US sending troops to Uganda

[jtb1127]

A lot of people wanted to get rid of GWB.

GWs isn't comparable to Saddam Hussein and you know it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Didn't they both cause innocent people to be tortured and murdered? Didn't their acts lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Didn't they both invade other sovereign countries for their own political motives? Wasn't Hussein the stooge of the US government for decades?

 

[jtb1127]

George Bush was democratically elected. It was only possible for him to serve for 8 years max anyway. The end of Saddam's reign was nowhere in sight. I'm not an Iraq War fan boy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

When GWB committed his atrocities, he had a long way to go. He even got reelected after they were well-known.

Hussein also have very little power after the first Gulf War. Most Iraqis would have preferred to live under his rule than with the puppet regime put in his place by the US.

But this is a thread about a different bad ruler being propped up by the US. If you really wish to rehash the Iraq War we should probably do so in a different thread.

 

[jtb1127]

This isn't being used as an argument: When is it okay for foreign countries to overthrow a government?
Is it ever? Do all nations have the right to sovereignty even if that sovereign is a dictator?

 

[NovaKart]

I don't think propped up is the right term. It implies that the current Ugandan government would likely fall if it wasn't for US intervention which I haven't seen any evidence for. I will admit there is some moral ambiguity about helping them but it may end up saving the lives of Ugandans, assuming that the presence of 100 US troops will make a big difference, and I have no idea if that's the case.

 

[Camikaze]

This seems like a good move all around. If you're looking at it from a humanitarian point of view, opposing the LRA is surely a necessity. If you're looking at it from a 'national interest' point of view, stabilising Africa is surely one of the most underrated (i.e. very important) challenges facing the US.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

This seems like a good move all around. If you're looking at it from a humanitarian point of view, opposing the LRA is surely a necessity. If you're looking at it from a 'national interest' point of view, stabilising Africa is surely one of the most underrated (i.e. very important) challenges facing the US.

Eating kangaroo meat is dangerous for your health, bro.

I wouldn't say we are there for benign purposes at all. If anything, it is more a series of establishing more footholes for the U.S. Africa Command, established in 07. And to covet more African oil and natural gas resources.

 

[Camikaze]

Whether the reason behind the decision is humanitarian or not, it provides a humanitarian benefit. If that's just a side effect of the US pursuing its interest, I don't see how it's a bad thing.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Whether the reason behind the decision is humanitarian or not, it provides a humanitarian benefit.

I can conversely say otherwise: Whether the reason behind the decision is humanitarian or not, it provides a strategic goal of supplanting yet another base of operation for the US to create instability in the region, and as well to find new ways to open Uganda market so that natural resources can be extracted out of that said country without much being invested back into it.

If that's just a side effect of the US pursuing its interest, I don't see how it's a bad thing.

And their track record back this up on regarding their actions in other areas in the undeveloped world?

 

[Camikaze]

The US has absolutely no incentive to destabilise Africa. Their official security policy is precisely the opposite. What you say is the converse doesn't appear to make much sense. It doesn't provide for that strategic goal because that isn't a strategic goal. And again, even if we assume the decision is based on national interest logic, a humanitarian benefit is a humanitarian benefit. If it's going to screw over Uganda, that's not a humanitarian benefit. But you're going to have to explain how sending a force to counter the LRA is going to screw over Uganda, when the explicit strategic goals of the US are to stabilise the region and assist it economically. I don't think this is a conspiracy.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

The US has absolutely no incentive to destabilise Africa.

I think you had misconstrue my previous point. I have said that the US past actions in many undeveloped countries had resulted in behaviors where it depict the US have toppled weak democratic governments, and placed it with authoritarian regimes so to foster a better client-state relationship in US advantage over their fellow competitive adversaries.

Their official security policy is precisely the opposite. What you say is the converse doesn't appear to make much sense. It doesn't provide for that strategic goal because that isn't a strategic goal.

So there isn't a strategy at all? Then if that is true, that would also remove your argument that the US involvement in Uganda is a humanitarian endeavor.

