Can anyone articulate their purpose?
Niger, America’s forgotten soldiers and another nameless war
This is the first time most Americans have heard of the place. That’s the worst part.
Niger: Few can locate it on a map; fewer can pronounce (Nee-Zher) it. Almost no one realizes the U.S. military has troops there. Can anyone articulate their purpose?
Regardless, four soldiers died in the former French colony on Wednesday, Oct. 4, victims, it appears, of an ambush. The suspected perpetrators: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) — how many Americans even recognize that acronym?
It still stings — years after my last combat tour — when I watch the quick, televised announcement of U.S. Army troop deaths, crunched between long segments on the latest White House palace intrigue (did he or didn’t he call the president a “moron?”) and exhausting reports about Mueller’s ongoing search for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. But these were American soldiers, you know, the ones our society sensationally worships. And they are dead. Killed — ostensibly — in the service of the citizenry in a faraway land few even knew they were in.
What does it say about a society, when such deaths barely raise an eyebrow? Four dead, killed in another country we are not at war with, by a group only tangentially covered by the long-outdated Authorization to Utilize Military Force, the vague 2001 congressional approval to attack those who “planned, authorized, or committed” the 9/11 attacks; AQIM wasn’t even designated a terror organization until 2002.
This much is certain: These troopers were casualties of perpetual war, imperial overstretch, and American apathy. More’s the pity.
Maybe AQIM really is a threat to the region or, more relevantly, to our homeland. Maybe military advisors, supplies or support are prudent. Maybe. Only no one discusses that.
Nonetheless, the surprise deaths of American troops raises far more questions than answers, and, at least, deserves a public debate. Of course, the people’s representatives in the House and Senate will likely remain silent; congressional cowardice, executive overreach — they’re the tangled, unheralded stories of the 21st century. The combination may just bring down what’s left of the republic.
For starters, here are just a few questions a citizen (or, dare I say, a strategist) might ask:
Who, or what, authorized troops to deploy to this desolate stretch of desert?
To what extent is AQIM a threat to our homeland? To the region?
Is military force appropriate or capable of influencing the security situation?
Why will it work in Niger, when similar operations in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have such a checkered record?
And, even if it might work, is the “juice worth the squeeze?” In other words, are the potential benefits worth the prospective cost, in blood and treasure?
Now, while you ruminate over those simple if thorny questions, consider a few complicating factors:
Previous U.S. interventions in North Africa, i.e. Libya, actually destabilized the region and — in a classic case of blowback — worsened the Islamist threat in Mali and Niger. Who’s to say that won’t happen again?
U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) mission statement is full of the military’s typically inflated, task-oriented rhetoric: “disrupt and neutralize transnational threats,” “prevent and mitigate conflict,” “build African partner defense capability,” “promote regional security, stability, and prosperity.” It might be difficult for small U.S. advisory teams to achieve anything of the sort while the military is concurrently committed to counterterrorism in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as deterrence in Eastern Europe and South Korea.
Even America’s formidable military possesses a finite number of Special Forces (SF). With SF teams deployed to 70 percent of the world’s countries in 2017, that’s hardly a sustainable operational tempo; soldiers spread thin are soldiers at risk.
In the past, the stability, credibility and competence of partner governments have proved vital to achievement (or not) of U.S. regional goals. America’s futile battle against endemic Afghan corruption is only the most recent example. Niger, though progressing, is only just recovering from a military coup and possesses a sketchy human-rights record.
This August, China opened its first military base on the African continent, in Djibouti. China is also Africa’s largest trading partner, exploiting the region’s vast natural resources. Perhaps military power represents America’s last lever of influence on a continent increasingly oriented eastward; are U.S. operations there as much about political and economic hegemony as “counterterrorism?”
None of this is, in itself, nefarious. However, that Americans are barely considering these dynamics is more than a little troubling.
Legislative indifference is just as grim. Americans’ elected bodies owe it to deployed — and dead — soldiers to grapple with at least some of these issues. And if the U.S. cannot actually balance ends and means in Africa, or demonstrate a conflict’s connection to a vital national interest, then it is incumbent on Congress to limit or restrict future operations.
