Obama sending US troops to Africa

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Apparently Obama is sending around 100 (more later I think) US troops to Uganda and adjacent countries, ostensibly to fight the Lord's Resistance Army. I don't know the backstory. Presumably its an upgrading of AFRICOM to counter rapidly growing PRC influence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Opinions? Does this have any connection with Libya?

[Le Socialiste]

The presence of American troops in Africa will undoubtedly have more to do with securing certain areas of interest (such as social stability and governmental functionality) than combat small resistance groups. It could also be due to the fact that China has had a growing foothold on the continent for several years now, and this is America's way of countering its influence. The significance of this order has as much to do with geopolitics as it does ensuring the subjugation and obedience of the populations it occupies.

[L.A.P.]

Isn't this kind of funny that after the fall of the regional imperial power of Africa (Libya) that the United States decides to inavde an African state that is goverened by a Gaddafi-backed regime (National Ressistance Army). You think they're trying to get friendly with the Ugandan state now that their original puppet-master is gone?

[Le Socialiste]

I don't think America cares about being friendly, it just wants individual powers to respect and adhere to its authority.

[L.A.P.]

I don't think America cares about being friendly, it just wants individual powers to respect and adhere to its authority.

well yeah, that's what I meant by "getting friendly".

[RedScare]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it's definitely got imperialist motives, but on the other hand, the LRA is one of the nastiest rebel groups in Africa, and it'd be good to see them defeated.

[scarletghoul]

As i said before, we are seeing a recolonisation of africa. and before any fucking stupid abstractists say africa was never fully decolonised, well no shit, but with the rise of rival imperialist powers, and the libya-led strengthening of the AU, there is need for the west to assert direct imperial presence once more.

ivory coast, libya, uganda, all in one year, not to mention the land grabs etc.

[scarletghoul]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it's definitely got imperialist motives, but on the other hand, the LRA is one of the nastiest rebel groups in Africa, and it'd be good to see them defeated.
if america really gave a shit about stopping lra atrocities or whatever they would be giving money to develop infrastructure and whatnot in the region

[Rafiq]

No surprise. The government in Uganda has been a dog to the United States since the 80's, where the president gave in, trashed Socialism and started adopting NeoLiberal policies.

It's been a big failure so far (no fucking surprise), and this is why we are seeing these kinds of resistance movements, no matter how reactionary they can be deemed as.

Assholes.

[socialistjustin]

Somebody I knew said Africa would be the new Middle East a few years ago. A place as resource rich with increasing Chinese influence was always going to get American attention.


100 troops is a really small number though so this particular action could be for show, I dunno.

[R_P_A_S]

What's the USA's real agenda in Uganda?

[Grenzer]

It is quite the sudden turn in strategy, and as someone else suggested, I'm sure it is related to the fall of Gaddafi's regime. The United States is undoubtably seeking to fill the vacuum left. As much as I disdain the United States, it also seems the PRC is quite active in exploiting Africa as well.

I am guessing that Africa will be the next big spot of exploitation. There is only so much that can be done in Asia before it becomes more profitable to move on elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how the PRC reacts to this sudden turn. They've been becoming more aggressive in recent days. Whichever comes out on top, I doubt that much good will be done for the people of Africa at the end of the day..

[manic expression]

I wonder how many mercenaries.

[Grenzer]

I wonder how many mercenaries.

By the LLA or US?

I would suspect the answer to both would be none. I think the US has learned from PR debacles in the past regarding mercenaries. As for the LLA, I doubt they can afford mercenaries; and for that matter, I doubt they need them either. Life is shit over there, it's not so hard to recruit people to a cause, no matter how misguided, if you can give them a sliver of hope for a better life.

[Commissar Rykov]

Somebody I knew said Africa would be the new Middle East a few years ago. A place as resource rich with increasing Chinese influence was always going to get American attention.


100 troops is a really small number though so this particular action could be for show, I dunno.
The reasons the troop numbers is small is because they are likely using US Army Special Forces who will train local militias to do America's Dirty Work. That is the typical MO of American Imperialism before they upgrade to conventional arms. Though it should be noted the US Army has had a Special Forces Group dedicated to Africa shortly after Che Guevara's stint in the Congo.

[socialistjustin]

Yeah, I was thinking it was just regular troops. Never thought about Special Forces.

[GatesofLenin]

if america really gave a shit about stopping lra atrocities or whatever they would be giving money to develop infrastructure and whatnot in the region
So true, I turn red in anger everytime I see the "what would you do with $7 today?" at Starbucks each morning selling those malaria nets. I ask myself, how much would it cost to build a proper sewage system in africa?

[Smyg]

Now this is interesting.

[Iron Felix]

More Western Special Forces training and arming Death Squads? What a surprise!

[eric922]

So this is Obama's third war, right? I really need to remind my liberal friends of this when they try to convince me to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Hell, in some ways Obama has done worse than Bush, he's started wars and has proposed cuts to Medicare and SS, something even Bush wouldn't have dared.

[Lobotomy]

So this is Obama's third war, right? I really need to remind my liberal friends of this when they try to convince me to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Hell, in some ways Obama has done worse than Bush, he's started wars and has proposed cuts to Medicare and SS, something even Bush wouldn't have dared.

