The Heart of Darkness, 21st Century Edition

[Lum]

The NYT today published a story detailing (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/an-insiders-portrait-of-joseph-kony) the raw notes from a US military attache (http://documents.nytimes.com/religious-beliefs-of-joseph-konys-lords-resistance-army) who studied Uganda's deeply crazy Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) which seeks to impose a Christian theocracy via terror, torture and child sexual slavery.


The papers summarized a series of intensive interviews conducted in late 2005 by an American defense attaché in Uganda with former members of the L.R.A. As a courtesy, the attaché, Lt. Col. Richard W. Skow, provided to two of the interviewees an unclassified summary of some of his work. One of these men allowed me to photograph the pages, albeit quickly, before he stuffed them away.


Mr. Kony delineated rules for his army’s behavior, a sort of L.R.A. code of conduct that mixed derivatives of Christianity, Islam, animism and what would seem a free association on guerrilla tactics, social justice, diet, marriage and capital punishment. The author of the document wrote down many of these practices and rules, which Mr. Kony said would help lead Uganda on a path to purification:

On eating meat: “The LRA do not eat pigs,” one rule stated. “However, they will eat warthogs.”

The LRA position on tapirs is unknown.

[Calelari]

K0NY?



Tapirs: Harmless.
Capybaras: Mostly Harmless.

[JeffL]

I've been to Uganda a few time, and to call it an attempt to impose a "Christian theocracy" is misleading. It has little to do with Christianity in any form. In fact, in your quote, it even says a blend of Christianity, Islam, animism, (and there are other things cherry picked,) so you might as accurately term it an attempt to impose an Islam theocracy/theocrazy.

The main point is that there is an abomination against humanity that has been ongoing in Uganda for a long, long time yet gets no front page news, no U.N. priority (another reason the U.N. is IMO a useless pile of pretentious shit,) in essence it is ignored except for the occasional article here and there. Children are routinely starving every day, they are kidnapped by the armies and forced to do horrific things in order to make them feel so worthless that they never attempt to go home, it is a hell of Dante-esque proportions.

I'd much rather our forces in Afghanistan move into Uganda and search and destroy every trace of the powers behind all of this and impose a new government. If we're going to do nation building, let's do it where it needs to be done.

Yeah, this is a major button for me.

[Jason McCullough]

The UN: morally obligated to solve the problems that offend Jeff, regardless of capacity or charter.


If we're going to do nation building, let's do it where it needs to be done.

How'd that work out in Somalia?

[JeffL]

The UN: morally obligated to solve the problems that offend Jeff, regardless of capacity or charter.

How'd that work out in Somalia?

So easy to be blase', Jason, in your sheltered little world. Get your fucking ass off of your chair in your cozy Microsoft office and go spend a week in Uganda and see what's going on, then ask yourself how the U.N. can turn a blind eye to it. What problems are they spending their resources on that are a higher priority, in your opinion?

Any world body that can allow what is going on there has no credibility in my world.

[Jason McCullough]

We've discussed this repeatedly before, but I guess it can't hurt to do it again:

The UN doesn't have an army. It's peacekeepers more or less have to be invited in by the controller of the territory and are useless at combat.
The UN's minor security apparatus only does what the security council tells it to.
The UN doesn't intervene there because the members of the security council don't want to do so.
The UN was specifically designed this way by the United States.

Complaining that the UN doesn't magically fix Uganda is somewhat like complaining a private security guard doesn't do anything about crime on the other side of the street.

[Tim Partlett]

I've been to Uganda a few time, and to call it an attempt to impose a "Christian theocracy" is misleading. It has little to do with Christianity in any form. In fact, in your quote, it even says a blend of Christianity, Islam, animism, (and there are other things cherry picked,) so you might as accurately term it an attempt to impose an Islam theocracy/theocrazy.

Except these are actually Christians. They even used to call themselves "Uganda Peoples' Democratic Christian Army". Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, says he wants to establish a theocracy based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Uganda, especially the north where the LRA operate, is solidly Christian.

But because there might be some elements of Islam in their lunatic beliefs, "you might as accurately term it an attempt to impose an Islam theocracy/theocrazy." I'm sure they aren't very Christian, and have a very mixed up idea of what Christianity is, but I bet if you asked the average Al Qaeda operative he'd have a very odd view of Islam relative to most.

But if anyone tried to portray evil Muslim terrorists as basically Christian I think there would be some outraged people on this forum.

[JeffL]

Except these are actually Christians. They even used to call themselves "Uganda Peoples' Democratic Christian Army". Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, says he wants to establish a theocracy based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Uganda, especially the north where the LRA operate, is solidly Christian.

But because their might be some elements of Islam in their lunatic beliefs, "you might as accurately term it an attempt to impose an Islam theocracy/theocrazy." I'm sure they aren't very Christian, and have a very mixed up idea of what Christianity is, but I bet if you asked the average Al Qaeda operative he'd have a very odd view of Islam relative to most.

But if anyone tried to portray evil Muslim terrorists as basically Christian I think there would be some outraged people on this forum.

You are correct, but when you actually talk to these devils (and I've sat down in huts with them) and ask them about their motives, what they call Christianity is indeed a weird mix of Islam, Judaism, nature worship, idol worship, and some made up crap that I have no idea where they got it from.

On the other hand, I would guess - just guess - that Al Qaeda are pretty hard core Islam, just taking the more militant parts of the Quran as their focus, much the same way ultra conservative Christians cherry pick the Bible. Neither are a good representative of the actual core teachings and faith. But I get your point.

[JeffL]

We've discussed this repeatedly before, but I guess it can't hurt to do it again:

The UN doesn't have an army. It's peacekeepers more or less have to be invited in by the controller of the territory and are useless at combat.
The UN's minor security apparatus only does what the security council tells it to.
The UN doesn't intervene there because the members of the security council don't want to do so.
The UN was specifically designed this way by the United States.

