Rolling Great Lakes region thread

[padraig (u.s.)]

meanwhile, I also noticed that before the DRC Sec. Clinton was in Angola, where the Chinese just opened the country's first car factory outside Luanda.

China’s trade with Africa has shot up 10-fold since 2000, soaring 45 percent to nearly $107 billion last year alone.

China has also granted over $5 billion in oil-backed loans to Angola since the end of the civil war to help rebuild roads, bridges and ailing communications.

makes sense, the MPLA being nominal socialists & all.

 

[vimothy]

Ex soldiers with nothing much to lose for operations that are somewhat less than strictly legit is the sense I get of what's being suggested there. Not that they are the best of the best.

There are a whole swathe of operations that are less than legit, which are generally undertaken by SOF and the intelligence agencies. For instance, spying -- in terms of, say, intercepting foreign communications -- is illegal under international and foreign domestic law (although obviously usually tolerated in the spirit of reciprocity), and yet, no one is suggesting that the CIA should hire criminals to staff intelligence gathering or analysis posts. Are they?

I doubt it. Because you have the situation in terms of options and preferences the wrong way round. The fact that criminal vets might lack choices is not the point. The government and the various commands do not. And to suggest that they are deliberately seeking out criminal vets does suggest that they are the "best of the best" in the limited domain of whatever mission is being discussed. That is, it is Pruniers implicit propostion that criminal vets are the best of the best for whatever covert op is rumoured to have been undertaken in the Kivus. And indeed, this implication is all the evidence that Prunier offers in support of his claim.

But it makes no sense whatsoever to seek out the (by definition) least competent men to do the most sensitive operations. That is why it is not believable.

 

[massrock]

That is, it is Pruniers implicit propostion that criminal vets are the best of the best for whatever covert op is rumoured to have been undertaken in the Kivus. And indeed, this implication is all the evidence that Prunier offers in support of his claim.

It seems to me that what is implied there is that it is accountability, or rather the desired absence of accountability that is the issue. That whatever was allegedly done, however insensitively, would if necessary be officially deniable. "For the “black operations” (i.e., covert operations about which Congress is kept in the dark)"

And I don't see that because someone may have been busted out of the army it means they are '(by definition) [the] least competent'. He says "records of drug offenses, theft, or sexual offenses", does that suggest that they can't do a job, or does it mean that they got caught doing something?

So I don't think the suggestion that some ex unit guys are kept unofficially available through private firms is really so remarkable. Old boys network if nothing else.

 

[vimothy]

But that doesn't make any sense. Again, there are swathes of operations that are done in "the dark", insofar as it would be foolish to make critical information about ongoing concerns such as intelligence and covert military ops public. Look:

"For the “black operations” (i.e., covert operations about which Congress is kept in the dark)"

This is a non sequitur. There is nothing shady about this, and there is no reason to use criminal vets on these operations, since there already exists a vast (non criminal) agency architecture to deal with covert operations. The fact that Congress is "kept in the dark" is a tautology -- these are covert ops, so of course information regarding them is restricted. Otherwise, they would not be covert. (There are security cleared Congressional oversight committees, however).

And someone who has been kicked out of the army is indeed not competent by definition. Perhaps we have a different view of competence, but I'm betting mine is closer to the institutional view of the army. In any case, there is still no need to pick from the pool of criminal vets when there are many more non criminal vets.

 

[massrock]

There is nothing shady about this, and there is no reason to use criminal vets on these operations, since there already exists a vast (non criminal) agency architecture to deal with covert operations.

Legal operations, done by the book, with oversight and accountability.

If there was a secret operation how can you know what was done and for what supposed reasons? Some reasons may appear straightforward and 'rational', and some maybe not so in view of the necessarily limited information available and your various assumptions. Operational expediencies vs. jobs for mates vs. budget considerations vs... who knows.

But again it's not really being suggested that these were only 'criminal vets', who in any case might be technically 'criminal' because they had been busted for something (i.e. not necessarily 'drug dealing rapist maniacs'), but that they were -

"second-echelon men who are also former GIs with shady records of drug offenses, theft, or sexual offenses."

Now I'm not entirely sure what "second-echelon" means but in context it seems fairly clear that it's supposed to denote 'second-tier' - expendable perhaps, not so scrupulous, maybe a few nutters, available for the dirty jobs of dubious legality - and who may include among their number ("who are also") some guys who've been discharged having been caught smoking weed or whatever, you know?

This cartoon image of a platoon of 'drug addicted rapists being hired to undertake the most sensitive missions' seems really to spring from a rather overly dramatic and cheesy reading of what's actually stated there.

Perhaps we have a different view of competence, but I'm betting mine is closer to the institutional view of the army.