The two are strikingly similar.

[socialistjustin]

Bush proposed to privatize Social Security which is worse than than anything Obama proposed. Both are against the working class to be sure though.

[danyboy27]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it's definitely got imperialist motives, but on the other hand, the LRA is one of the nastiest rebel groups in Africa, and it'd be good to see them defeated.

its a 20 year old civil war and the bodycount for the LRA is 30 000, the avearge number of death is around 1500 people killed a year.

Now, consider the zone where they operate to be located in countries like uganda and Gongo, 2 countries numbering millions of peoples.

those 1500 death a year for this area of population is relatively a mild threat, Malaria alone kill hundred of thousand of people, not mentionning the lack of water and access to food probably kill many many more folks.

the LRA is not the only group of reactionary in Africa. Most african state are responsable for endless torture and killing trought the region.

Bottom line, the U.S picked a popular target that everyone could identify and demonize with ease has a pretext to go there.

Dont get me wrong, the LRA are a bunch of fuckers, but they are hardly unique in their brutality and there are plenty of other things that kill more peoples than these folks in the region.

[A Marxist Historian]

It is quite the sudden turn in strategy, and as someone else suggested, I'm sure it is related to the fall of Gaddafi's regime. The United States is undoubtably seeking to fill the vacuum left. As much as I disdain the United States, it also seems the PRC is quite active in exploiting Africa as well.

I am guessing that Africa will be the next big spot of exploitation. There is only so much that can be done in Asia before it becomes more profitable to move on elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how the PRC reacts to this sudden turn. They've been becoming more aggressive in recent days. Whichever comes out on top, I doubt that much good will be done for the people of Africa at the end of the day..

As the Africanists will tell you, Chinese involvement in Africa is about raw materials, not exploitation, and, unlike the imperialists, Chinese investments have led to developing African countries, and are a main reason why Africa is doing better economically lately than in the past. African workers in Chinese-owned firms even usually are paid a whole lot better than those working for the American etc. run multinationals, unless they're unfortunate enough to be working for private rather than state-owned Chinese companies.

Not because of some super-pro-worker policies, but simply because private profit is not the main motivation, as China is not yet a capitalist country and this is all top level state policy decision making involved.

The imperialists are all too aware of this and it's not the least thing that pisses them off about the Chinese role in Africa, which is getting pretty big lately.

Here's a great analysis of all this from the Spartacists:

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/987/china-africa.html

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Bush proposed to privatize Social Security which is worse than than anything Obama proposed. Both are against the working class to be sure though.

Obama wants to privatize Social Security by way of that bipartisan Congress commission he's set up, so he doesn't take the blame.

It's not working only because the Republicans don't want to do bipartisan anything, as they smell blood and think they can take over this year.

-M.H.-

[EvilRedGuy]

So true, I turn red in anger everytime I see the "what would you do with $7 today?" at Starbucks each morning selling those malaria nets. I ask myself, how much would it cost to build a proper sewage system in africa?

But there is no profit in that. The corporations would never go into that idea. ;) Its funny. They are saying workers should contribute to a good cause, but the corporations don't give a crap themself. As long as you are from the Bourgeoisie(the ones with power) assisting people isn't required, but when you are anything below (a worker) they expect you to save the world. :sneaky:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As the Africanists will tell you, Chinese involvement in Africa is about raw materials, not exploitation, and, unlike the imperialists, Chinese investments have led to developing African countries, and are a main reason why Africa is doing better economically lately than in the past. African workers in Chinese-owned firms even usually are paid a whole lot better than those working for the American etc. run multinationals, unless they're unfortunate enough to be working for private rather than state-owned Chinese companies.

Not because of some super-pro-worker policies, but simply because private profit is not the main motivation, as China is not yet a capitalist country and this is all top level state policy decision making involved.

The imperialists are all too aware of this and it's not the least thing that pisses them off about the Chinese role in Africa, which is getting pretty big lately.

Here's a great analysis of all this from the Spartacists:

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/987/china-africa.html

-M.H.-

Interesting. I have a friend of mine (a Spart sympathizer) who thinks similarly.He is a big fan of "Adam Smith In Beijing" by the late Giovannii Arrighi. This book (a bit impenetrable for me right now) basically says that while China may not be socialist, its not capitalist either. Therefore China's growing role in the global economy is inherently non-capitalist and is progressive.

The CWI has a debate on the nature of China partly riffing off "Red Capitalism: The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise" basically a pro capitalist analysis of contemporary China.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5169

Peter Taafe believes that while is obviously not socialist, its not capitalist, the profit motive isn't the main motive of the economy, and it can't be said the be a "defprmed worker's state" either. The PRC economy is based essentially on the need of the ruling families to maintain their political power.

Looking at it this way China's international role may not be a "progressive" as peoople like Arrighi have said.

[GatesofLenin]

But there is no profit in that. The corporations would never go into that idea. ;) Its funny. They are saying workers should contribute to a good cause, but the corporations don't give a crap themself. As long as you are from the Bourgeoisie(the ones with power) assisting people isn't required, but when you are anything below (a worker) they expect you to save the world. :sneaky:

So true, profits before lives. Sick!