Complaining that the UN doesn't magically fix Uganda is somewhat like complaining a private security guard doesn't do anything about crime on the other side of the street.

Right. There's nothing the U.N. can do. When I spoke with Jan Egeland the official position was yeah, it is really horrible, and we'll continue to monitor the situation. They stated how much they were going to spend from their budget for various types of aid and help and resources, but last I checked they had only put up 1% of their declared number.

And if the U.N. doesn't do anything there because that is the way it is designed (and I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying The United States Designed it That Way! because that is irrelevant to anyone in Uganda or to me) - I don't care why. It just further makes the point that they are impotent in some of the most horrific situation on the globe.

[JeffL]

BTW - it it isn't obvious, I am probably too emotionally attached to this issue to be able to engage in any kind of dispassionate liberal armchair discussion, so unless someone has some questions directed at me, I'm going to walk away from this thread.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I guess I'll respond to the void then:


I don't care why

Understanding problems is usually required to solve them. The limiting factor on improving the situation in Uganda isn't the UN, which is limited by the opinions of the SC member governments. If you want that to change, you need to influence public opinion in SC member countries. Complaining about the UN is exactly the sort of asinine well-meaning wooly-headed liberal response that doesn't help in the slightest.


I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying The United States Designed it That Way! because that is irrelevant to anyone in Uganda or to me

If you buy a car that explodes is it relevant who made it and why?

[Tim Partlett]

Hey Jeff, I know you said you were walking away, but just in case you take a look: What exactly were you doing in Uganda? UN work?

[Adree]

Hey Jeff, I know you said you were walking away, but just in case you take a look: What exactly were you doing in Uganda? UN work?

http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/sniper---Adstars.preview.jpg

[Lum]

Sorry to hit a hot button, Jeff, if you're still reading. Tim summed up why I called them "Christian" and I agree that Africa gets the short end of the stick justice-wise.

[JeffL]

Sorry to hit a hot button, Jeff, if you're still reading. Tim summed up why I called them "Christian" and I agree that Africa gets the short end of the stick justice-wise.

Hey Lum, NP at all on the labels of the devils over there. The button was more armchair liberal haughtiness an dismissal from nice comfy abodes while a hell on earth for so many people and children; people who are screaming in pain and horror and being abused, as well as dying of hunger, literally as we are typing this.

To answer the previous question and then move away, I have been over there in several capacities, some official, some not.

[Adree]

The button was more armchair liberal haughtiness an dismissal from nice comfy abodes while a hell on earth for so many people and children; people who are screaming in pain and horror and being abused, as well as dying of hunger, literally as we are typing this.

I just call the police when the neighbors get that loud.

[Jason McCullough]

Hey Lum, NP at all on the labels of the devils over there. The button was more armchair liberal haughtiness an dismissal from nice comfy abodes while a hell on earth for so many people and children; people who are screaming in pain and horror and being abused, as well as dying of hunger, literally as we are typing this.

This may come as a shock, but I wasn't dismissing them, and I'd rank fixing the place over just about anything. Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible, because public opinion in the first world states with the capacity to intervene - even if you think it's possible for first world countries to do that sort of thing; the evidence is very thin - just doesn't care. So it doesn't happen.

It has nothing to do with the UN; hell, the UN makes it somewhat easier as a coordination body. But the UN was never designed to be a civil war-stopping machine, and it's not the problem.

[Hans Lauring]

Yes. When was the last time we went in and fixed a country? WWII?!
And even if we accept that it's theoretically possible to invade and fix a country with some coalition force... why Congo? It's hell... but so is several other places on the planet. And even if by some weird measuring stick we agreed that Uganda was the most hellish of hells - how would you go about getting people to care?
A lot of people would rather we spent less on foreign aid - do you think fixing a small hellhole comes cheap?

It's clear that Jeff has a personal reason to care extra much about Uganda... but that's just the problem. Most people only wants to help, where they for some personal reason sees a connection - save fellow Christians, save those starving kids I just saw on television two minutes ago... lest I forget they exist, save whoever was hit by the most current disaster - those suffering from an ongoing disaster like most of Africa, don't really get the majority motivated to help.

So I'm not saying Uganda isn't really bad or that we shouldn't get worked up about them - but calling out Jason like this is some special case and blaming inaction on the UN is really weird and naive.

[Phil_Stein]

While I don't know too much about the Uganda situation, I'd say that it's not clear what a motivated and empowered US or UN could do to address problem situations in sub-Saharan Africa in general.

Whether we're talking about basically anarchic states (Somalia), states where one region/tribe suppresses others (numerous, including Sudan, Rwanda/Burundi in the past (not sure about now)) states with tin-pot dictators (numerous), or states that slide from pseudo-democracy back to something worse (possibly the Ivory Coast, and of course others in the past), a US/UN "fix" to these problems would likely require massive, long-term involvement that would not be particularly realistic on a wide-spread basis.

I could see the US or UN getting involved in one place or another, but it would be difficult to set up clear criteria to get involved to try to stop an atrocity (or potential atrocity) in one country, but not in another.

That's not to say there aren't things that the US and other Western nations couldn't be doing better vis-a-vis sub-Saharan Africa, but I'm skeptical of significant military interventions by the West.

[Phil_Stein]

Hans, they were talking about Uganda, not the Congo.

[Lizard_King]

Understanding problems is usually required to solve them. The limiting factor on improving the situation in Uganda isn't the UN, which is limited by the opinions of the SC member governments. If you want that to change, you need to influence public opinion in SC member countries. Complaining about the UN is exactly the sort of asinine well-meaning wooly-headed liberal response that doesn't help in the slightest.


It's not the whole reason, obviously, but a big part of it is that it's unclear what strategy model exists for outside intervention that isn't openly predatory and self-interested. When you look at a series of case histories like "Why Peacekeeping Fails", it becomes clear that it's not just a question of individual apathy on the part of the big players but structurally enforced apathy when someone attempts to formulate an approach that is impartial yet effective. The track record of not taking sides is pretty unimpressive when it comes to results.

