On October 14th, President Obama advised Congress he was sending “combat equipped U.S. forces” to Uganda and other nations in central Africa to help remove leaders of the brutal guerrilla group, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). While the letter stated that the troops “will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self defense,” the U.S. government is intervening in another civil war.
The White House cited the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, enacted in May 2010. The act required the president to prepare a plan, which was issued on November 24, 2010, “Strategy to Support the Disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army.”
Constitutional Problems
The U.S. government’s sending of troops clashes with the Founders’ vision of non-interventionism. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute notes that missions like this one are not authorized by the Constitution:
The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ which holds that the ‘international community’ has an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity — by force, if necessary — when their own governments cannot or will not.
That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end of ‘the common defence … of the United States.’
Further, the engagement violates the constitution requirement that Congress declare war. While the act and strategy plan refer to military support, neither explicitly authorizes the sending of troops. This was reflected in Senator John McCain’s statement, “… I’m very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action.”
The Founders recognized the importance of Congress engaging in a deliberative process before declaring war. Congress’s act of passing the general legislation, and passively receiving the general strategy plan, did not constitute deliberation over sending troops.
Other Problems
All decent people have sympathy for the suffering caused by predators like the LRA, and by dictators around the world. This does not mean, however, that the U.S. government should intervene. The intervention in central Africa is wrong, even aside from its unconstitutionality.
Bad for Africa
The intervention is harmful to Africa. It reinforces the false message that the continent cannot meet its own challenges, thus discouraging its development and self-reliance. Governmental foreign aid reinforces poor governments and poor policies. Africa should be left alone to solve its own problems. If the nations of central Africa need the type of military support the U.S. government is providing, they can seek more regional help, and retain the services of contractors.
Uganda, one of the U.S. government’s “partners” in the military effort, is an example of a troubled country that receives massive aid and needs internal reform. The U.S. government is already providing about half a billion dollars of aid to Uganda per year. The country has the poverty that is associated with limited economic freedom, including widespread corruption, weak property rights, and weak business freedom.
Freedom House ranks Uganda only Partly Free with respect to its political rights and civil liberties. The country’s president, Yoweri Museveni, has been in power since 1986.
Uganda also allegedly has itself engaged in inhumane military conduct. A UN report issued on October 1, 2010 suggests that Uganda, along with Rwanda and Burundi and rebel groups, may have committed war crimes and even genocide in the wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1993 and 2003. For summary information, see this article in France 24.
Bad for the U.S.
The action encourages the pattern of the government engaging in unlimited military action. President Obama’s claim that the mission “is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States” demonstrates that the government considers itself unconstrained by any principles as to the scope of its activities or the country’s interests.
As we see with the other wars, and with the empire, the mission serves the interests of the government, not those of the U.S. Like the intervention in Libya, the action appears intended to extend the government’s influence and to help justify the existence of the Africa Command.
Consider the revealing assertions in the July 2011 article in the National Defense Institute’s Strategic Forum, “Countering the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa.” The author, Andre Le Sage, states that the LRA is “an indirect interest for U.S. national security planners” for reasons including that it is “a test case” for the Africa Command. He also warns that the consequences of inadequate resources for actions would include the “role of the command remain[ing] uncertain and contested …”
As observed by Benjamin H. Friedman and Harvey Sapolsky, the command is “basically useless.” It is based in Germany for lack of a home in Africa, and justifies itself as a “jobs” program. It is an answer in search of a good question.
Further, the government, already hopelessly in debt, and unwilling to cut spending, is borrowing more money to get entangled in yet another war. The resulting burdens of taxes and inflation fall on the people. While the incremental cost of this war is a small fraction of total spending, the government should be radically downsizing, not initiating new actions.
Risk of Making Matters Worse
There is only one law that is virtually always upheld, the law of unintended consequences. When it comes to government projects, including military adventures, however, the law that more often applies is that of predictable consequences for reckless actions.
The White House, in announcing the new mission, failed to mention some relevant history. The U.S. government, in December 2008, supported Uganda in an attack on the LRA, resulting in a disaster. The New York Times reported:
The American military helped plan and pay for a recent attack on a notorious Ugandan rebel group, but the offensive went awry, scattering fighters who carried out a wave of massacres as they fled, killing as many as 900 civilians.
….
No American forces ever got involved in the ground fighting in this isolated, rugged corner of Congo, but human rights advocates and villagers here complain that the Ugandans and the Congolese troops who carried out the operation did little or nothing to protect nearby villages, despite a history of rebel reprisals against civilians.
Stars and Stripes provided more information:
… U.N. envoy John Holmes was among critics who earlier this week blamed the latest slaughter in eastern Congo on the military offensive.
‘The humanitarian consequences of the operations against the LRA have been catastrophic …’
Any military action, no matter how well planned, holds the risk of doing harm to those intended to be helped. The responsibility for proper planning and action to address the LRA belongs with the countries of central Africa, not the U.S. government.
Experience in Libya Counsels Caution
The purported success of the intervention in Libya apparently emboldened the Obama administration to send the troops to central Africa, eleven months after the administration had issued its plan. Senator Chris Coons voiced support for the mission based on this factor.
However, the intervention in Libya was a mistake. Among other problems, it likely was initiated on a false pretense of the need to protect civilians; entangled the U.S. government in a civil war in which numerous civilians were killed or injured and the rebels and government forces engaged in atrocities; and created another precedent for unnecessary war. In addition, as noted by Christopher Preble of Cato:
Qaddafi’s death does not validate the original decision to launch military operations without authorization from Congress. The Libyan operation did not advance a vital national security interest, a point that former secretary of defense Robert Gates stressed at the time. Qaddafi could have been brought down by the Libyan people, but the Obama administration’s decision to overthrow him may now implicate the United States in the behavior of the post-Qaddafi regime. That is unfair to the American people, and to the Libyan people who can and must be held responsible for fashioning a new political order.
Further, the crass triumphalism of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after Qadafi’s death (“We came, we saw, he died”) captures the danger of allowing presidents to launch wars without congressional approval. As Louis Fisher has explained, “The Framers understood that executives, in their search for fame and glory, had a dangerous appetite for war.”
Conclusion
The mission in central Africa to counter the Lord’s Resistance Army is unconstitutional and unwise. It serves the interests of the U.S. government, not those of Africa or the U.S.