In the 1980s, in what now seems a parallel universe, the legislative branch asserted itself – in what became known as the Boland Amendment — to prohibit “boots on the ground” in Nicaragua’s complex, less-than-vital civil war. Sure, President Reagan unlawfully ducked the law, but at least Congress tried, and some officials were held accountable.
Today, most congressmen wouldn’t dare limit presidential primacy. Just last month, Senator Rand Paul made a half-hearted (though admirable) effort, and managed only 36 votes.
Undoubtedly, critics will chastise my lack of support — especially as a serving Army officer — for the “mission” or the “troops,” two nebulous concepts that have become increasingly but dangerously coupled in the public consciousness. As for my concerns about secrecy, some will assert opacity is an operational necessity in counterterrorism. Perhaps.
Nonetheless, 16 years of perpetual, indecisive war across several continents, to say nothing of mass surveillance, torture regimes and the false pretense of the Iraqi invasion, have made this soldier skeptical of secrecy’s slippery slope.
War and peace are matters too grave to consign solely to generals, presidents, or intelligence agencies. The potential, and all too pervasive, deaths of American service members demand a public hearing. Let the populace, and Congress, deliberate, vote and authorize these dangerous, ubiquitous troop deployments. The Constitution, the Republic and some lives depend on it.
But don’t count on it: Trump will tweet, citizens will forget and Congress will cower. It’s the new American way.http://thehill.com/opinion/national-sec ... meless-war
McCain: Administration not being up front about Niger attack
(CNN)Sen. John McCain argued Wednesday that the Trump administration is not being forthcoming about the attack in Niger that left four US soldiers dead and two wounded.
Asked if he thinks Congress should launch an investigation into the attack, the chairman of the Senate armed services committee told reporters that first he would like to get the information that his panel "deserves and needs."
"Then you decide whether a quote investigation is needed or not," he said.
Pressed further on whether the administration was being up front about the ISIS-affiliated attack, McCain answered bluntly: "No."
Private contractor used to evacuate US forces in Niger ambush
The Arizona Republican did not go into detail about what kind of information he was looking for, saying only that he was interested in "all the specifics."
"That's why we're called the Senate armed services committee. It's because we have oversight of our military," he said. "So we deserve to have all the information."
The Defense Department is conducting an initial review of the deadly attack, searching for precise answers as to how 50 ISIS-affiliated fighters were able to ambush the group of soldiers two weeks ago.
The comprehensive investigation of the timeline has been ordered by US Africa Command and includes all the military branches and elements of US intelligence agencies that were involved in the mission. Team members who were on the ground are being interviewed about what happened as well as preparations for the mission.
Trump, Dem congresswoman feud over his remarks to widow of fallen soldier
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders was asked in the press briefing Wednesday whether President Donald Trump was satisfied with he information he has received about the mission and ambush.
"I believe they're still looking into the details of that," Sanders replied. "But I don't think that the President can ever be satisfied when there's loss of life from men and women in uniform."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ ... index.html
Two weeks later, Trump still hasn't addressed US deaths in Niger
Steve Benen10/18/17 12:42 PM
Trump ducks failure to address Green Beret deaths with Obama lie
On Oct. 4, exactly two weeks ago, four American soldiers were killed in an ambush in northwestern Africa. Donald Trump, who routinely tweets a series of provocative thoughts in response to deadly terrorism said nothing. As the remains of the U.S. Special Forces soldiers started to return home, Trump again said nothing, golfing as the caskets arrived at Dover Air Force.
As the Washington Post reported today, the president has had plenty to say about a wide range of topics since the deadly attack in Niger – he’s apparently upset with protesting athletes, Democrats, the mayor or San Juan, and major American news organizations – but Trump has remained completely silent on the deadliest attack on U.S. military forces since he took office.
That seemed to change on Monday, when a reporter asked about his reticence, but even then, Trump’s answer covered a lot of ground – he’s impressed with his communications with family members of the fallen, and he’s taken some cheap and misleading shots at Barack Obama – without even trying to address the underlying question:
Why did these four Americans die?
