Defense Expert Calls for Thousands of US Troops in Africa
Defense Expert Calls for Thousands of US Troops in Africa by John Vandiver, Stars and Stripes
The U.S. should send a 5,000-strong security assistance brigade to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help stabilize a country ravaged by more than a decade of war, a prominent U.S. military analyst recommends.
In a “memorandum” to President Barack Obama, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution also urges the White House to send several hundred military advisers to Libya to help train that country’s fledgling armed forces.
“The United States should, with a focused effort and in partnership with other states, make a significant push to improve security in Africa,” O’Hanlon wrote in his Jan. 23 memo, which was posted on the Brookings website. “No massive deployments of U.S. troops would be needed, and in fact no role for American main combat units is required. But we should step up our game from the current very modest training efforts coordinated through Africa Command (AFRICOM).” …
There is NO direct interest of the United States in the affairs of the DRC. In fact, there is no direct interest of the US affected by the endless tribal strife between the various criminal and tribal warring parties from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope.
History has vividly demonstrated that we are terribly inept and clumsy at this sort of intervention. It is foreign policy roulette with as usual out of Washington no coherent strategic underpinning. The American public is losing patience with our half-baked military adventures that realize nothing of value for the USA and yet always cost more in blood and treasure than characters such as Mr. O’Hanlon might suggest.
Mr. O’Hanlon’s memorandum is a bit confused as far as the DRC goes. On the one hand he notes that things have been getting better as of late and it is time for us to get involved. That sounds like a bureaucratic animal looking to get in there and grab some easy credit. That impression is reinforced by the tone of the piece suggesting that it wouldn’t be that hard.
He says the brigade to be sent wouldn’t be have much of a combat role and notes the the UN force has had some recent success. He doesn’t say that the recent success of the UN was due to their finally deciding to engage in actual combat and kill people.
He says only 5,000 soldiers would be needed but the goal would be to “…help train and mentor a DRC army so that it can gradually replace the U.N. while establishing control over much of the country’s interior (especially in the east).” The Congo has 75 million people in a country the size of the US east of the Mississippi. There aren’t any real roads outside a few of the cities. What he proposes so dwarfs what he suggests using to accomplish it that he is either a complete fool, or more likely a very clever inside the beltway denizen who will score a lot of career points by proposing something ‘practical’ to fulfill the need to ‘do something’.
The part of his proposal that does reflect what I consider titanic ignorance (the kind that can get a lot of people in trouble), is his naive belief that mere exposure to American soldier/trainers will make Congolese troops something other than Congolese troops. We could make them as good as anybody probably, if, if we had complete control of their pay, their supply, their deployment, their training and the selection and promotion of officers and NCOs. But that would be in effect establishing a colonial army or constabulary, which wouldn’t do anybody any good. Short of that, we would be just be spending a lot of money and end up right where we started, with Congolese troops. Stan has said we’ve done that often in the past and that is where we end up.
Dinking around in eastern Congo may mean going up against Paul Kagame politically. People like Mr. O’Hanlon are innocent children compared to Paul Kagame. The problem is Mr. Kagame knows that but Mr. O’Hanlon and his ilk don’t. If interests clashed, things would be complex.
Mr. O’Hanlon, to the extent his concern is sincere and not motivated by concern for his career should learn that there really isn’t anything we ‘can do’ about the Congo, at least not as a country. There are things we as individuals can do to help individuals in Congo though. And those thing are of value. If Mr. O’Hanlon really wants to help, he can contact Stand Proud ( http://www.standproud.org/ ) an organization that does real work with real Congolese children and youths who are crippled by polio.