[Jason McCullough]

I can't figure out what actually triggered their creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army#History); god knows no one I know is an expert on Ugandan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda#History) politics.

I'll take a look at the book, thanks LK.

Edit: ah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_insurgency), here we go. Yet another post-colonial ethnic thing, with a special bonus appearance by concentration camps (http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2007/oct/20/about.uganda).

[Lum]

Yes. When was the last time we went in and fixed a country? WWII?!

A bit sooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Palliser).


Hans, they were talking about Uganda, not the Congo.

To be fair, the Congo is even more fucked up then Uganda, with, for good measure, a dose of completely useless UN 'peacekeeping' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_the_Democratic_Republic_ of_Congo) that, among a litany of other failures, didn't bother to prevent a four-day orgy of a town being mass-raped into the ground 30 km away from a UN base (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/24/congo-rebels-rape-un-rwanda).

[Lizard_King]

NP, you might be able to find the much cheaper Palgrave edition I bought years ago at places like Abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=2242724980&searchurl=an%3Ddennis%2Bjett%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D0%26y %3D0), but it was definitely the first thing that came to mind when this news article came up. While Jett is squarely in the camp of how to improve the UN to adapt as a result of its failures, I feel the evidence points to something that has to be capitalized on before the much more aggressively multipolar world we are headed for slips completely out of the hands of traditional powers. That is, NATO as a model for addressing instability and rogue actors locally, and the UN as the center of mediation for stable nations with reasonable conduct boundaries.

Operation Palliser and other single power initiatives with credible success are notable for just how rare they are, and I'm not sure how sustainable they are as a model going forward.

[Hans Lauring]

Hans, they were talking about Uganda, not the Congo.

Sorry. Helps my point, though. If Jeff really believes we can go in and fix a hellhole, we should probably take Congo before Uganda from a pure "where's the help most needed"-point and not "Who do we like most" or the even more realistic "who has something we need?"

[Hans Lauring]

A bit sooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Palliser).



To be fair, the Congo is even more fucked up then Uganda, with, for good measure, a dose of completely useless UN 'peacekeeping' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_the_Democratic_Republic_ of_Congo) that, among a litany of other failures, didn't bother to prevent a four-day orgy of a town being mass-raped into the ground 30 km away from a UN base (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/24/congo-rebels-rape-un-rwanda).

But would you call Sierra Leone 'fixed'?
It's better... but fixed?!

I'm not arguing for doing nothing, and I'm not even against the idea of peace keeping forces... but the track record isn't great, and I was mostly just wondering if Jeff had anything but personal reasons for picking Uganda out of all the places on the planet that clearly needs some sort of help (that we don't know how to offer and most people don't care to).

[Lum]

But would you call Sierra Leone 'fixed'?
It's better... but fixed?!

Yeah, rebels aren't running around amputating villagers for the hell of it.

[De_Treville]

There are a lot of places like Congo and Uganda, and the sad truth is we, as a society, are not willing to do anything significant about it. "The American Way of Life is not negotiable", but to be fair that extends to every developed country. Even if we aren't doing anything to actively worsen the situation or exploit it (which I doubt) we sure as hell are not willing to put in the resources to resolve it. Even something as basic as letting the people who live there get away is out of the question - they'd steal our jobs and destroy our welfare state, so... though luck, we'll pray for you and maybe send some used clothes?

[Phil_Stein]

I think if you allowed free emigration from troubled sub-Saharan African nations to the US and Europe, and some sort of support for the new arrivals on the Western side, you'd see 100+ million emigrants in a fairly short time frame. Add in troubled parts of Asia, and you'd probably be looking at another 100 million or so.

[De_Treville]

Probably my post came off wrong, when I mentioned job loss and destruction of welfare state I wasn't being ironic. The fact is helping those people would have serious consequences, and we are not willing to accept them. Not because we are evil, btw, just because of a very reasonable amount of selfishness and apathy on our part.

The point I was trying to make in an indirect way is that blaming the UN is meaningless. The UN does nothing because someone somewhere would have to shoulder the costs. Everyone in his right mind is yelling "not me, not me, the other guy!" so in the end those who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place are stuck with their misery.

It won't be necessary the case forever, in the future those countries and people could manage to get out of the hell they are into, maybe, maybe not. But if we are talking about the suffering that is happening right now - and to be realistic in the next few decades at least - it's imo decent to face our unwillingness to help given the steep price we'd have to pay.

All this making the rather optimistic assumption that we are at the "I don't care, not my problem" phase of moral development. If as I suspect we are more of a "let's fuck them as hard as need be if we can get something out of it" society, then we'd better strive for actual indifference, while taking pride in the fact we at last left behind our "let's kill them 'cause we are superior and they don't deserve to live" teen rage period. Like, what, 50 years ago?

[StGabe]

Change has to come from within. We like to blame our systems of governments when things don't go our way. Don't get me wrong, criticism of government is a time-honored tradition and very useful/necessary. However criticism is different from blame and it's often the case that governments can't fix a problem simply because:

1) It's really hard solve that problem for an acceptable cost.
2) The people represented by the government don't prioritize the problem and/or are unwilling to pay the costs to fix it.

Examples: people blame Bush for the fact that many Americans supported Bushlike policies or people blame Democratic leaders for the fact that healthcare reform is really hard and expensive to solve. No political change is free and no political change happens without popular support.

[Phil_Stein]

And it's even more difficult/unrealistic to expect Western governments to solve widespread, persistent problems in non-Western parts of the world.

i.e. Governments do a bad enough job fixing the problems within their own territories and among their own citizens. While I think Western governments can and should be helpful to territories and citizens in the poorer parts of the world, the primary drive to fix Africa has to come from Africa.

FWIW, and IIRC, most broad welfare trends in sub-Saharan Africa (economic, health/medical/social, political) have been reasonably positive for the last 10 years or so. That's not to say there isn't a long way to go, nor that some areas are still going backwards instead of forward, but I think the trend has been positive...