If you're talking about the suitability of someone for a job then competence obviously means the ability to do the job. Don't you think that perhaps an institution like the army sometimes regrets having to fire trained people, who may also be friends, because they have been caught doing something unrelated to their area of competence? It's got to be done, but here's a card for this company run by a friend of mine, get in touch, they might have some work for you.

In any case, there is still no need

If you're not making the decision and you don't have all the information you can't know what is considered necessary or not, or why something is done. You don't know what the requirement is for one thing.

But whatever, it can't be proved one way or the other. So this is a waste of time.

 

[vimothy]

But whatever, it can't be proved one way or the other. So this is a waste of time.

Logic helps. It can't be proved that the US government didn't fly these men to the Kivus in technology derived from captured UFOs either, but I don't see why this means that we can't discount this as unbelievable as well.

1. There is an operation being planned;
2. For this operation, we want to send former soldiers with criminal records and dishonourable discharges;
3. These men are the best for this particular operation because of some factor relating to the fact that they have criminal records -- otherwise we would simply send former soldiers from the much larger pool of those without criminal records, and not deliberately select on the basis of criminality.

Prunier doesn't say that the "second echelon" operatives "may include" criminals, he says that these operatives are also criminals. This is his whole claim. If you say, "we have operation X, and we want to send former soldiers who were dishonourably discharged (because they committed crimes)", then you are selecting on the basis of criminality. Perhaps you think that these men are "expendable" (which I don't think is particularly creditable either, but let's ignore that for now), but regardless, criminality and military service are the selection criterea.

There is no operation that occurs without oversight of some description. Much of what the intelligence agencies does is illegal according to international and foreign domestic law, but it does not follow that the intelligence agencies need to use operators with criminal pasts or dishonourable discharges from the military, nor does it follow that there is no oversight for intelligence operations (for instance, there is the SSCI), merely that these operations are not audited publically.

The proposition that there is a set of former soldiers whose area of competence is unrelated to the fact that they have criminal records and dishonourable discharges from the armed forces suggests a lack of familiarity with modern warfare and what soldiers actually do. It is inconceivable that someone kicked out of the military will be then inducted into SOF (under JSOC? And if not, then who?) or the CIA and sent off on covert ops. It makes no sense.

 

[scottdisco]

well said Vimothy.

well said Padraig.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

well kudos to Vimothy for sticking with it & continuing to explain in simplest terms why this is illogical nonsense. this...

This cartoon image...

...is quite rich given that you are peddling a bunch of bad action movie ideas about the U.S. military, CIA, covert operations, mercenaries, etc. & again, just so we're clear, no one has any idea why some element of the U.S. govt would send 60 dudes to wander around the Kivus? it's not like the Rwandans etc. needed help toppling Mobutu.

It is inconceivable that someone kicked out of the military will be then inducted into SOF (under JSOC? And if not, then who?) or the CIA and sent off on covert ops. It makes no sense.

to add to this, having a bit of experience w/the USMC, any serious felony is an automatic DQ for enlistment. especially a violent felony like assault & battery or rape. the standards for any type of Special Forces are, unsurprisingly, higher still - you have to be vetted & have a squeaky clean background, as you need a security clearance. even for illicit, covert operations it's very hard to believe that any serious professional would recruit dudes with bad conduct or dishonorable discharges.

 

[massrock]

For this operation, we want to send former soldiers with criminal records and dishonourable discharges;

Or someone wants to hire through a certain channel or agency and some of the men they use may be in the position of having criminal records.

These men are the best for this particular operation because of some factor relating to the fact that they have criminal records --

Or someone wants to recruit through agency x, which happens to use some men with criminal records, because of some other factor.

Prunier doesn't say that the "second echelon" operatives "may include" criminals, he says that these operatives are also criminals. This is his whole claim.

It's still a question of how read it. 'Who are also' refers to what the group of 'second-echelon'* men includes, not per individual 'who each are'. He goes on to say the group may include foreigners as well, so it's not just literally and exclusively ex-GIs that is meant either - "These men are contacted indirectly, through ‘friendly’ private companies, and can include foreigners. Colette Braeckman, in L’enjeu congalais (Paris, Fayard, 1999). 43, mentions that this company recruited a number of Liberian Krahns for the Congo mission."

The proposition that there is a set of former soldiers whose area of competence is unrelated to the fact that they have criminal records and dishonourable discharges from the armed forces suggests a lack of familiarity with modern warfare and what soldiers actually do.

What are you talking about? Someone may have been caught doing something illegal, it doesn't mean they may not be suitable for or competent to do a given job, the nature of which in this case neither of us knows.

It is inconceivable that someone kicked out of the military will be then inducted into SOF (under JSOC? And if not, then who?) or the CIA

Presumably the implication is that they weren't, they were there in some other capacity, as private contractors.

* yes it does sound a bit silly, but lots of military / intelligence jargon sounds silly or like it's from a movie.

 

[massrock]

given that you are peddling a bunch of bad action movie ideas about the U.S. military, CIA, covert operations, mercenaries, etc.

