COIN case: LRA Lords Resistance Army

[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]

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World,

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.

Yes and no.

Yes, this is appears to be true in most cases, but it is not a hard rule. Terrorists, insurgent leaders, criminals etc. can manufacture problems/beliefs concerning the government that didn't exist in the populace prior to a communicator putting them there, and then stoking the flames. Foreign sponsored communist insurgencies were skilled at creating events that prompted the government to over react, and then that reaction was exploited to further drive a wedge between the government and the people. Second, U.S. UW doctrine is based on the Cold War, heavily borrows from Mao, and is outdated. Your comment assumes that a guerrilla campaign must expand into a war of movement to ultimately be successful. This also is not true, a few bad actors that effectively employ terror to suppress the population can also achieve telling results. Kony appears to be one of those actors. I'm not even sure Kony's LRA is an insurgency?

I'm sure if we examine the Ugandan government we'll find significant problems, but the LRA is not a legitimate response to that government's shortcomings. I have already heard complaints about dictatorship, etc., which may be true, but I'm also seeing our form of legitimacy being imposed upon the people of Uganda. The bulk of the population "may" prefer a strong leader to maintains order. Some countries prefer monarchies, but of course since they're not democracies we would label them as ill legitimate.

Since I don't know how the Ugandan people feel about their government, I'll shift back to reality and ask why no one has challenged my assumption that we have to support our partners? We preach through and with (a terrible phrase, smells too much like Western hegemony) others to achieve our ends, yet when a country that has supported us asks for assistance with their problems we question the merits of it? A lot of countries could have questioned the merits of supporting us in Iraq, but they sent troops. To maintain these relationships we have give as well as receive. Uganda has sent troops to Somalia and supported the rebels in Southern Sudan. I suspect that makes them a partner in addressing regional issues. Do we simply say no when they ask for help from us?

[carl]

No, SF is not the most capable humanitarian organization around. Especially not for your purpose -- with which I agree;...

Given that the purpose is killing Mr. Kony and killing or scaring into submission his minions, what organization would be more capable of doing this humanitarian mission?

Bob's World: Probably the most important reason the LRA has managed to hang on so long is that the Khartoum government found them to be a convenient way to irritate the Ugandan government and so provided them with money and sanctuary in South Sudan, a place where for a long time, the UPDF could not go.

Here is a story that illustrates how some Africans view black Americans. Bear in mind that in Lingala, the word for white guy is mundele.

This black guy I knew was working as a Peace Corps volunteer in Congo. He said he was out one night drinking palm wine. Palm wine is great he said. It tastes good, goes down smooth and you can get really drunk quick without knowing it.

He had enough and got on his motorbike to drive down the path to the village he lived in. It was dark and he wouldn't have been able to see well in the light so he missed the turnoff and continued unknowingly down the path to its' terminus, a sheer cliff.

The people in his home village heard him putt-putting in approach and then heard him putt-putting away toward the end of the path. Everybody in the village realized, all at about the same time, what had happened and they all tore out of their houses and down the path crying "Oh no! We've killed our mundele!"

They found him stopped on the path about 10 feet from the cliff, which he never saw. He had just gotten tired as drunks do and the mundele was saved.

[ganulv]

[Palm wine] tastes good, goes down smooth and you can get really drunk quick without knowing it.

One of those three is true, and it isn’t #1 or #2! Though if your bar food was fried in palm oil you will be needing to #2 in short order.

[carl]

That is about how I remember his description of palm wine, which means it may be at wild variance with reality. He also said it was extremely dependent on at what stage you took it from the tree.

I never had any so I will gladly defer to one with actual experience.

[Ken White]

Given that the purpose is killing Mr. Kony and killing or scaring into submission his minions, what organization would be more capable of doing this humanitarian mission?

Aside from the fact that I find the concept of killing Kony and his minions -- I doubt they're going to be scared into submission -- couched as a "humanitarian mission" kinda funny...

The Ugandan Defence Force has about 5,000 troops in Somalia (at our request and funded by us...), bring them home and put 'em to chasing Kony down. IF Musaveni really wanted to, that could have happened some time ago. Kony gives him a reason to stay in power -- against the wishes of most Ugandans as I understand it. So -- we prop up another questionable authority figure. Hope and Change. Humanitarians, tha's us...

Musaveni of course welcomes us -- and money -- to Uganda. We'll see what happens with the DRC and South Sudan.

As for more capable for the mission you state (which may or may not be the mission of the US element being sent), probably the Ranger Company of Kenya's 20 Parachute Battalion.