[Phil_Stein]

Oh, and we individuals can do something as well, including donating to good charities.

I recommend GiveWell for researching relevant charities, and specifically support their top pick of VillageReach for actually doing some good in poor parts of the world (primarily Mozambique at the moment, but expanding).

Full disclosure - I advise GiveWell (unpaid), and have donated to both GiveWell and VillageReach.

[Omniscia]

Guess what, guys?

We're going to Uganda! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/us-uganda-troops-lord-resistance-army.html)

[Ed Solomon]

Kony!

[RepoMan]

The goal of the U.S. mission is to assist regional African forces in removing Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and other commanders of the group “from the battlefield,” the letter says.

I sincerely hope they succeed. Permanently. With extreme prejudice. Even if they're not going to be doing the shooting themselves.

[arctangent]

I sincerely hope they succeed. Permanently. With extreme prejudice. Even if they're not going to be doing the shooting themselves.

So do I. Gotta wonder, though, why the US is interested in the LRA only now. My inner cynic says that the LRA is threatening the expansion of oil production in South Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan#Oil).

[ydejin]

So do I. Gotta wonder, though, why the US is interested in the LRA only now. My inner cynic says that the LRA is threatening the expansion of oil production in South Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan#Oil).

Some experts think it may be payback (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44912923/ns/world_news-africa/) for Uganda helping out in Somalia. While the LRA is pretty weak right now, the Ugandans say they have been trouble finishing off the LRA due to lack of Special Forces.

[Brettmcd]

Yet another in a long list of conflicts we have no place in.

[Jason McCullough]

Jesus christ, Rush (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/10/15/345000/rush-limbaugh-endorses-the-lords-resistance-army/).


Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the combat Lord’s Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord’s Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord’s Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill. [...]

Lord’s Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.” Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.” Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.

When someone points out said "Christians" are monsters (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/quote-day-rush-says-obama-wanst-wipe-out-christians):


Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys — and they claim to be Christians.

Even for him this level of Muslim-baiting is a new low. Just wow.

[Jason Townsend]

Wooooooooooow my hat is off to that level of ignorance/horribleness

[JeffL]

You don't need to do that to critique this action. Do we really need to insert our military somewhere else right now?

[dtolman]

You don't need to do that to critique this action. Do we really need to insert our military somewhere else right now?

Yes. We can afford 100 troops to track down and kill some of the greatest monsters on this planet.

[Lum]

Even for him this level of Muslim-baiting is a new low. Just wow.

The real tragedy is that for him, the facts are completely and totally irrelevant. He really will defend child rapists and insane terrormongerers if it might hurt Obama.

[JeffL]

Yes. We can afford 100 troops to track down and kill some of the greatest monsters on this planet.

There are many such evil people and organizations around the world. Are we now going to send out our hit squads around the world to hunt them down?

[ShivaX]

There are many such evil people and organizations around the world. Are we now going to send out our hit squads around the world to hunt them down?

Works for me.

[briankoontz]

I've been to Uganda a few time, and to call it an attempt to impose a "Christian theocracy" is misleading. It has little to do with Christianity in any form. In fact, in your quote, it even says a blend of Christianity, Islam, animism, (and there are other things cherry picked,) so you might as accurately term it an attempt to impose an Islam theocracy/theocrazy.

The main point is that there is an abomination against humanity that has been ongoing in Uganda for a long, long time yet gets no front page news, no U.N. priority (another reason the U.N. is IMO a useless pile of pretentious shit,) in essence it is ignored except for the occasional article here and there. Children are routinely starving every day, they are kidnapped by the armies and forced to do horrific things in order to make them feel so worthless that they never attempt to go home, it is a hell of Dante-esque proportions.

I'd much rather our forces in Afghanistan move into Uganda and search and destroy every trace of the powers behind all of this and impose a new government. If we're going to do nation building, let's do it where it needs to be done.

Yeah, this is a major button for me.

Western powers are largely responsible for the terrible mess otherwise known as the African continent.

What you're proposing is to ask your sister's rapist to become her therapist.

That's actually not impossible, but the first thing the rapist needs to do is to stop raping, otherwise the "therapy" will likely amount to little more than more unauthorized sperm donations.

[MikeJ]

There are many such evil people and organizations around the world. Are we now going to send out our hit squads around the world to hunt them down?

This seems like a big change in outlook from your posts in this thread from earlier in the year. Have you changed your mind about this, and if so, why?

[JeffL]

This seems like a big change in outlook from your posts in this thread from earlier in the year. Have you changed your mind about this, and if so, why?

Just saying, if we've decided to be the international superhero squad who run around the world going after every bad guy out there, then we're going to be very, very active. Who is picking who we go after? I've got a few names of some people in northern Uganda I'd like to see taken out.

[dtolman]

Just saying, if we've decided to be the international superhero squad who run around the world going after every bad guy out there, then we're going to be very, very active. Who is picking who we go after? I've got a few names of some people in northern Uganda I'd like to see taken out.

_If_ we've decided?

This is decided - we decided it decades ago. If there's some small nation that isn't a threat to us, and it seems easy, we're there. Somalia. Bosnia. Kosovo. Libya. The President picks the worst sob story of the year, sends some US troops in to beat up on some poor saps, with (hopefully) minimal losses, and brings back some feel good news about how much good we do in the world.

[Adam Eayrs]

unauthorized sperm donations.

in case anyone still had doubts

[arctangent]

_If_ we've decided?

This is decided - we decided it decades ago. If there's some small nation that isn't a threat to us, and it seems easy, we're there. Somalia. Bosnia. Kosovo. Libya. The President picks the worst sob story of the year, sends some US troops in to beat up on some poor saps, with (hopefully) minimal losses, and brings back some feel good news about how much good we do in the world.

You forgot Grenada and Panama. And Vietnam, although that turned out to be a little harder than anticipated.

