Another "Police The World" Mission For US Military

[Bailey Guns]

Looks like this time they've been sent to Uganda to assist in locating the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army.

Shouldn't be a big deal. After all...it worked out real well in Somalia.

Story HERE.

[mcantar18c]

A full 100 troops. Big move there.

[Zundfolge]

So is Code Pink going to call for Obama's arrest for "going to war without getting permission from congress"?

No, of course not.

[El Caballo Loco]

And?

What's your point?

We have U.S. troops waking up in over 70 countries EVERY DAY.

[Elhuero]

how many advisers were sent to vietnam in 1956?

[mcantar18c]

And?

What's your point?

We have U.S. troops waking up in over 70 countries EVERY DAY.

^This.

how many advisers were sent to vietnam in 1956?

2,000. For the sake of sticking it to Communism... enforcing our national interests.
This seems to be purely humanitarian on the outside (i.e. its for their sake, not ours), and our other interests (if any) are being kept secret. Not something we'd want to turn into something large-scale... not to mention entering another "official" war with the elections coming up is not in Obama's best interests for reelection.

[TFOGGER]

how many advisers were sent to vietnam in 1956?

Or Korea? how many are there now?

[Hoser]

I spent a lot of time there in the early and mid 90s. Beautiful country. Most of the people were nice, but the bad apples were bad. Kinda like everywhere you go.

[Bailey Guns]

My point is, for those who seem to be baffled by it, why is this our problem?

Especially after we had a president who was partially elected on the promise of bringing our troops home from wars we had no business fighting.

We have politicians on the left constantly harping on not getting involved in the world's problems yet they continually display an astounding double standard of wanting to get involved in every little brushfire around the world and use the US military as a police force...when it's done by one of theirs.

The troops dispatched to that region are probably already hampered by impossible rules of engagement. "Oh...we're sending combat troops with weapons but they aren't going to fight unless it's in self-defense." Sorry...that's not what combat troops are for and it's a recipe for disaster.

And I know we have troops all over the world. I was one of them in the past. Does that make this little adventure right? I submit it doesn't. It just exacerbates an image problem we're told we have in countries all over the world.

What possible national interest do we have there? What is the "exit strategy" I'm always hearing about from the left? Why is it those questions aren't being asked of Obama?

We have no business sending combat troops into a hostile area...regardless of whether or not we've done it in the past or if we already have troops in 70-something countries...if we're not sending them to fight. If the mission was to go, kick this guys ass and/or kill him by whatever means necessary, I have no problem with that.

Doesn't anyone remember what happened the last time we went hunting for a warlord in Africa and hamstrung our forces with ridiculous RoEs? Guess not.

And what about the cost? We have a spending problem that's out of control in this country with no foreseeable solution. And we're sending more troops and equipment to some godforsaken country?

Please. If you can't see what's wrong with this you have a vision problem.

[SuperiorDG]

The troops dispatched to that region are probably already hampered by impossible rules of engagement. "Oh...we're sending combat troops with weapons but they aren't going to fight unless it's in self-defense." Sorry...that's not what combat troops are for and it's a recipe for disaster

This is not what Green Berets do. They organize, train and fight along side the rebels. I think this is a lie along with the one about American troops not being in Libya. Go Green Berets.