Posted on Jan 17, 2020
Smith, Thornberry join congressional pushback on Esper’s Africa troop drawdown plan
1.2K
4
6
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
CongressWest Africa
CongressWest Africa
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
No one ever wants to take troops out once deployed., They use specious arguments such as this one in the article:
“A decrease in our investment now may result in the need for the United States to reinvest at many more times the cost down the road,” the HASC leaders wrote in the letter, dated Jan. 16. It was also signed by House Emerging Threats Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I., and ranking member Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.
No one can really know this so it is an unprovable/unknowable argument. Can anyone point to actual results we are achieving or only call out potential future cost "down the road"?
“A decrease in our investment now may result in the need for the United States to reinvest at many more times the cost down the road,” the HASC leaders wrote in the letter, dated Jan. 16. It was also signed by House Emerging Threats Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I., and ranking member Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.
No one can really know this so it is an unprovable/unknowable argument. Can anyone point to actual results we are achieving or only call out potential future cost "down the road"?
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Forces there have destroyed several cells of ISIS, AQM, and Boko Haram elements.
They spend considerable time and effort enhancing the capabilities of local security forces - the ultimate off-ramp for needing to be there. We also aid operations of allies - mostly the French - when they launch operations against extremists.
As for results on the ground, they are numerous but less visible and harder to articulate. Probably the one that has the most visibility was support when thy had a nasty ebola outbreak a few years ago. But there are a lot of activities, some clandestine, some not.
They spend considerable time and effort enhancing the capabilities of local security forces - the ultimate off-ramp for needing to be there. We also aid operations of allies - mostly the French - when they launch operations against extremists.
As for results on the ground, they are numerous but less visible and harder to articulate. Probably the one that has the most visibility was support when thy had a nasty ebola outbreak a few years ago. But there are a lot of activities, some clandestine, some not.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
1SG (Join to see) - What do we really gain out of this? ISIS/AQM and BH are still very active and deadly. We don't really have a plan to defeat them, just be present. They have plenty of bodies to throw at this. Why are we there? Because we sent some people there and keep sending more to replace the ones before. The French have a more vested reason to be there, let them handle this area of the world.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Cpl Jeff N. - Killing those bastards is it's own reward.
I concur that the French have a more vested reason to operate there, and indeed they do so very robustly. We assist them with capacities they don't have in ISR and such. Our kinetic operations are actually pretty unusual. We do more in the FID/UW and capacities building realm. That's about as far as I can go on this site.
Let's just say our guys are not bored,
I concur that the French have a more vested reason to operate there, and indeed they do so very robustly. We assist them with capacities they don't have in ISR and such. Our kinetic operations are actually pretty unusual. We do more in the FID/UW and capacities building realm. That's about as far as I can go on this site.
Let's just say our guys are not bored,
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It would be nice if the administration could articulate what the point of this move is.
They say this handful of Soldiers is needed to "combat China and Russia". Really? This doesn't even a little bit stand up to scrutiny, and Congress was right to question it. First, we have lots of similar units that have responsibility for that mission (and the language and cultural skills to do so better than Africom troops would). Second, there is a pretty determined effort by China to subvert African governments in a kind of neo-mercantilism/colonialism with their Belt and Road initiative. SOF forces in the Sahel detect and help counter such efforts. Third, there are a lot of bad guys in the area that would love to carve out enclaves in the region. That mission is a busy, if unheralded one.
I am not convinced by any of the arguments that I have read that this has been thought out at all or that it is necessary or prudent.
They say this handful of Soldiers is needed to "combat China and Russia". Really? This doesn't even a little bit stand up to scrutiny, and Congress was right to question it. First, we have lots of similar units that have responsibility for that mission (and the language and cultural skills to do so better than Africom troops would). Second, there is a pretty determined effort by China to subvert African governments in a kind of neo-mercantilism/colonialism with their Belt and Road initiative. SOF forces in the Sahel detect and help counter such efforts. Third, there are a lot of bad guys in the area that would love to carve out enclaves in the region. That mission is a busy, if unheralded one.
I am not convinced by any of the arguments that I have read that this has been thought out at all or that it is necessary or prudent.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google