Remember the Maine!!!

[maxle]

Just saying, if we've decided to be the international superhero squad who run around the world going after every bad guy out there, then we're going to be very, very active. Who is picking who we go after? I've got a few names of some people in northern Uganda I'd like to see taken out.

Well, someone upthread already suggesting a pragmatic realpolitik motivation behind the commitment. That aside, since when do we need to be consistent in our foreign policy?

[Aeon221]

Hey Jeff, how bout that whiplash on the u turn?

In any event, I think I speak for all taxpayers (excluding Rush Limbaughaiubhdaisdouche) when I say that I'd be willing to chip in the fifty cents or less each it'll cost us to send these guys to Uganda to whup some ass.

[Brettmcd]

Hey Jeff, how bout that whiplash on the u turn?

In any event, I think I speak for all taxpayers (excluding Rush Limbaughaiubhdaisdouche) when I say that I'd be willing to chip in the fifty cents or less each it'll cost us to send these guys to Uganda to whup some ass.


What makes this one war so much more important to send troops to then the 100 or so other places where people are killing each other in the world today?

[Scuzz]

100 troops.........we are going to send in 100 troops. I am sure that number cannot include the supply chain required to supply and keep them there. But 100? Is Captain America going in with them?

[Malathor]

This thread reminded me of this:

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length

Great viewing.

[JeffL]

Hey Jeff, how bout that whiplash on the u turn?

In any event, I think I speak for all taxpayers (excluding Rush Limbaughaiubhdaisdouche) when I say that I'd be willing to chip in the fifty cents or less each it'll cost us to send these guys to Uganda to whup some ass.

I admit that my feelings on Uganda are colored by emotion and some personal issues. My non-emotive feelings are that we need some consistency and transparency on where we will decide to send our military personnel and put them into harms way. Only 100 people, but they do represent 100 families, and all it will take is some major snafu in which someone takes 10 of them prisoner or we get some kind of Black Hawk Down scenario.

If we are going to assemble small hit teams and send them around the world as someone in Washington picks out the target of the day, OK, let's make it clear that is part of our foreign policy. I'm not sure exactly what the "legal" requirements are wrt Congressional oversight, but I'm also not sure we haven't thrown that completely out the door with our assassinations of U.S. citizens, drone killings around the world, etc.

[Jason McCullough]

We've been sending small teams of people out to overthrow governments since early in the 19th century.

[JeffL]

We've been sending small teams of people out to overthrow governments since early in the 19th century.

Noooooo!!!!????!!! ;)

Are you in agreement with this?

[Jason McCullough]

I don't really "agree" with it, because it's yet another instance of the US shooting itself in the foot by acting like an asinine imperial power. Maybe it'll all work out for the best this time, but based on the history of these things I'm not really expecting it.

[Aeon221]

I admit that my feelings on Uganda are colored by emotion and some personal issues. My non-emotive feelings are that we need some consistency and transparency on where we will decide to send our military personnel and put them into harms way. Only 100 people, but they do represent 100 families, and all it will take is some major snafu in which someone takes 10 of them prisoner or we get some kind of Black Hawk Down scenario.

If we are going to assemble small hit teams and send them around the world as someone in Washington picks out the target of the day, OK, let's make it clear that is part of our foreign policy. I'm not sure exactly what the "legal" requirements are wrt Congressional oversight, but I'm also not sure we haven't thrown that completely out the door with our assassinations of U.S. citizens, drone killings around the world, etc.

These are fuckwits we are killing with the broad support of Uganda and the surrounding region. IOW we are being asked to go kick the ass of some fairly repulsive fucks, and we've got the kind of troops and gear that make this operation less dangerous and horrifying for all concerned.

This is one of the things our military _should_ be used for: smacking down bitches when everyone is asking us to, when the target is entirely uncontroversial.

You won't find many people protesting the annihilation of this bunch of repulsive shitworms; might have something to do with the whole child soldiers thing.

Drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan etc? Wrong. Not because of their tactical effectiveness (or lack thereof) but because of their strategic cost. Killing midlevel commanders in various organizations is not worth the significant reputation damage the whole thing has caused.

Could we be shooting someone else? Yes. There's lots of people who need a good shooting, let's be honest. Nobody particularly likes nasty dictators or the raging retards huddling in the DRC. And I'm sure the guy on everyone's shoot list just happens to be in Syria. But these are the people we have a mandate to shoot, they are obviously and infamously bad, and killing them doesn't seem to require a whole lot of American troopers on the ground. And while everyone wants to shoot that certain Syrian, we don't have the agreement of the Arab League, we don't have the permission of the protesters (who are asking us to stay out) and we don't have a UN Mandate saying that he needs a good skull fucking. All in all, that's a few good reasons why the LRA and not someone else.


We've been sending small teams of people out to overthrow governments since early in the 19th century.

True enough, but this isn't a government and Chiquita isn't involved.

[Kolonial]

These are fuckwits we are killing with the broad support of Uganda and the surrounding region. IOW we are being asked to go kick the ass of some fairly repulsive fucks, and we've got the kind of troops and gear that make this operation less dangerous and horrifying for all concerned.
When you've got US troops shooting at the child soldiers you mention, the results are almost guaranteed to be horrifying.

[Lizard_King]

These are fuckwits we are killing with the broad support of Uganda and the surrounding region. IOW we are being asked to go kick the ass of some fairly repulsive fucks, and we've got the kind of troops and gear that make this operation less dangerous and horrifying for all concerned.

This is one of the things our military _should_ be used for: smacking down bitches when everyone is asking us to, when the target is entirely uncontroversial.

You won't find many people protesting the annihilation of this bunch of repulsive shitworms; might have something to do with the whole child soldiers thing.

Drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan etc? Wrong. Not because of their tactical effectiveness (or lack thereof) but because of their strategic cost. Killing midlevel commanders in various organizations is not worth the significant reputation damage the whole thing has caused.