Well as I say I'm not the one picturing crack platoons comprised entirely of drug addicted compulsive rapists.

no one has any idea why some element of the U.S. govt would send 60 dudes to wander around the Kivus?

No that is correct, why would we?

 

[zhao]

ok, some of us think this tiny part of the book is "totally unbelievable", some of us don't.

and this difference of opinion doesn't (least i don't think) signal deeper ideological conflict.

can we agree to disagree and move on?

 

[vimothy]

One last point for claification -- I do think that the most notable aspect of this claim is how out of place it is in a scholarly work like Prunier's.

 

[vimothy]

Via Ink Spots: Congo's Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation -- Stephanie McCrummen, WaPo

 

[vimothy]

Interesting piece from 1955.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

This digest hardly does justice to Prunier's full and detailed study. But as the Lords Resistance Army's latest campaign of violence draws new attention to the DR Congo, the force of his argument is to emphasise that this should not be seen as a mainly local (Ugandan and northeast Congolese) problem, but as a symptom of the intricate pattern of internationalised conflicts that continue across a large area of Africa. True, as the continental war is over and the Rwandan node of the Congolese conflicts has finally begun to be blocked, the danger of large-scale renewal may (as Prunier argues) have passed. But complex conflicts across northeastern Africa, centred on Sudan, still cast a long shadow that reaches into the DRC. International policy-makers tend to deal with crises one at a time: the current outbreak is another reminder that interconnected conflicts call for joined-up responses. ​

Martin Shaw writing at openDemocracy - DR Congo: arc of war, map of responsibility

 

[scottdisco]

hands tied

BBC writes

More than 50,000 people have fled clashes between two ethnic groups in north-western Democratic Republic of Congo in recent weeks, the UN says.
Many of those fleeing are reported to be unaccompanied children, and some people have drowned trying cross a river into Republic of Congo.
The UN says at least 100 people have been killed in clashes between Lobala and Boba people in Equateur province.
The violence started last month after a dispute over fishing rights.
Local MPs have asked for more security in the region and a small number of UN peacekeepers have been deployed.
But most of the UN's force is embroiled in the entrenched conflict in DR Congo's eastern areas - where they support government troops fighting local, Rwandan and Ugandan rebels.
Rufin Mafouta, head of the office of Medecins d'Afrique group which works with the UN, said the number of refugees pouring over the border from DR Congo into the Republic of Congo had risen this week.

"There's been a massive influx in the past few days because the fighting has become far more intense," he told AFP news agency.
"We have noticed a lot of unaccompanied children who have certainly lost their parents, as well as pregnant women and elderly people."

 

[vimothy]

Not read it yet, but: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture_society/what-really-happened-in-rwanda-1504

 

[scottdisco]

Not read it yet, but: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture_society/what-really-happened-in-rwanda-1504

cheers Vim, very interesting.

anyone else read this?

fascinating data (if that doesn't sound ghoulish - you know what i mean :slanted: ) though this makes me curious for more census information. certainly, nobody worth taking seriously can not fail to have beef w Kagame.

that said, no mention whatsoever of the likes of Agathe Kanziga is a bit puzzling.

i would be fascinated to see the take of Andrew Wallis on this.

 

[zhao]

wow. drastically turns a bunch of notions on their heads... not inconceivable i suppose?

• more Hutu victims than Tutsis
• Tutsi/RPF invasion not for the purpose of stopping violence and actually spurred it on
• no evidence supporting the previously wide published pre-conflict 2 year Hutu plan for genocide.

also just ran into this completely randomly:

African conflicts spurred by warming

Africa is poised to experience a surge in civil wars, causing nearly 400,000 additional battle deaths by 2030 – all as a direct result of rising temperatures.

 

[scottdisco]

certainly the complexities of multiple agonies in the total meltdown that was '94 immediately after the killing started means this is one thesis that might have legs. and their modelling sounds, er, sound.

that said, the '59 to '62 pogroms are just one frenzy only vaguely alluded to in a somewhat airy & regrettably brief scene-setting, the northern favouritism and 'apartheid' system the Habyarimana dictatorship practiced are not mentioned, there's no acknowledgment that - frankly - the RPF's 1990 invasion from Uganda was an understandable reaction to the patent build-up of hardline influence in the regime, no mention of the regime's crackdowns on the opposition following that under the cover of combating the RPF, no mention of incidents such as the 1991 massacre at Bagogwe; though, granted, early 90's blood-letting is acknowledged. TBH, i rather think they underestimate the regime in the days before '94.

also, just a note, but doesn't every other source place the pre-'94 Tutsi population around 840,000 (not their 600,000)? merely saying and w the obvious caveat this was essentially a technically meaningless colonial-era hangover (though - crucially - not socially meaningless, far from it), ID cards aside