Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com
Does Middle East intervention have you down? Tired of burkas, camels, black gold and five-times-daily call to prayer? Don't fret because a new exotic adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent will brighten your spirits!
Last Friday President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner to inform him 100 combat-ready advisors were to be sent to Africa. By no means was this another seemingly brazen and unilateral decision on behalf of the Executive, to the contrary, Obama was merely fulfilling bi-partisan legislation under the authority granted to him by the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
What is most interesting about this event is it occurred under the ostensible left cover of the Occupy Wall Street protests, an occupied media (all puns intended) and under the right cover of the traditional neo-cons, which permeate many a Beltway think tank.
In the end the new 100 man mission to central Africa is merely another thread in the massive tapestry of intervention, nation building and adventurism that is American foreign policy. Considering the fact this legislation and its execution has drawn little criticism, but in fact much support shows that although the American political class is in vociferous opposition at home and driving us nuts while they are at it are in bi-partisan fashion loath to abominate war abroad.
PurpleSerf.com
Does Middle East intervention have you down? Tired of burkas, camels, black gold and five-times-daily call to prayer? Don't fret because a new exotic adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent will brighten your spirits!
Last Friday President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner to inform him 100 combat-ready advisors were to be sent to Africa. By no means was this another seemingly brazen and unilateral decision on behalf of the Executive, to the contrary, Obama was merely fulfilling bi-partisan legislation under the authority granted to him by the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
What is most interesting about this event is it occurred under the ostensible left cover of the Occupy Wall Street protests, an occupied media (all puns intended) and under the right cover of the traditional neo-cons, which permeate many a Beltway think tank.
 |
| The emblem of AFRICOM Image Source: Wikipedia |
Backed up by $28 million and 64 Senate co-sponsors (19 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent), this new adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent is arguably more than a "disarmament" and "recovery act." What was once, much to the chagrin of this author, a seemingly insignificant command as of its founding in 2006, US AFRICOM has since become a centerpiece of American foreign policy.
In initial reports only the Uganda proper was mentioned in headlines, however, after reading into S. 1067 it is evident that this intervention is about much more than just Uganda. The Commander in Chief will be responsible not only for the "Great Lakes Region", but "all areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)" under the legislation. Therefore, the operational theatre includes, at least officially, "Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, [newly independent] Southern Sudan, Uganda, [and even] southeastern Central African Republic (CAR)." That is a whole lot of terrain for 100 advisors.
While neo-con cheerleader Rush Limbaugh have used this latest intervention as a political bludgeon to further wound an already unpopular president, the LRA is not (as Rush would have it) a purely revolutionary Christian militia merely espousing the 10 Commandments and a democratic republic tolerant of all political persuasions against an ostensibly fundamentalist Islamic government
In truth, although spokesmen for the LRA movement have called for "competitive multiparty democracy" and an end to "repressive" policies there is an ocean of far more more nefarious reports. Evidently the LRA is responsible for 30,000 deaths over the last 10 years and enjoys recruiting young boys and girls into their ranks. Moreover, the LRA reportedly uses the latter as sex slaves while pillaging the countryside, raping and maiming as they please. A highly detailed and real-time tracking system documenting attacks, deaths, rapes, torture and abductions has been made available online at: LRACrisisTracker.com (a must see), something the militaries involved have taken notice of too.
While Mr. Limbaugh is no stranger to making less than informed comments about international affairs his refusal to abjure the LRA and its activities in order to promote criticism of "the regime", as he often refers to the Obama administration, undermines the legitimate effort to criticize Obama's aggressive foreign policy.
While these atrocities may be reprehensible and no doubt the LRA should be brought to justice, if in fact what is reported is true, it is another question entirely whether or not the U.S. should compound its current commitments and intercede on behalf of these central African nations. Mr. Limbaugh was right to question, what are our "national security interests" in the heart of the Dark Continent?
This more libertarian objection is echoed by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute:
"American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate
the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United
States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak
copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said."
The bid to win the contract was embroiled in an alleged scandal involving over $30 million, which resulted in the sacking of Afghanistan's Minister of Mines. Imagine this: American soldiers attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanis for nearly ten years to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and China literally under U.S. Taxpayer protection is winning precious metals contracts! This was nothing short of an embarrassment, one that was never fully acknowledged, at least publicly.
