Analysis: Sending US troops into Uganda payback for Somalia?

[chill_wind]

Analysis: Why set US troops on Africa militants?
Some experts believe that the U.S. military advisers sent to Uganda could be a reward for the U.S.-funded Ugandan troops service in Somalia.
JASON STRAZIUSO - Associated Press
Oct 15

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.

(snip)

The LRA poses no known security threat to the United States, and a report from the Enough Project last year said that Kony no longer has complete and direct command and control over each LRA unit.

more:

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-why-set-us-troops-africa-militants-094614575.html
Jason Straziuso has been AP's bureau chief in East Africa since 2009.

[xchrom]

1. indeed. we pay for their troops in somalia --

you just have to wonder -- how much?

[frebrd]

2. As I remember (and I do remember - I was in the military at the time)....

the "Military Advisors" thing was how we got started in Vietnam.

[truth2power]

3. Why? What natural resources does Uganda have? n/t

[malthaussen]

4. Oil, among other things

From the CIA Factbook: "Uganda has substantial natural resources, including fertile soils, regular rainfall, small deposits of copper, gold, and other minerals, and recently discovered oil."

Now, this was discussed at some length yesterday, but I'll offer a quick overview here:

The Congress unanimously approved in 2010 sending a mission to Uganda to combat the Lord's crazies. The mission has received overwhelming support from humanitarians around the world, and the bill was sponsored by Senator Feingold. ie, from an idealistic and humanitarian standpoint, this is a Really Good Idea. Officially estimated cost for this initiative is $28 million.

The old cynics (among whom I number myself) consider that this is all well and good, but have raised the inevitable questions of whether the mission as presented is really the mission, or has been launched for unacknowledged motives, whatever they may be; and whether it will be escalated as has happened at other times in our history, most notably Vietnam. It is only fair to point out, however, that escalation is not a given, and that US forces have intervened to accomplish short-term goals in many instances over the past half-century or so. If escalation does occur, then the cost in treasure (to say nothing of lives) will escalate as well, and it is reasonable to ask if the country's current financial situation can support the escalation of another conflict. It is also only fair to point out that, whatever an old cynic might think, an official representation of the purpose of an initiative is not ipso facto a lie.

Finally, this intervention once again raises the debate about the power of the President to conduct war without a declaration, in contravention of the Constitution. And consequently raises the debate about the legitimacy or otherwise of the War Powers Act and associated legislation and resolutions which have emerged to circumvent the Constitutional requirement.

-- Mal