Jump to content

The Mission In Niger


Recommended Posts

It's currently to find and punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not sure what they're doing in Niger. Neither is anyone else, it seems.

Some want to remedy this situation with a new AUMF.
 

Quote

 

“The many questions surrounding the death of American service members in Niger show the urgent need to have a public discussion about the current extent of our military operations around the world,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), co-author with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) of the AUMF proposal that has gained the most momentum in Congress. “A new AUMF is not only legally necessary, it would also send an important message of resolve to the American public and our troops that we stand behind them in their mission.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who in recent weeks has scathingly criticized Trump’s tenure as commander in chief, has been promising to restart the AUMF debate for months. The Niger attack has now mired the Trump administration in further controversy, as Capitol Hill’s top hawks demand to know why they were largely left in the dark about the operation.

 

But in that linked article:

Quote

 

But the lawmakers’ frustrations run deeper than simply being underinformed about one attack. McCain and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Thursday that before the news of the ambush, they had almost no knowledge about what U.S. Special Forces were doing in Niger.

“Very little,” McCain said, when asked whether he knew anything about the military’s mission there. He surmised that there were likely to be other troops deployed in global operations that the committee had not been made aware of, “but I don’t know who they are.”

Graham, who also met with McMaster on Wednesday, said that his knowledge of U. S. forces’ work in Niger was “not in any great detail, just in general.”

“I’m all for going after terrorists,” Graham added, “but I want to know before I read about it in the paper where our people are and what they’re doing.”

 

 
We've had people there looking for 9/11 perps for years and our "top hawks" have no idea why they might be there?
 
They've funded it for years. If our "top hawks" really wanted information, they'd have done what Congress does when they really mean it years ago: stop the funding.
 
Oh, and Obama apologized better when our meddling went wrong, as if that's the most significant thing here.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Only if you ignore the "Trump's Benghazi" thread.

It's all about who has more class when our meddling gets someone killed.

My point is more about WTF we're doing with a drone base in Niger?

I know, I know, building a military base and sending soldiers over there has nothing to do with actual war and Presidents can build secret bases anywhere for any reason. But why do Obama and Trump agree that we need one there?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

22 views, no comments.

Can we stop pretending that any of you give a shit about our soldiers being killed over there? At least, for any purpose other than scoring domestic political points?

Jesus Christ, even Happy Jack was a more subtle attention whore than you're acting with that post, Tom. Get a hold of yourself man. :rolleyes: 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidents are Reckless with Soldiers' Lives
 

Quote

 

Last week Defense Secretary Jim Mattis explained that the U.S. troops in Niger are "supporting the French-led and the African troops, in the campaign to throw ISIS and the terrorists, the radicals, those who foment instability and murder and mayhem, off their stride." He did not mention that a previous U.S. intervention, against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, had contributed to the instability by sowing chaos in a neighboring country and sending arms and extremists across the border.

Is the mission that killed La David Johnson and three of his comrades, which began nearly five years ago, making Americans safer? Is anyone in the Trump administration or Congress even asking that question?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

There might be one or two factual statements in that article, most of it reads like sensationalized supposition, ignoring the very basic fact that a military presence in an OCONUS location != "troops in combat". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

Even your so-called representative government is clueless. Oh, but no worries the orange haired clown has got it covered.

Senators Stunned to Discover We Have 1,000 Troops in Niger

 

I'm not at all surprised that Chuck Schumer would be "stunned to discover" this - there's a lot of mission execution that never reaches the level of awareness of the committee - the committee funds, they don't control mission execution.   You do understand the distinction, don't you? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not at all surprised that Chuck Schumer would be "stunned to discover" this - there's a lot of mission execution that never reaches the level of awareness of the committee - the committee funds, they don't control mission execution.   You do understand the distinction, don't you? 

This was Senator Graham. One of the good guys, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

This was Senator Graham. One of the good guys, right?

It isn't a matter of good guys/bad guys, Flash - it's a matter of people at Schumer/McCain/Graham's level not having mission-level oversight of every operation or program.   Most of those decisions happen at a much lower level, so the fact that they (including McCain in this, too) aren't aware of the intricacies of an operation isn't too alarming to me.  They are briefed, and have the option to ask for more information should they desire it.  That we've been operating in Niger for a while, and that hasn't previously given cause for a more critical review isn't nefarious - it seems more like normal ops to me. 

Perhaps I'm missing your point? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It isn't a matter of good guys/bad guys, Flash - it's a matter of people at Schumer/McCain/Graham's level not having mission-level oversight of every operation or program.   Most of those decisions happen at a much lower level, so the fact that they (including McCain in this, too) aren't aware of the intricacies of an operation isn't too alarming to me.  They are briefed, and have the option to ask for more information should they desire it.  That we've been operating in Niger for a while, and that hasn't previously given cause for a more critical review isn't nefarious - it seems more like normal ops to me. 

Perhaps I'm missing your point? 

 

seemed to me you were making a play for this to be partisan - by substituting Shumer for Graham.

More broadly speaking - the US used to handle this sort of thing via police and intelligence-type actions.  Now, it seems that the go-to is the Military.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2017 at 1:11 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It isn't a matter of good guys/bad guys, Flash - it's a matter of people at Schumer/McCain/Graham's level not having mission-level oversight of every operation or program.   Most of those decisions happen at a much lower level, so the fact that they (including McCain in this, too) aren't aware of the intricacies of an operation isn't too alarming to me.  They are briefed, and have the option to ask for more information should they desire it.  That we've been operating in Niger for a while, and that hasn't previously given cause for a more critical review isn't nefarious - it seems more like normal ops to me. 

Perhaps I'm missing your point? 

 

 

The Addiction to World Policing Must End
 

Quote

 

...This reckless, forever-war approach is utterly incompatible with responsible, effective foreign policy. It ignores all strategic questions about whether it is "incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity." And, if not, why our government has committed us to exactly that.

As this tragedy in Niger has too vividly demonstrated, Graham's approach risks American lives in conflicts in so many different places around the globe that politicians can't even be bothered to notice. This approach is also incompatible with the Constitution's explicit delegation of the power to "declare war" to Congress, a phrasing James Madison noted was intended to communicate that though the president is allowed "the power to repel sudden attacks" on U.S. soil, the executive branch cannot "commence war" on its own.

This means Graham was flat wrong when he suggested Congress should default to foreign policy passivity unless things go so awry it must exert a fiscal veto. On the contrary, it is Congress' responsibility to "determine who the threats are" and "come up with the engagement policy."

That has not happened in Niger or any of the other African countries where our military leaders have put troops in harm's way.

American soldiers have been in Niger since 2005, their presence escalating through three presidential administrations representing both major parties. Their concern is now predominantly with extremists crossing the border from Libya, a country still in chaos following yet another unauthorized U.S. intervention in Africa. The Pentagon defends this murky status quo, insisting "America is not at war in Africa." This month's tragedy shows that claim to be disingenuous at best.

After the Senate Armed Services Committee met with Secretary of Defense James Mattis on Friday, Graham told reporters Mattis shares his interest in expansion, not reconsideration, of U.S. military intervention in Africa. "The war is morphing," Graham said. "You're going to see more actions in Africa, not less; you're going to see more aggression by the United States."

Graham's forecast is troubling.

 

Even Graham can't forever avoid calling our kinetic military operations war. Or maybe it's just a police action like the one that has been going on in Korea since before I was born. Either way, I miss Bull Gator, who would agree with me and the author that it's troubling.

For some reason, the link above to Madison's thoughts on the subject lead to the wrong page. Here's the correct one:

03240318.gif

I see our Executive doing far more than repelling sudden invasions.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

The Addiction to World Policing Must End
 

Even Graham can't forever avoid calling our kinetic military operations war. Or maybe it's just a police action like the one that has been going on in Korea since before I was born. Either way, I miss Bull Gator, who would agree with me and the author that it's troubling.

For some reason, the link above to Madison's thoughts on the subject lead to the wrong page. Here's the correct one:

03240318.gif

I see our Executive doing far more than repelling sudden invasions.

 

I agree with your perspective on this particular comment, Tom - but, that's a different assertion than you were making earlier, isn't it?  Or did I just misunderstand? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 5:35 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

22 views, no comments.

Can we stop pretending that any of you give a shit about our soldiers being killed over there? At least, for any purpose other than scoring domestic political points?

 

On 10/26/2017 at 5:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

But how would you know if you won?

Even our "top hawks" are not privy to our mission.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I agree with your perspective on this particular comment, Tom - but, that's a different assertion than you were making earlier, isn't it?  Or did I just misunderstand? 

 

Different I guess but very much related.

It does seem to me that Americans overwhelmingly don't give a shit if our Unitary Executive conducts "world policeman" activities that look an awful lot like war. And Political Anarchists overwhelmingly don't care unless there are partisan points to score.

My first question to Randumb was rhetorical. The police have never won.

Our "top hawks" in Congress not being privy to the mission is a problem very much related to what James Madison was talking about. I get your point that they could be briefed and are as disinterested as any other American in the details of what's going on.

I'm not. WTF is going on? Is our Unitary Executive repelling any invasions in Niger?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Indeed - authority wielded appropriately generates its own respect.  Wielded inappropriately?  When we recognize that, it's our right and duty to call it out for what it is. 


That's from another thread but is an outstanding summary with which to leave this one to fall down the board, ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/10/army-casualty-process-congress-frederica-wilson/

Army to give politicians adequate time to exploit fallen soldiers during casualty notification process 

MIAMI, Fla. — Allowing a Member of Congress adequate time to exploit the death of a service member has officially been added to the U.S. Army’s Casualty Notification Process, sources confirmed today.

After receiving an inquiry about the casualty notification process from Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), the Department of the Army decided to modify the somber process of notifying the next of kin of a soldier killed in action.Now, a politician will be allowed the opportunity to carefully craft a narrative which fits whatever their political party wants out of a dead soldier, according to defense officials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So was bhyde exploiting a fallen soldier there, or was I?

And does it matter why someone brings attention to the deaths that result from our pointless meddling?

Don't be so defensive about putting words in a dead soldier's mouth. We all make mistakes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume the answer is that I was exploiting the soldier but bhyde was not?

I think we both posted his image to promote a view. Mine is that our meddling around the world has bad consequences. My other one is that there is no meaningful "resistance to Trump" because neither half of the Duopoly wants to give up the President's ability to initiate war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
On 11/17/2017 at 5:09 PM, dogballs Tom said:

I presume the answer is that I was exploiting the soldier but bhyde was not?

Are we  putting words in a dead soldier's mouth? 

 When caught with hand in cookie jar, just say your brother did it too.    amazing shit, yer correct about the hijinks in Niger in the wrong way

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 8:20 AM, dogballs Tom said:

It's currently to find and punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not sure what they're doing in Niger. Neither is anyone else, it seems.

Some want to remedy this situation with a new AUMF.
 

But in that linked article:

 
We've had people there looking for 9/11 perps for years and our "top hawks" have no idea why they might be there?
 
They've funded it for years. If our "top hawks" really wanted information, they'd have done what Congress does when they really mean it years ago: stop the funding.
 
Oh, and Obama apologized better when our meddling went wrong, as if that's the most significant thing here.

 

I have noticed we haven't droned many number 2s of various organizations in a while.

Trump doesn't seem to have a dog in the whitehouse.  Perhaps he has nothing to wag.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

What's so important in Niger that needs monitoring? China. 

Why the military presence? Foresight.

 

 

Read a bit of the recent history of the place, just skim it on Wikipedia even.

Huge Oil wealth, corrupt as hell and bitterly divided along ethnic lines by the west, tensions kept stroked by the MNCs to keep it that way. Its a fertile ground for ideology and weapon tests. It the locals get their act together oil prices may fluctuate, taxes and environmental regulations will lead to loss of profit. If ideology takes over and leads to terrorism, loss of rigs and refineries will do the same. Train the government troops, fund the separatist and hunt down the crazies with armed drones. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I think the Mission in Niger, whateverthefuck that is, has to do with the Mission in Yemen, whateverthefuck that is.

The Senate might debate whether it's all necessary.
 

Quote

 

Finally a bit of bipartisanship with merit: Senators yesterday decided to at least debate ending U.S. sponsorship of Saudi Arabia's aggression in Yemen. With a 63–37 vote, the Senate moved to advance the resolution, which was sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Mike Lee (R–Utah), and Chris Murphy (D–Conn.).

Specifically, the resolution "directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in or affectingYemen, except those engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda, within 30 days unless: (1) the President requests and Congress authorizes a later date, or (2) a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces has been enacted."

...

The resolution does not explicitly halt U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as folks like Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) have proposed, and it does not end all U.S. millitary operations in Yemen. Still, it's something.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
13 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Not a genuine question Dolt 45.

It may be. Is Niger a State? Yes. A free state? I suppose it is. Freedom has to be graded on a curve. 

 

 That means this is a Second Amendment issue, and therefore our mission, like the NRAs, is NEVER over.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
On 12/20/2018 at 5:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

If ISIS has been defeated in Syria, does that mean the Mission in Niger, whateverthefuck that is, is over??

Not a genuine question Dolt 45.

Sorry.

Added an extra question mark.

Does that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 9/17/2018 at 9:14 AM, Shortforbob said:

Lo and behold, President Trump promptly loosened the killing rules and exempted certain geographic regions from their coverage. He also quickly gave the CIA renewed authority to conduct strikes against suspected terrorists without the involvement of the Pentagon. Now, he has apparently determined to further reassert CIA control over lethal drones by establishing the agency’s own drone base in Niger, broadening the agency’s lethal reach into Libya and other parts of Africa.

As it should be.  Different AOR's, different missions.  Different C2.  

Don't believe everything you read though..... just saying.

At least we know what Trump is doing in Niger, though I don't agree it's where we should be.

Still wondering what Obama was doing there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 1 year later...

This sort of persistence deserves a name of its own.

 

You've chosen to ignore content by Excoded Tom. Options

  • 2 months later...
You've chosen to ignore content by Excoded Tom. Options

  • 1 year later...
You've chosen to ignore content by Excoded Tom. Options

  • 1 year later...
You've chosen to ignore content by Excoded Tom. Options
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...