Considering China's rapacious appetite for minerals and Africa's abundance a less than altruistic motive for American involvement in Africa appears:
The quite reasonable interpretation of Obama's intervention is tripartite in nature; to secure African minerals and fuel against Chinese competition (what I would term resource containment harkening back to a mercantilistic mentality), to combat pirates harassing ships in the Gulf of Aden and to support the Ugandan government whose military provides the bulk force supporting the transitional government in Somolia. East African forces along with a growing number of secret and not-so-secret US drone bases proliferating throughout the Middle-East and Africa forms a coalition not dissimilar to that model exemplified between NATO and the revolutionaries in Libya. It is this symbiotic relationship, which is fighting against Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group which still controls most of Somalia.In initial reports only the Uganda proper was mentioned in headlines, however, after reading into S. 1067 it is evident that this intervention is about much more than just Uganda. The Commander in Chief will be responsible not only for the "Great Lakes Region", but "all areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)" under the legislation. Therefore, the operational theatre includes, at least officially, "Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, [newly independent] Southern Sudan, Uganda, [and even] southeastern Central African Republic (CAR)." That is a whole lot of terrain for 100 advisors.
While neo-con cheerleader Rush Limbaugh have used this latest intervention as a political bludgeon to further wound an already unpopular president, the LRA is not (as Rush would have it) a purely revolutionary Christian militia merely espousing the 10 Commandments and a democratic republic tolerant of all political persuasions against an ostensibly fundamentalist Islamic government
In truth, although spokesmen for the LRA movement have called for "competitive multiparty democracy" and an end to "repressive" policies there is an ocean of far more more nefarious reports. Evidently the LRA is responsible for 30,000 deaths over the last 10 years and enjoys recruiting young boys and girls into their ranks. Moreover, the LRA reportedly uses the latter as sex slaves while pillaging the countryside, raping and maiming as they please. A highly detailed and real-time tracking system documenting attacks, deaths, rapes, torture and abductions has been made available online at: LRACrisisTracker.com (a must see), something the militaries involved have taken notice of too.
While Mr. Limbaugh is no stranger to making less than informed comments about international affairs his refusal to abjure the LRA and its activities in order to promote criticism of "the regime", as he often refers to the Obama administration, undermines the legitimate effort to criticize Obama's aggressive foreign policy.
While these atrocities may be reprehensible and no doubt the LRA should be brought to justice, if in fact what is reported is true, it is another question entirely whether or not the U.S. should compound its current commitments and intercede on behalf of these central African nations. Mr. Limbaugh was right to question, what are our "national security interests" in the heart of the Dark Continent?
This more libertarian objection is echoed by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute:
"The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as 'Responsibility
to Protect,' which holds that the 'international community' has
an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity—by force, if
necessary—when their own governments cannot or will not.
That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution,
which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end
of 'the common defence ... of the United States.'
Even so, the emerging Obama Doctrine reflects a fondness for feel-good 'humanitarian interventions,' through which we prove our nobility by putting blood and treasure at risk when there's nothing in it for us."
It may be argued, however, that there is very much in it for us - well at least for US multinational corporations. Last year the New York Times reported the U.S. identified more than $1 trillion in mineral reserves throughout Afghanistan, but evidently the Chinese too were hot on the trail having already secured the development of the largest copper mine in the country, according to the NYT:Even so, the emerging Obama Doctrine reflects a fondness for feel-good 'humanitarian interventions,' through which we prove our nobility by putting blood and treasure at risk when there's nothing in it for us."
"American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate
the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United
States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak
copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said."
The bid to win the contract was embroiled in an alleged scandal involving over $30 million, which resulted in the sacking of Afghanistan's Minister of Mines. Imagine this: American soldiers attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanis for nearly ten years to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and China literally under U.S. Taxpayer protection is winning precious metals contracts! This was nothing short of an embarrassment, one that was never fully acknowledged, at least publicly.
Considering China's rapacious appetite for minerals and Africa's abundance a less than altruistic motive for American involvement in Africa appears:
Video Source: RussiaToday
In the end the new 100 man mission to central Africa is merely another thread in the massive tapestry of intervention, nation building and adventurism that is American foreign policy. Considering the fact this legislation and its execution has drawn little criticism, but in fact much support shows that although the American political class is in vociferous opposition at home and driving us nuts while they are at it are in bi-partisan fashion loath to abominate war abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment