganda and the CAR and pretty much nonexistent in the southern Sudan and the NE DRC.

Of course in the long term it's in the interest of the US (and Europe, and China, and the rest of the oil consuming world) to see Uganda's oil reserves developed... by anyone, and regardless of where the oil goes. The extent to which the LRA is a constraint on that development remains to be seen. Their MO in general has been the village raid, and they may not be that interested in oil facilities: again, they aren't trying to topple a government or force reforms out of a government.

Any US move on the LRA isn't reeally threat-centric, because there is no threat to the US. If anything it's a humanitarian effort, vaguely reminiscent of the move against Aidid. I'd completely agree that Joseph Kony is one of those rare examples of a person that just plain needs to be killed, and that anyone who does that will be doing the human race in general and central Africa in particular a huge favor, I'm not fully convinced that it should be up to the US to do it.

As I have often stated, the primary source of causation radiates out from government. This LRA group was born at the same time the military coup put this government into power, and both have endured for considerable time. I doubt a group without a core of popular support (both the current government and the LRA) would have endured without such a base.

As I noted earlier in this thread, a quick bit or research shows that Uganda has two major ethnic populace bases, one in the south half, one in the North half. Are both halves equally represented by the government? Will both halves benefit equally from the new oil wealth??

As I have also noted, when the causation of poor governance that radiates out from government creates conditions of insurgency among some significant and distinct segment of the populace, it is often very self-serving individuals and organizations that form and grow to exploit those conditions. This does not excuse such actors, but nor does it grant amnesty to the government that is at the root of this causation either.

As a savvy Special Forces operator, you full well understand the nature of UW and the fact that one cannot go to a healthy, happy populace and conduct UW with any success. One must identify a populace where conditions of insurgency exist, and then exploit those conditions.

Insurgency is natural. It is human nature. But "insurgents" do not cause insurgency, they are merely the ones that exploit the conditions created by the government. Governments find this to be the most inconvenient of inconvenient truths. To such governments I simply say "Deal with it." You made this bed through your policies and actions. It is in your power to fix yourself, or to strike back at those who dare to oppose you. Most choose the latter, and most ultimately fall.

US foreign policy often, too often, sends us out to prop up and sustain such governments. We too need to evolve in our foreign policy. This too is an inconvenient truth.[/QUOTE]