And again, even if we assume the decision is based on national interest logic, a humanitarian benefit is a humanitarian benefit.

If your assumption hold as even remotely true, I suppose it will only benefit a small minority of the Ugandans that are now competing against each other for absolute power over the vast majority of the people that are in the middle of this conflict.

If it's going to screw over Uganda, that's not a humanitarian benefit. But you're going to have to explain how sending a force to counter the LRA is going to screw over Uganda, when the explicit strategic goals of the US are to stabilise the region and assist it economically

I think sending arms, equipment, training, and monetary aid to the Ugandan government in exchange of a possible set of favorable contracts for US interest there, and the region, is not a feasible way to go about instructing how can Uganda be a better democratic society. If anything, it would intensify the conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan Army.

I don't think this is a conspiracy.

Meh... I think you need to brush up on American History.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

You do get on my nerves at times...

Maybe we just have a different diet. I eat chicken sandwiches and you eat kangaroo on a stick or something.

But how can you be certain that United States, with 43 percent of all global military spending, can be beneficial for a weak nation like Uganda, and still provide humanitarian need after all the destruction have already gone into effect?

 

[Camikaze]

I think you had misconstrue my previous point. I have said that the US past actions in many undeveloped countries had resulted in behaviors where it depict the US have toppled weak democratic governments, and placed it with authoritarian regimes so to foster a better client-state relationship in US advantage over their fellow competitive adversaries.

This would assume a continuity of US strategy that doesn't exist. US security strategy is far more concerned about African instability than heavy traditionalism. Yes, in the past, the US has acted in a highly wayward realist manner to instal their own favoured regimes, but I see absolutely no reason to think that this is the case here, and plenty of reason to think it is not. You're going to have to explain just why the US would be interested in pursuing a strategy here contrary to their stated security strategy goals. The only reason to see this as some sort of conspiracy to destabilise and screw over Uganda is distrust of US involvement anywhere, which, although perhaps grounded in well-placed concerns, simply doesn't hold in many situations.

So there isn't a strategy at all? Then if that is true, that would also remove your argument that the US involvement in Uganda is a humanitarian endeavor.

I didn't say that there was no strategy. I said the strategy wasn't what you claimed it to be:

a strategic goal of supplanting yet another base of operation for the US to create instability in the region

Nor did I say that this was a humanitarian endeavour. I said it had humanitarian benefit.

If your assumption hold as even remotely true, I suppose it will only benefit a small minority of the Ugandans that are now competing against each other for absolute power over the vast majority of the people that are in the middle of this conflict.

Which assumption? The only assumption you've quoted is that which I was using for the sake of argument; that this move is based on national interest logic, which is what you were saying. That a humanitarian benefit is a humanitarian benefit is a truism, not an assumption.

I think sending arms, equipment, training, and monetary aid to the Ugandan government in exchange of a possible set of favorable contracts for US interest there, and the region, is not a feasible way to go about instructing how can Uganda be a better democratic society. If anything, it would intensify the conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan Army.

Helping Uganda be a better democratic society is a bit of a pipe dream. A precondition of such stability is an eventual reduction in the conflict, so I agree with you when you say that an intensification isn't a great thing. But there are two ways an eventual reduction in the conflict can come about. Either the Ugandan government is ascendant, or the LRA is. I support the idea of backing the Ugandan government in this. I'm not sure I can conceive of a situation that would be worse than an LRA victory.

But how can you be certain that United States, with 43 percent of all global military spending, can be beneficial for a weak nation like Uganda, and still provide humanitarian need after all the destruction have already gone into effect?

Wouldn't this mean that the US is best placed to help Uganda? I'm not understanding the inverse relationship you're implying between military spending and helpfulness.

 

[kochman]

What, he went into Libya and is practically out again, and this small incursion into Uganda, while Bush Junior went into both Iraq and Afghanistan and your lot are still there? Come on, you can do better than that.