Could we be shooting someone else? Yes. There's lots of people who need a good shooting, let's be honest. Nobody particularly likes nasty dictators or the raging retards huddling in the DRC. And I'm sure the guy on everyone's shoot list just happens to be in Syria. But these are the people we have a mandate to shoot, they are obviously and infamously bad, and killing them doesn't seem to require a whole lot of American troopers on the ground. And while everyone wants to shoot that certain Syrian, we don't have the agreement of the Arab League, we don't have the permission of the protesters (who are asking us to stay out) and we don't have a UN Mandate saying that he needs a good skull fucking. All in all, that's a few good reasons why the LRA and not someone else.
You're delivering a rousing speech in the absence of a factual set of criteria by which to judge US actions. What is interesting about this isn't the intervention itself, which we don't know enough about in order to really assess, but rather the manner in which it's done. It suggests that Obama has more angles for his own (as opposed to handed down) policy decisions in situations like this than the "Libya" approach of seeking loud public consensus around a wholly imaginary moral high ground, which has a proud following in our history and by George Kennan's reckoning had a lot to do with our reflexive willingness to transplant domestic legal concepts to an international setting with no sense of balance afforded by, for instance, the context of our own decisions and involvements immediately before we swooped in to save a damsel. But since everybody's over the Obama honeymoon, I think it's safe to assume he is not magically a totally different leader in terms of foreign policy than every other president we've had since, I don't know, Jefferson first did a 180 on the Barbary Coast.

It's one of those things where if you're sitting at a poker table in a game you know is rigged and you don't know who the mark is, it's probably you. Foreign policy as a whole is rigged in terms of masking direct interests and nasty deals in bullshit. If you find yourself speaking bullshit in its defense, you're the mark. "Bleep bloop find the bad guys derp" is bullshit in the context of this longstanding war and the timing of this intervention, and in the absence of government transparency (since there is a low likelihood of a strategic threat requiring secrecy about motives) you should assume the worst rather than repeat the exact same thing that has gotten the US into every damned war it had no business being in before. If there's not an existential threat, why not ask questions and leave them open rather than coloring them in with a fairy tale?



True enough, but this isn't a government and Chiquita isn't involved.
That doesn't rule out motivations beyond some cover story of a quid pro quo for Somalia. Uganda was amply compensated for that commitment, and in a way that likely has already had extensive unintended consequences within the nation and was undeniably lucrative for the peacekeepers themselves. Those peacekeepers are really more a product of an entrepreneurial sentiment on the part of the Ugandan government than a traditionally layered give and take between governments for military commitments.

[JeffL]

Hey Jeff, how bout that whiplash on the u turn?

In any event, I think I speak for all taxpayers (excluding Rush Limbaughaiubhdaisdouche) when I say that I'd be willing to chip in the fifty cents or less each it'll cost us to send these guys to Uganda to whup some ass.

The dispassionate non-emotive part of me still has reservations about the general approach of sending in our people to kill targets picked unilaterally by the White House, in a non-transparent method.

The emotive part of me, who has seen things over there that will haunt me to the day I die, would love to be one of the 100 armed going in. Literally. If they would allow a guy in his 50s to carry a weapon and go with them, I'd be there tomorrow.

[jeffd]

I think this falls under the rubric of the Obama doctrine that McCullough posted about in the Libya thread. It's an intervention with a relatively low cost and high upside (in humanitarian terms, at least).

[Jason Townsend]

I have no problems "asking questions," but given the reputation of these guys and the cost factor (and the fact that Libya may have crystalized some of the criteria of intervention) it's perhaps jumping the gun to assume that the US has ulterior motives

[Lizard_King]

I have no problems "asking questions," but given the reputation of these guys and the cost factor (and the fact that Libya may have crystalized some of the criteria of intervention) it's perhaps jumping the gun to assume that the US has ulterior motives

How is it jumping the gun to ask for criteria other than "we are opposed to evil and it's relatively cheap to get involved"? Somebody did the math on this, and I don't think evilness counts for much in the equation, historically.

[Jason Townsend]

How is it jumping the gun to ask for criteria other than "we are opposed to evil and it's relatively cheap to get involved"? Somebody did the math on this, and I don't think evilness counts for much in the equation, historically.

I said it was reasonable to ask questions and jumping the gun to to skip to assumptions. The "historical math" argument strikes me as an a mile-high abstraction; 2011 foreign policy isn't made by the average of the last 15 Secretaries of State.

[Lizard_King]

I said it was reasonable to ask questions and jumping the gun to to skip to assumptions. The "historical math" argument strikes me as an a mile-high abstraction; 2011 foreign policy isn't made by the average of the last 15 Secretaries of State.

Well, then it probably isn't clear enough as a term. It's not a risky assumption to say that there are generally concrete objectives detached from moral concerns (although they can sometimes be correlated strongly with them) in engagements that exist outside of the realm of existential threats. That has less to do with the last 15 secretaries of state than with the optional character (or at least broader palette of choices on which to spend limited capital) of foreign policy for larger states as compared to domestic policy.

I can't think of an example in American history that has set a consistent precedent for moral action abroad which isn't easily deconstructed as something other than driven by altruism once the decisionmaking variables are on the table for others to observe. I'm sure they exist, but it seems to me they must be rare snowflakes indeed. Often, the difference between more honest and less honest policy brokers has been how willing they are to expose those other factors to public scrutiny, setting aside the examples of outright deception or propaganda.

So, you end up with people questioning the narrative of "Lord's Army is evil therefore we fight" and jumping to assumptions in terms of a distant exchange of favors for Ugandan work in Somalia, because the moral argument per se is correctly perceived as an absence of an argument in the broader trajectory. My contention would be that accepting such an argument on its face and dismissing the need for "ulterior" motives, such as in the post I was responding to, is a strange way to ignore what we do know about the way national interest is determined by the people that do it for a living.