It’s not that the other questions are unimportant. When Trump lies about the records of his predecessors, it matters. When the president says he calls each of the families of those killed in action, but fails to follow through, it matters. When he clumsily tries and fails to bring comfort to those who are grieving, it matters. When Trump seems to exploit the memory of his chief of staff’s son, who died in Afghanistan, for petty political purposes, it matters.
But we’re still left with the fact that the president, as The Atlantic’s David Graham noted today, has “pushed the conversation even further away from the actual question of the fallen soldiers.”
And there’s no reason anyone should consider that acceptable. How did ISIS-affiliated fighters ambush U.S. Special Forces in an area considered to be low-risk? Why did it take so long for help to arrive? Why did it take nearly two days to recover the body of one of the four Americans killed?
And why is Donald Trump willing to talk about practically every subject except this one?
Two weeks later, the commander in chief hasn’t even acknowledged what happened. The questions have been ignored and/or buried by a series of related distractions.
As Rachel noted on the show this week, there are sometimes legitimate reasons why U.S. officials have to remain silent on combat deaths, at least temporarily. But the Pentagon has publicly commented on the deadly violence in Niger, which necessarily means there’s no prohibition on discussing the attack.
Trump, for reasons that are not yet clear, simply doesn’t want to. I’ll look forward to the White House explaining why.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... aths-niger
Senators demand info on deadly Niger ambush
BY REBECCA KHEEL - 10/17/17 08:11 PM EDT 284
Nearly two weeks after four Green Berets were killed in an ambush, top senators are demanding the Trump administration provide Congress with more information on the first deadly attack on U.S. troops in Niger.
On Tuesday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee both said the Trump administration has not provided them with enough information on the attack.
Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) even went so far as to say the Obama administration — which he repeatedly slammed as weak on defense — was better at working with him.
Asked by The Hill whether the administration has been forthcoming with information on Niger, McCain said “no.”
“I had a better working relationship, as far as information back and forth, with [President Obama’s Defense secretary] Ash Carter than I do with an old friend of 20 years,” McCain said.
Asked whether the “old friend” was Defense Secretary James Mattis, McCain said “yes,” though he said the statement also extends to Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster.
“I think they had this idea that once Trump won that we are a unicameral government,” McCain said.
At issue is an Oct. 4 attack on a joint patrol of about a dozen U.S. soldiers and 40 Nigerien troops. The patrol was ambushed by what the Pentagon has described as self-radicalized, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)-affiliated militants, killing the four Green Berets and injuring two others.
It’s the first time U.S. troops have been killed as part of the counterterrorism mission in the northwestern African country, which has received little public attention. The United States has about 800 troops and a drone base in Niger, with another 200 troops elsewhere in the Chad Basin.
The Pentagon has said the attack happened in an area where multiple patrols had gone before without incident. French air support had to be called in to help.
The circumstances have prompted questions about whether the United States provided adequate force protection for its own troops, whether troops were prepared enough for the attack and whether the rescue response was fast enough.
Mattis has defended the response, but said the Pentagon is reviewing it to see what lessons can be learned.
“We will look at this and say, was there something we have to adapt to now?” Mattis told reporters last week. “We’re not complacent. We’re going to be better.”
Meanwhile, McCain has been furious for months at what he sees as a lack of communication from the administration. He has pledged to block Defense Department nominees until the administration provides more information on the strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
McCain told reporters the Pentagon was expected to provide information he’s asked for later Tuesday afternoon.
“We’ve been waiting for weeks and weeks,” he said. “We will not sit by without having a complete understanding of what’s going on.”
Asked whether he expected Tuesday’s information to include more on Niger, McCain said, “We’ll find out.”
McCain’s comments echoed those of his committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).
“I think the administration has to be more clear about our role in Niger and our role in other areas in Africa and other parts of the globe,” Reed said Tuesday on CNN. “They have to connect it to a strategy. They should do that. I think that the inattention to this issue is not acceptable.”
Reed also alluded to the lack of information the day before, noting to reporters that his knowledge of the Niger attack did not come from an official briefing.
“The operation in Niger from what I know, and it’s not from an official briefing, was unexpected,” Reed said at a press conference. “It appears that the ISIS elements that were there had good intelligence of our operations, conducted a very sophisticated ambush of our forces. … The operation I think has caused us to begin to re-examine force protection in Niger and other places, and also our ability to respond proactively to ISIS elements in that part of Africa.”
