Saturday, October 15, 2011


So the United States, under the leadership of President Obana, is sending 100 troops to Uganda and surrounding countries to battle the Lord's Resistance Army. I agree they are not a nice group of folks, after all they use child soldiers in their cause.

Though I do have to ask a question on this matter. Why? Uganda nor the Lord's Resistance Army pose any credible threat to the national security interests of the United States. Actually I have another question to ask, has the Obama administration thought things through. As in what if these US soldiers are attacked by the LRA - what will the United States do?

I will take a stab at answering the questions I posed above. Uganda was picked because the LRA is a pretty ugly crowd so the mission can be wrapped up as a moral crusade to stamp out a scourge. The LRA was also picked because it was an easy low-hanging fruit with supposedly low adverse risks.

Now has Obama thought what to do if the LRA escalates and attacks US forces resulting in wounded and dead. Judging by Obama's handling of Libya, the answer is probably no. Which means the Pentagon's contingency plans for that event will catch the Obama administration with a deer in the headlights moment as the White House flounders for a response. Which will further degrade the concept of the United States being a trustworthy and competent player on the international stage.


AndyJ said...

I don't think that this is random stupidity on Obama's part. What is the best way to completely crush the morale of the military? Keep them fighting in numerous regions in completely irrelevant battles where there is no chance of winning but there is a great chance for wounded and killed. I don't think that Obama is smart enough to have this broad of a plan, however the group that is controlling him most surely is smart enough and has the resources to pull this off.

Anonymous said...

Vietnam ~ without even a 'Gulf of Tonkin'...again. And people wonder why Ron Paul is popular?

nzgarry said...

Cripes!!. The US has been the worlds' policeman for too long.
It costs you guys/femmes in terms of sacrifice, time and money.

None of us are that well off at present, but other western countries should pick up some more of the tab, including NZ!.

They should stand for their values as AMERICA Does.

cheers and regards

Anna said...

AndyJ looking at other indicators you might be right. Pulling out of Afghanistan to meet a self-imposed political deadline. The Navy is making noises of extending at sea time for the SSNs because number of hulls is dwindling. To meet the budget cuts proposed in defense spending, there is now talk of not refueling USS George Washington. If this comes to pass it will mean the US Navy will be down to 10 carriers and the remaining carriers will spend longer times at sea. 187 F-22s and rumblings of F-35 cutbacks.

I am not sure the 'brightest' around Obama are smart enough to plan this deliberately. They just view military spending as a drain on all their social programs I think. They killed NASA's manned program after all.

Anonymous, Libya was Gulf of Tonkin for this administration. Unfortunately in this very inter-connected age and as that Iranian-American just showed in Holder's dog&pony news conference the trouble overseas can follow us home.

NZGarry you might be right. The US can act as a policeman for the globe when it suits Obama's agenda. Now the question arises is fighting the LRA the real reason? Or perhaps George Soros wants dibs on Uganda's oil?

How are the Kiwi defenses? Are the socialists still trying to sell the 17 A-4s they grounded in 2001? Can Kiwi troops still deploy to Fiji at least? Or are they worse?