[Jason Townsend]

Right, but how much of "American history" really bears on (quasi-semi-hemi) idealistic executives in a post-Cold War context? To me moral revulsion on the part of decision-makers, people who influence the policy process, or in domestic politics are all intelligible explanations for foreign policy. To me the really apposite bit of American history is "Libya, 2011."

The anti-LRA deployment is reasonable on its face as a limited undertaking that will hopefully result in straightforward moral (and to a lesser extent, strategic) benefits. Conversely, I can't think of any equally compelling ulterior motives, although I'm not that conversant with regional issues.

[Jason McCullough]

We had a long period pre-Cold War where we were imperialistic dicks, too. At this point the weight of history is so strong that the rational default isn't idealism.


To me the really apposite bit of American history is "Libya, 2011."

How likely do you think it is that in 20 years, after all the information comes out, it will not look idealistic at all? There has been a long, long list of interventions like this. Remember when we went after Noreiga for being "a drug kingpin"?

[Jason Townsend]

We had a long period pre-Cold War where we were imperialistic dicks, too.

I basically meant Clinton, Obama and in confusing ways the Bushes were basically the "long history" to go poring through.


At this point the weight of history is so strong that the rational default isn't idealism.

I'm the last person to dismiss historical context or analysis but "the weight of history" and "defaults" strike me as non-causal handwaves.


How likely do you think it is that in 20 years, after all the information comes out, it will not look idealistic at all? There has been a long, long list of interventions like this. Remember when we went after Noreiga for being "a drug kingpin"?

I think it'll look basically like it looks now; like the West received an engraved invitation to stop a weak dictator in the middle of messily putting down a revolt and reluctantly took it. The comparison with Panama seems to me complicated and inexact. Panama itself was neither Libya nor Guatemala.

[Jason McCullough]

There's been a long, long list of countries where "this time it's different, we're totally being good guys" and it didn't turn out that way. I find it highly unlikely Libya will be the first.

[Jason Townsend]

I'm pretty up on the history. To my mind pointing at a litany of historical misbehavior in markedly different historical and political contexts without explaining its specific pertinence isn't evidence of greater worldly wisdom.

Guatemala isn't Panama '89 isn't Somalia isn't UNPROFOR isn't the NATO campaign in FRY isn't Kosovo isn't Libya. Both the face value politics and (any applicable) ulterior motives merit discussion on their own terms, not as a part of some broad sweeping baloney. Obama could do something dead cynical in foreign policy tomorrow and it wouldn't surprise me in the least; that doesn't mean there's some coherent general theory of US realpolitik in terms of which every given enterprise can best be understood.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not using the general theory to state the specifics here, just that we have no information whatsoever about how or why these decisions are being made.

No, I'm not counting the PR claptrap released so far; at the least I'd like something along the lines of this (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza).

[Jason Townsend]

Which I have no problem with. I'd also certainly never read foreign policy as having been made on moral terms alone. But there were more viable strategic courses regarding Libya than there were viable moral courses.

[Lizard_King]

Right, but how much of "American history" really bears on (quasi-semi-hemi) idealistic executives in a post-Cold War context? To me moral revulsion on the part of decision-makers, people who influence the policy process, or in domestic politics are all intelligible explanations for foreign policy. To me the really apposite bit of American history is "Libya, 2011."
If you want to focus it on Libya, that's fine. There is absolutely no reason to think that moral revulsion rather than the triangulation of the relative weakness of Qaddaffi, the relative value of the real estate in question, and the need to take action within the context of the Arab Spring phenomenon in order to try to defuse the logical transference of sentiment against the governments in question to the foreigners that had propped them up for decades. As there's evidence, the last decade of detente with Qaddaffi alongside the complex patchwork of relationship swings that were really most influenced by his torrid romance with international terrorism rather than his domestic policy. They took a look at the big board of Arab Spring events and picked not the easiest or the most vile but the one that required the least comprehensive about-face in our public and private alliance networks, relative to allies. So it's safe to add the moral aspect to the flavor text, when the math lies elsewhere. It's interesting in the way that the sincerity of faith in Spanish Conquistadors is interesting, but it does not get you any closer to evaluating the quality of their decisions over time against their priorities.

Viewing the Obama doctrine as a means of capitalizing on those low-risk opportunities within the standard moralizing language makes a lot more sense than as a discrete policy that exists in a new chapter of American foreign relations arbitrarily set at 2011.



The anti-LRA deployment is reasonable on its face as a limited undertaking that will hopefully result in straightforward moral (and to a lesser extent, strategic) benefits. Conversely, I can't think of any equally compelling ulterior motives, although I'm not that conversant with regional issues.
Well if you can't think of them, and I can't think of them, then there must not be any.

I'm pretty up on the history. To my mind pointing at a litany of historical misbehavior in markedly different historical and political contexts without explaining its specific pertinence isn't evidence of greater worldly wisdom.
I'm not sure if this is directed exclusively at Jason, but I said what I did in response to an exclusively moral framing of the issue. I attached that the context of a news article that appears to me to be trying to dig deeper through the art of Six Degrees of Foreign Relations, which is a highly diversified form of snake oil popular on the internet as it once was in print. That is to say, I think there's ample reason to consider the Ugandan connection given the role they've adopted as a national mercenary army for hire, but the "why now, and why in that form" part begs a lot more analysis than is offered by the transitive property of when Uganda was last in Western news.

[Jason Townsend]

If you want to focus it on Libya, that's fine. There is absolutely no reason to think that moral revulsion rather than. . . [list of pragmatic strategic advantages] . . . Viewing the Obama doctrine as a means of capitalizing on those low-risk opportunities within the standard moralizing language makes a lot more sense than as a discrete policy that exists in a new chapter of American foreign relations arbitrarily set at 2011.

I think the concluding phrase there is a bit of a strawman; I do think that it makes sense to evaluate foreign policy decision making differently even between different foreign policy staffs and certainly differently between different administrations. That isn't the same as announcing a revolution in diplomatic affairs every time there are new people or new approaches.

