Power of Story Send a Tweet        

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   3 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Obama And Interventionism (Everywhere)

By       Message Russ Baker       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 10/22/11

Author 52500
- Advertisement -
Cross-posted from Whowhatwhy

What in the world is wrong with Barack Obama? The man who as a candidate said he saw a limited role for intervention--essentially when America had an over-riding "moral obligation" to intervene abroad -- is now seeing moral obligations everywhere.

Here's the latest, which you probably missed, since it came and went with no public uproar: He has ordered American troops into sub-Saharan Africa to help in the fight against a bloodthirsty group that nevertheless probably only numbers in the hundreds.

Before we get to the particulars, let's consider how this man, who ran largely on opposition to George W. Bush's reckless military adventurism, has turned out as president.

- Advertisement -

He started his tenure with a symbolically significant decision: to retain Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates. On Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, he fell almost totally in line with the military industrial complex. He failed to investigate wrongdoing on a host of military-national security fronts. He declared an end to torture but has apparently authorized the continued use of "secret prisons" abroad. He participated willingly in the so-called "humanitarian" intervention in Libya -- which seems to have had very little to do with humanitarian objectives, and resulted in the massive destruction of that country's infrastructure. He ordered that murky raid to take out Osama bin Laden, details of which have been deliberately obscured. He has stepped up drone strikes, with their heavy civilian casualties. Recently his administration announced the highly dubious claim that the Iranian government was behind an attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States (with a Mexican drug cartel hit man), which looks to many like a Bushian-style pretext to further isolate Iran in preparation for military action against it.

Now -- and you're excused if you missed this development -- he is sending American troops into sub-Saharan Africa. Specifics: Last week he announced the deployment of 100 armed military "advisers" to help in the battle against a rebel group called the Lord's Resistance Army.

It's certainly true that the LRA is a brutal, savage, vicious outfit, terrorizing villagers across international borders, raping, maiming and killing. The ostensible purpose of Obama's intervention is commendable, and the action is backed by some human rights groups. But it's unclear why US troops, in particular, need to be there. The LRA is believed to number no more than several hundred. It's hard to see why, with tremendous amounts of materiel and other aid provided by the US to militaries throughout Central Africa, it is necessary for US boots to be on the ground.

- Advertisement -

Not that the media are asking the right questions. Here's the New York Times:

"[I]t raises the risk of putting American military personnel in harm's way in another region while the United States is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That's the only thing the "paper of record" can summon up as to why this foray might be troubling: that it exposes US military personnel to physical risk. Well, duh. All military adventures expose soldiers to potential harm. The reporter showed no interest in the why of the matter, nor of why the US seems to be in more and more conflicts -- with multiple wars and a military presence, by some counts, in more than a hundred countries.


As we've sought to remind our readers, the US's mandate abroad, both stated and internally understood, is to advance the American "national interest." Humanitarianism should perhaps be a legitimate goal, yet in reality it almost never is. But wherever US troops go, valuable minerals and other resources, and the interests of large American corporations, aren't far away.

Central Africa is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate anywhere. For more on this, let's go to the CIA's World Factbook.

- Advertisement -

Consider the Congo, just one of the countries where the LRA is said to operate:

cobalt, copper, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver

Or the Central African Republic, another LRA stomping ground:

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Must Read 2   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It


Author, investigative journalist, editor-in-chief at WhoWhatWhy.com

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Real Reason For The Afghan War?

The Military and Those Strange Threats to Obama

CloseReading: Are Joe Biden's "Gaffes" Accidental? Or Brilliant?

Tea Party Types say: Next Overboard, Lifeguards!

NY Times' Umbrella Man Exposed

JFK Umbrella Man -- More Doubts