The fact that four Americans were killed and that the attack took place in Africa has led to some comparisons to the response to the 2012 Benghazi attack, which prompted multiple congressional investigations.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Tuesday that after more facts are gathered, “you may very well see the same type of a demand for a review.”
For now, though, Rounds said he foresees at least some congressional oversight.
“Any time you have a loss of life, any time you’re involved in an incident in which we lose young men, we lose young women, Congress has an interest in seeing what happened, why, where, were they in the right place, was there something that we should have done differently,” he said. “If we can learn from this, then we should be doing that.”
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/35592 ... ger-ambush
Russia to sign military cooperation deal with Niger
Military & Defense August 10, 13:33 UTC+3
Under the draft agreement, Russia and Niger will interact in the war on terror, exchange information on military and political issues and the issues of strengthening international security
Share
MOSCOW, August 10. /TASS/. Russia plans to sign a military cooperation deal with the Republic of Niger in West Africa, including interaction in the war on terror and measures to strengthen international security, according to a Russian government resolution published on the government’s legal information web portal on Thursday.
Under the document, the Russian government had made a decision "to approve a draft military cooperation agreement between the government of the Russian Federation and the government of the Republic of Niger submitted by the Defense Ministry and approved by the Foreign Ministry of Russia and other departments concerned."
The document instructs the Russian Defense Ministry to hold negotiations with the Nigerien side and, upon agreeing, sign the relevant deal. The Defense Ministry is authorized to make amendments to the draft document, if these alterations are not of fundamental nature.
Under the draft agreement, the sides will interact in the war on terror, exchange information on military and political issues and the issues of strengthening international security.
Moscow and Niamey will also develop relations in the area of joint troop training, in the sphere of military education, military medicine and other fields.
Russia and Niger intend to exchange the experience of peacekeeping missions and interaction in peacekeeping operations under the UN aegis.
http://tass.com/defense/959862
The real reason Donald Trump wouldn’t acknowledge U.S. soldiers killed in Niger: it was a Russian military op
Bill Palmer
Updated: 10:06 pm EDT Wed Oct 18, 2017
Home » Opinion
Donald Trump has spent the past two weeks doing his best to avoid addressing the four U.S. soldiers who died in Niger on October 4th. The headlines up to now have focused on Trump’s unwillingless to call the families of those soldiers or even publicly acknowledge their deaths. The real scandal, as it turns out, is why he’s been dodging it: he’s afraid to call any attention to the U.S. military action in Niger, because it was actually a Russian military op.
Follow the timeline: on August 10th, the governments of Niger and Russia signed a military cooperation deal. The press release from Russian news agency TASS described it as being a vaguely defined anti-terrorism partnership (link), but in real world terms, the deal was almost certainly about the exploding oil production in Niger. It’s roughly the same kind of arrangement which Russia has long had with the Syrian government: Russia provides military protection in order to help keep the current regime in power, and in return, the regime sells cheap oil back to Russia. Just seven weeks after the deal was signed, as Russia was moving in to set up shop in Niger, four U.S. soldiers were suddenly killed there.
Even setting aside Donald Trump’s personal allegiance to Russian President Vladimir Putin, from a purely tactical standpoint, there is zero chance that the United States would have been running its own military op inside Niger while Russia was moving in to set up shop. The only logically possible explanation is that the U.S. secretly sent troops to help the Russian military with its efforts in Niger. In other words, those four U.S. soldiers were participating in some kind of Russian military op – and it only became public once they died.
Rachel Maddow reported on-air on Wednesday night that Donald Trump nixed a prepared statement mourning the loss of the four U.S. soldiers. We also know that Trump didn’t call the families of those four soldiers until the media called him out on it. It’s become clear that Trump and his regime really didn’t want the public or the media to focus on the military op in Niger – which we know had to have been a Russian op – hence he refused to even mention it or make any calls. Trump got four U.S. soldiers killed by lending out the U.S. military to Vladimir Putin, and now he’s desperate to keep the details from coming out. We all know why.
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/the ... y-op/5584/
