Analysis: Why set US troops on Africa militants?

[xchrom]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_AFRICA_US_TROOPS_ANALYSIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-15-05-46-03

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Why is the U.S. sending its troops to finish off a fractured band of bush fighters in the middle of Africa? Political payback for the quiet sacrifices of Uganda's troops in Somalia could be one reason.

President Barack Obama announced Friday he is dispatching about 100 U.S. troops - mostly special operations forces - to central Africa to advise in the fight against the Lord's Resistance Army - a guerrilla group accused of widespread atrocities across several countries. The first U.S. troops arrived Wednesday.

Long considered one of Africa's most brutal rebel groups, the Lord's Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago. But the rebels are at their weakest point in 15 years. Their forces are fractured and scattered, and the Ugandan military estimated earlier this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain. In 2003 the LRA had 3,000 armed troops and 2,000 people in support roles.

But capturing LRA leader Joseph Kony - a ruthless and brutal thug - remains the highest priority for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, a 25-year-leader who has committed thousands of troops to the African Union force in Somalia to fight militants from al-Shabab, a group with ties from al-Qaida.



***i wonder what the price tag is for uganda's troop presence in somalia?

[razorman]

1. What makes our interference in Uganda (or Egypt or Libya or Somalia, for that matter) all right,

but not in Iraq? We keep sticking our nose where it does not belong, and it does not seem to matter who is president. Whatever our goals happen to be, it is almost certain that we will only do it half-assed, anyway.

[The Northerner]

2. K&R n/t

[chill_wind]

3. K & R

[Prometheus Bound]

4. With the LRA down 90%, it sounds like the US is a little late to the fight.