http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15317684
This article is about the deployment of one hundred troops by the United States to help armed forces in Uganda battle the LRA(Lord's Resistance Army). The LRA has been accused of committing mass murder, rape and kidnapping in the country. The leader of this rebel group, Joseph Kony, has been wanted by the ICC since 2005 and it seems that the poor job done by Ugandan officials in trying to capture him has now brought Uganda to ask for help. Although Obama has stated ""although the US forces are combat-equipped... they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defence", I can still see tensions rising quickly. As a son of Ugandan parents, I have heard many times of these rebel forces and seen the damage they have done. Even if those one hundred troops get the job done, whose to say another group won't arise and carry out equal or greater travesties?
Kyagaba David Lwanga
10 a.m. Friday
I find this unbelievable. The article says Barack Obama is sending 100 troops not to fight but rather partner nation forces. My question is, why do we need soldiers for that? Shouldn't we be sending negotiators and peacemakers? Barack Obama, and many before him, have or had a bad tendency to put a band-aid on problems by simply sending some troops. Bush got scrutiny for having USA be the world's police, and this time around, it is no different. I agree with you on the fact that the fall of one resistance army may bring rise to another. So what's next. More troops? I am already against the many troops the USA has stationed around the world, and to me, it seems more like an excuse to settle in these places. Looks like Uganda is next.
ReplyDeleteDamian Jez
Friday, 9AM
TA - Maness
As President Obama stated, those 100 soldiers are not being sent in under with a combat mission/tasking. These 100 soldiers will most likely come from support units, IE: intelligence, military advisers, etc. from AFRICOM (African Command). These 100 soldiers will most likely provide support and logistics to Ugandan forces to help aid them in areas they lack. For example, the Ugandan military does not have as advanced surveillance systems that we have. In other words, I believe the main roll of these 100 soldiers will be to guide/advise the Ugandan forces on where LRA hideouts are and possible hiding locations of Joseph Kony.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Chorak
TA: John Friday: 9 AM
While Obama says that these troops are being sent over to provide non-combatant presence, it wouldn’t surprise me if tensions rose and there was some bloodshed. There hasn’t been a time-table set for the return of these troops, making one believe that they won’t be pulled out until the LRA is taken down and its leader, Joseph Kony, captured and some stability returned to the Central African nation. While this is a humanitarian effort and a peaceful operation, you can’t help but to be skeptical.
ReplyDeleteErica Carlson
TA: Ryan
Friday 9AM
I also find it interesting that Obama would deploy troops (even though it is a very small amount) to Uganda. This move was unexpected mainly because one of Obama's major platforms was the withdrawal of troops from conflict areas. Since this is not a combat deployment, hopefully no conflict will arise by the troop's presence. I can only hope that this will improve Uganda's situation and assist the country with this humanitarian issues.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Gilna
POLS 184
Ryan 10-10:50