The point is, adding wars on top of wars... and keeping us in the previous wars.
Completely against what he was supposed to be all about.
Somalia was a small incursion too...

Whether the reason behind the decision is humanitarian or not, it provides a humanitarian benefit. If that's just a side effect of the US pursuing its interest, I don't see how it's a bad thing.

Oh, so then you clearly support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they've had huge humanitarian impact...
Interesting to know.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh, so then you clearly support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they've had huge humanitarian impact...
Interesting to know.

If I considered them to have been overall beneficial in such a way, then that probably would impact on my opinion of those conflicts (BTW, here isn't the place to discuss whether or not there was a humanitarian benefit, and I'm not attempting to make a definitive judgement either way; the point is the relationship between perception and approval. Obviously my opinion would be based upon my perception of any humanitarian benefit).

Also, I am referring to this specific situation. Though my comment could be applied to others, I didn't intend it as a universal declaration. Any possible US strategic benefits here are limited.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

This would assume a continuity of US strategy that doesn't exist. US security strategy is far more concerned about African instability than heavy traditionalism. Yes, in the past, the US has acted in a highly wayward realist manner to instal their own favoured regimes, but I see absolutely no reason to think that this is the case here, and plenty of reason to think it is not. You're going to have to explain just why the US would be interested in pursuing a strategy here contrary to their stated security strategy goals. The only reason to see this as some sort of conspiracy to destabilise and screw over Uganda is distrust of US involvement anywhere, which, although perhaps grounded in well-placed concerns, simply doesn't hold in many situations.

Then I guess we both have reached at a fundamental difference here. I find your assessment that the US had acted in a highly wayward realist manner is egregious. If anything, it was an act of a predatory behavior to say the least.

I didn't say that there was no strategy. I said the strategy wasn't what you claimed it to be:

Nor did I say that this was a humanitarian endeavour. I said it had humanitarian benefit.

Ok, so we exclude the intent and purposes of justifying their role in Uganda as a humanitarian endeavor, and we are left with the military assistance to Uganda's problems of domestic security?

Which assumption? The only assumption you've quoted is that which I was using for the sake of argument; that this move is based on national interest logic, which is what you were saying. That a humanitarian benefit is a humanitarian benefit is a truism, not an assumption.

For a second there, I had to scroll down a little to see what you mean by this "national interest logic." Did you mean that whatever happen in Uganda, if the US have never intervened by assisting them against the LRA, would result in a tactical loss for US strategy in Africa, or in this case, Uganda?

Helping Uganda be a better democratic society is a bit of a pipe dream. A precondition of such stability is an eventual reduction in the conflict, so I agree with you when you say that an intensification isn't a great thing. But there are two ways an eventual reduction in the conflict can come about. Either the Ugandan government is ascendant, or the LRA is. I support the idea of backing the Ugandan government in this. I'm not sure I can conceive of a situation that would be worse than an LRA victory.

You know that it isn't only the US that is providing equipments, weapons, and training to the Ugandan Army? What I mean is that isn't Uganda capable of defending themselves against a small band of child soldiers?

Wouldn't it be better to tell Uganda to stop their military support for the Sudan People's Liberation Army in Southern Sudan along with ordering Sudan to give up their military assistance to the LRA?

Wouldn't this mean that the US is best placed to help Uganda? I'm not understanding the inverse relationship you're implying between military spending and helpfulness.

What I am saying is that the US can't afford to do both, and if that is correct, then one must follow that the military assistance for Uganda, is the only primary objective for the United States in Uganda.

 

[Silurian]

Just because the US does some bad or dubious things does not mean that everything the US does is bad.

What the US does in Uganda should be monitored and people should speak out if it is doing other things than helping to fight The Lords Resistance Army.

 

[Ajidica]

Given that Uganda has essentialy no oil and isn't very useful one way or the other, I think we can safely say this is a humanitarian mission.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Given that Uganda has essentialy no oil and isn't very useful one way or the other, I think we can safely say this is a humanitarian mission.

Oil and natural gas in Uganda Not including hydroelectric potentials.