No, We Shouldn't Intervene In Congo
By DANIEL LARISON - February 17, 2014, 12:24 AM
Michael O'Hanlon never learns:
Specifically, the United States could deploy a brigade combat team or
one to two security force assistance brigades, or SFABs, making for a
total of roughly 5,000 U.S. troops, to the DRC.
O'Hanlon goes on to mention that the current U.N. force is "seriously
under-resourced and under-equipped," and that the current force of
under 20,000 "are attempting to aid a country with twice the
population and several times the land area of either Iraq or
Afghanistan." If the current numbers are so woefully inadequate, it is
hard to see how sending another 5,000 soldiers would make much of a
difference. That suggests that this first deployment would either
represent the beginning of a much larger mission for which there is
zero political support and no funding available, or it would mean that
the U.S. was making the mistake of sending its soldiers into a
war-torn country with no realistic chance of achieving anything
lasting. O'Hanlon recognizes that Americans have no appetite for the
former, so he wants to settle for an intervention on a "modest" scale
that even he must know won't have enough of an impact to justify its
cost.
Another problem that O'Hanlon fails to address is that Rwanda has been
responsible for stoking some of the continuing conflict in Congo, and
Rwanda is a U.S. client. He mentions the M23 militia in passing, but
neglects to mention that Rwanda was one of its patrons. If O'Hanlon
had his way, the U.S. could be putting its soldiers in the unenviable
position of having to fight the proxies of one of Washington's own
client governments. At the same time, U.S. forces might be targeted
because of our government's relationship with Rwanda and Uganda. This
is exactly the kind of intervention that the public won't support, and
for good reason. Presumably, there is not much chance that anyone in
government will take this idea right now, but it is still remarkable
and horrifying that there are foreign policy professionals that have
looked at the recent history of military interventions abroad and
concluded that the U.S. needs to be doing more of them.
6 Responses to No, We Shouldn't Intervene In Congo
LaurelhurstLiberal says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:02 am
From a certain perspective, American foreign policy seems to be less
about freedom or even national interest than about maintaining a
permanent floating state of war -- if we aren't liberating the Iraqis,
we're protecting the Syrians from themselves, or possibly the
Congolese.
The main thing is that the circus has a new destination for the tents
and elephants now that the current wars are winding down. I predict
the next proposal will be for a humanitarian intervention in Venezuela
-- they're having a lot of unrest lately, and they've got enough oil to
make it worthwhile. Congo is simply too obscure and too African to
make the cut.
Puller58 says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:55 am
Yet another BushCo flunky. If you prowl the web, you'll find the uber
neoconartists everywhere. TNR has one looney that attacks everyone
they feel is a "threat" to Israel. Howling about Syria's "suffering",
I pointed out that Israel has already bombed Syria several times, so
how does that not cause suffering? The twit went on another rant, so I
posed the question of were they part of the Jewish Defense League. The
response was priceless.
Warren Bajan says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:57 am
Q: Will they never learn?
A: Yes
carl lundgren says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:24 am
So, how are we going to pick a dog for this fight? Is there some sort
of tout sheet?
EliteCommInc. says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:53 am
Since there is already an international force in place . . .
and since we have plenty of fish to fry
and since we have not restructured our armed services to accommodate
new since we have not restructured our armed services to meet a
drastically changed poli-mil dynamic around the globe
Our intervention doesn't seem all that appropriate.
Myron Hudson says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Too bad we can't take up a collection, buy Mike O'Hanlon a one way air
fare, a truck and a gun.
http://www.google.ca/gwt/x?gl=CA&u=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/no-we-shouldnt-intervene-in-congo/%3Futm_source%3Drss%26utm_medium%3Drss%26utm_campaign%3Dno-we-shouldnt-intervene-in-congo&hl=en-CA&ei=7qgCU8CGLMLr_gadlICoBA&wsc=fa&ct=np&whp=365
--
SIBOMANA Jean Bosco
Google+: https://plus.google.com/110493390983174363421/posts
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B4024D0AE764F3D
http://www.youtube.com/user/sibomanaxyz999
***Online Time:15H30-20H30, heure de Montréal.***Fuseau horaire
domestique: heure normale de la côte Est des Etats-Unis et Canada
(GMT-05:00)***
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.To post a message: RwandaLibre@yahoogroups.com; .To join: RwandaLibre-subscribe@yahoogroups.com; .To unsubscribe from this group,send an email to:
RwandaLibre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____________________________________________________
More news: http://www.amakurunamateka.com ; http://www.ikangurambaga.com ; http://rwandalibre.blogspot.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment