Feingold's response to sending 100 combat-equipped troops to Uganda last week.

[midnight]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/10/17/feingolds-lra-reaction/#comments


Feingold’s LRA Reaction
By: David Dayen Monday October 17, 2011 10:04 am

Tweet
Russ Feingold, author of the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Relief Act of 2009, has responded to the news that President Obama sent 100 combat-equipped troops to Uganda last week. I said I would follow up on that, so here it is:

The author of that legislation, former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., told ABC News in a statement that “our legislation did not authorize the use of force by American troops anywhere,” but he noted that the bill “did call for a comprehensive approach in dealing with the Lord’s Resistance Army, which includes military, intelligence, diplomatic, and development components.”

Feingold said, “If the military advisors being deployed by the President are being used to facilitate information and intelligence sharing, including among regional militaries, that is consistent with part of what our bill was seeking. But that mission should be just one piece of a larger strategy that focuses on civilian protection in the broadest sense.”

Human rights groups, it should be noted, generally responded favorably to the action.

The upshot is that if this is a limited move and part of an overall strategy, it’s consistent with the bill. If it’s a pretext to unleash US troops to hunt down Joseph Kony, which is what a lot of my critics are cheering, actually, it’s not consistent with the bill. Right now, the action the President announced is limited, in that the troops cannot shoot unless in self-defense, and in that the President asserted that the troops are there mostly for facilitation. We can watch to see if that continues.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

2. Uganda President Clarifies That U.S. Troops Will Be ‘Gathering Intelligence’ Not Engaging In Combat

Uganda President Clarifies That U.S. Troops Will Be ‘Gathering Intelligence’ Not Engaging In Combat

News broke over the weekend that President Obama is sending roughly 100 U.S. troops into Uganda to help in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army, but Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has clarified that they will not actually be fighting the LRA. He spoke at a news conference earlier today saying it would be more accurate to describe the forces as “U.S. personnel” as opposed to ground troops.

According to Museveni, all the soldiers will be doing is intelligence gathering against the LRA and its leader Joseph Kony. The United States has been sharing satellite intelligence with Uganda, even though, according to the Associated Press, the LRA does not pose any kind of direct security threat to the United States.

But Museveni seemed to take offense at the very idea that the U.S. would be assisting in direct combat.

“When you call them troops you are saying that they are coming to fight on our behalf… We shall never have troops coming to fight for us. I cannot accept foreign troops to come and fight for me. We have the capacity to fight our wars.”

SNIP

http://www.mediaite.com/online/uganda-president-clarifies-that-u-s-troops-will-be-gathering-intelligence-not-engaging-in-combat/

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

4. Folks shouldn't assume to know what a person believes when all that is posted is an article. n/t

:)

[onenote]

5. From the legislation

"It is the policy of the United States to work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda and other affected areas by--

(1) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;"

I'm not sure how anyone might think that Joseph Kory and his top commanders could be apprehended or removed from the battlefield without the use of force. And what exactly would "military support" consist of (keeping in mind that "intelligence" support is listed separately from "military" support -- organizing a military band to play when Kory was captured?

The bill may not have expressly authorized the use of force by the military, but it certainly came very close to doing so.

[Scuba]

6. Our policy towards Africa has been clear for a while now...