Carl:That I can agree with.That is not how humanitarian service is normally viewed but it would be a darn sight more effective than most conventional humanitarian work.No doubt. Situation like that, probably about 75% will typically recant (at least superficially...) but the hard core real killers will not because they know they'll be killed themselves -- they just have to be killed. There have been and can be exceptions and there is no 'norm' but that seems to be the case more often than not.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:I agree with that. No quarrel at all with deployments like that -- by SF or conventional troops.... 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 note your caveat of "most part" and acknowledge that may be correct but as one who deployed several times for a lot of things not involving defending the country with a bunch of other 'conventional' guys and to three Continents, you're just flat wrong on that. Way wrong...I don't think conventional soldiers signed up for anything other than to defend the country for the most part.
I suspect you're also wrong on the capabilities they could and did bring to such operations -- note the past tense -- though possibly not on what they might bring today in many cases. That competence thing is easily fixed. Conventional units are just like SF Teams or Battalions / Groups -- some are better than others; often much better. Parochial prisms are not good viewing devices and if the 'Big Army' is less all round capable than it once was as appears to be the case, then it's a lick on the Army -- but it should also be recalled that SOCOM helped foster that incompetence. Either way, it isn't hard to fix IF the powers that be wish to do so.Policy is the rub -- we do not do that well and DC is partly responsible. The services and forces also contribute because those serving at high levels get more concerned with turf protection and budget enhancement (and concomitant risk reduction) than they do with providing forces that can undertake dicey mission; this ties the hands of the policy folks...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.
Regardless, we need to pursue necessary and not whim efforts overseas and paying for support is IMO foolish because it really absolves both sides, the payer and the payee, of other responsibilitiesIn reverse order, it works but is not conducive to solid relationships as I said just above. In the case of Uganda, we are where we are and, as I said, I have no particular problem with this mission (aside from the fact we shouldn't be involved in Africa much at all) -- I have a BIG problem with the public announcement of it and suspect the 'why' of that is IPB for future, other and bigger deployments there and, worse, elsewhere on the Continent.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?
I have no problem with violence and its penalties, I have no problem with deployments in the national interest. I only ask that it be true NATIONAL interest and not service or constituency interests that are the rationale. I do not think, all things considered, this one meets that criteria and I'm quite sure that, if I'm right and it is an opening that will be exploited for US domestic political purposes then I will be able to say 'I told you so' but I darn sure won't enjoy that...
M-A Lagrange:Hopefully we're smart enough to be doing just that...US could put a cup of conditionality in their military cooperation. As for example: we help you with LRA but you open the election central server to opposition for checking.
France already issued such comment. The embassador said he found UDPS request legitimate. And France is providing training to the police in Kinshasa.
Bookmarks