[Ken White]

...I'll shift back to reality and ask why no one has challenged my assumption that we have to support our partners? We preach through and with (a terrible phrase, smells too much like Western hegemony) others to achieve our ends, yet when a country that has supported us asks for assistance with their problems we question the merits of it? A lot of countries could have questioned the merits of supporting us in Iraq, but they sent troops. To maintain these relationships we have give as well as receive. Uganda has sent troops to Somalia and supported the rebels in Southern Sudan. I suspect that makes them a partner in addressing regional issues. Do we simply say no when they ask for help from us?

I for one have no problem supporting partners. However, I question the degree of partnership involved with all your examples. In most of those cases, those nations 'supported' us because we paid them to do so, to include in Iraq. If you think that creates true partners as opposed to bought in support, we can differ. Uganda's efforts in Somalia are funded by us and are pretty much at our request. I suspect some money is being made in several unintended places thanks to our 'support' of our 'partners.'

The fact that I disagree with such efforts -- and have since Korea where we began the practice and continuing in Viet Nam with the Koreans and the Thais -- is immaterial, we did it. The question then becomes how much 'pay back' do we really owe...

That, BTW explains part of my anger at the NSC / State / Congressional etc. crowd that gets us involved in such stupidity, then leaves for a Think Tank job and escapes responsibility for their screwups.

We also have been known to turn our backs on true partners. See Sinai, Falklands et.al.

Nations have interests, period. Extensive involvement in Africa is not in our interests. Getting Ugandan oil flowing may be desirable but it's likely to occur no matter what we do -- and we do not need it.

[carl]

Ken:

Ok. I'll buy that as far as forces better suited for killing the LRA. Would the Kenyans actually be willing to commit that force to that mission? I was thinking something like Executive Outcomes might be better too. But alas, that type of force will never be again.

I don't think it so odd to view destruction of the LRA as a humanitarian endeavor. Mosquito eradication is a humanitarian endeavor because as long as those mosquitoes exist, people will die. The LRA is the same thing. As long as they exist, people will die. So killing the LRA is a service to the humanity unfortunate enough to live within their area. That is not how humanitarian service is normally viewed but it would be a darn sight more effective than most conventional humanitarian work.

A lot of LRA have been scared into submission from what I've read. A number just got tired of being chased all the time and gave up.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ken,

I for one have no problem supporting partners. However, I question the degree of partnership involved with all your examples. In most of those cases, those nations 'supported' us because we paid them to do so, to include in Iraq. If you think that creates true partners as opposed to bought in support, we can differ. Uganda's efforts in Somalia are funded by us and are pretty much at our request. I suspect some money is being made in several unintended places thanks to our 'support' of our 'partners.'

The fact that I disagree with such efforts -- and have since Korea where we began the practice and continuing in Viet Nam with the Koreans and the Thais -- is immaterial, we did it. The question then becomes how much 'pay back' do we really owe...

That, BTW explains part of my anger at the NSC / State / Congressional etc. crowd that gets us involved in such stupidity, then leaves for a Think Tank job and escapes responsibility for their screwups.

After OIF I'm much more of an isolationist than I was prior to that fiasco, but I still don't mind SF and other SOF elements getting engaged at low levels, relatively low cost, and at relatively low risk to the nation (of becoming a bigger conflict). I'm not cold hearted, but if we lose some SF troops on these mentions, well that is what we all signed up for. I don't think conventional soldiers signed up for anything other than to defend the country for the most part.

I think relying on the through and with approach is stupid and have said so before, and you bring up a great point, "how much pay back do we really owe them?" That is really the rub. If a policy objective is worth pursuing, then it is probably worth pursuing unilaterally or with a coalition of the willing instead of paying for mercenaries out of our pockets. Mercenaries that generally do a pretty poor job.

However, since this is our policy, I'm my question still stands. Do we simply say no when they ask for help? If we do, will our through and with strategy work?

As for most Ugandans disliking their government, I have no idea. I have seen some documentaries on Uganda where they only interviewed individuals who disliked the current government, creating the perception that all Ugadans hated their government. The truth is hard to assess unless you spend a lot of time in country. Everything in Africa has some corruption dirt on it, we just have to decide if this is the least undesirable course of action.

[Dayuhan]

Good briefing for those who want to know more...

http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/F...ing%20Kony.pdf

Note recommendation...

To the U.S. Government:

7. Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralises all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the UN and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.