I certainly think all of the pragmatic considerations you mentioned bore on US decision-making; I don't think they were as important as the sense that there was a right and a wrong side to a war and a low cost for intervention; one can essentially "explain away" any morality or altruism as a philosophical exercise, but it runs contrary to how I perceived events and opinion at the time.

Needless to say I'm not suggesting anyone take State Department communiques literally as anything other than national talking points; I can't even sit through that sort of boilerplate and read precises.


Well if you can't think of them, and I can't think of them, then there must not be any.

If you can't think of them, and I can't think of them, then there must be some.


I'm not sure if this is directed exclusively at Jason,

It was; it wasn't intended to be snippy, just matter of fact; I am interested in and more than usually conversant with the relevant history, so if I'm wrong it's a fault of interpretation rather than ignorant naivety.

[JeffL]

While it is probably never a mistake to try to look deeper than the surface in terms of a country's decision to engage in any type of military intervention in another country (and that is true for all nations, not just the U.S.) it is likely a mistake to assume that it is not possible that such a move can be the result of much simpler motivations, particularly when the risk and force commitment is extremely low. These decisions are, after all, made by human beings. And people can be, well, people.

In other words, it is also within the realm of possibility that somehow Obama saw something horrific in Uganda (and there is much that is horrific) and it struck him in a very personal way, and he asked his people "OK, what would it take to go take out these evil bastards?" and some general said "Sir, we can send in 100 troops that we hand pick, and we can kill every one of those SOBs" and he asked his advisers "Down side?" and no one came up with anything significant, and he simply said "Take them out."

Not saying that is what happened, just saying as we look for ulterior motivations, there may be cases where there is nothing beneath the surface.

[Lizard_King]

If you can't think of them, and I can't think of them, then there must be some.
Really? Fuck this.


It was; it wasn't intended to be snippy, just matter of fact; I am interested in and more than usually conversant with the relevant history, so if I'm wrong it's a fault of interpretation rather than ignorant naivety.
I think there are a number of points where we are talking past each other, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Jason Townsend]

Really? Fuck this.

Exactly my point. I wasn't dismissing the possibility that they existed any more than you were dismissing the fact that they had to be substantiated. Chill.


I think there are a number of points where we are talking past each other, so I'm going to leave it at that.

As far as I can tell it's mainly just a disagreement about emphasis and interpretation. You don't discount moral motives (or related factors) and I'm quite open to pragmatic interpretations. In the specific case of the LRA deployment it could be anywhere from JeffL's "most straightforward humanitarian" interpretation to a completely pragmatic quid-pro-quo arrangement we'll find out about later. At the moment there just seems to be a reasonable prima facie rationale that is basically humanitarian/regional stability-centric. If there are other considerations - including perhaps more important ones - then we'll find out eventually.

[Rimbo]

So, it would appear that Reddit, Facebook, etc. have all just discovered this guy.

[Mr_PeaCH]

For reals. Yesterday my 15 year old daughter said to me "Dad, have you heard about what's going on with these armies of children in Africa?" and I'm all "Shit yeah, I read Qt3. Child, please."

[Anders Hallin]

So, it would appear that Reddit, Facebook, etc. have all just discovered this guy.
Rimbo, I love you, but you're like a week out of date, we've already had the Kony viral campaign, the backlash-against-Invisible-Children-campaign and the let's-stop-caring-and-go-back-to-watching-The-Voice campaign.

[ShivaX]

Anything that makes teenagers understand the world a little better is probably a good thing.

I mean, I realize that Sara having coffee at Starbucks is SUPER important and all...

[Rimbo]

Rimbo, I love you, but you're like a week out of date, we've already had the Kony viral campaign, the backlash-against-Invisible-Children-campaign and the let's-stop-caring-and-go-back-to-watching-The-Voice campaign.

I figured as much, but when I did a search for "kony site:quartertothree.com" this is the first thread to pop up that wasn't about K0NY.

[Rimbo]

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/africa/2012/03/14/ugandans-react-anger-kony-video

Disapproving Ugandans


People I spoke to anticipated seeing a video that showed the world the terrible atrocities that they had suffered during the conflict, and the ongoing struggles they still face trying to rebuild their lives after two lost decades.

The audience was at first puzzled to see the narrative lead by an American man – Jason Russell – and his young son.

Towards the end of the film, the mood turned more to anger at what many people saw as a foreign, inaccurate account that belittled and commercialised their suffering, as the film promotes Kony bracelets and other fundraising merchandise, with the aim of making Kony infamous.

[Kolonial]

Invisible Children co-founder Jason Russell picked up for public masturbation. Now that's what I call raising awareness.

[Universal Leader]

Carjacking.

[ShivaX]

Neither, he was running around in his underwear in the streets and beats his fists on the ground or something, completely incoherent.

[Roy Ziegler]

Neither, he was running around in his underwear in the streets and beats his fists on the ground or something, completely incoherent.

Nah, he was doing a lot of things. Hitting cars, hitting the ground, and he took off his speedo and was masturbating as well.

Dude went completely insane and/or snorted a shit load of coke.

[ShivaX]

Nah, he was doing a lot of things. Hitting cars, hitting the ground, and he took off his speedo and was masturbating as well.

Dude went completely insane and/or snorted a shit load of coke.

Source? Cause Reuters says otherwise.

[Roy Ziegler]

Source? Cause Reuters says otherwise.

San Fransisco Chronicle (http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/03/16/kony-video-maker-detained-for-public-drunkenness-masturbation/?tsp=1) (they're not the only one)


Invisible Children co-founder Jason Russell, San Diego police say, was caught Thursday night masturbating, vandalizing cars and acting under the influence of alcohol and possibly drugs.

TMZ has a short video up of him completely nude while hitting the ground and what looks like waving his dick at traffic - or something. There's no video of the other stuff, but it doesn't exactly sound like a stretch.

[Omniscia]

Was he even wearing a wristband?

[Jason McCullough]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/) is the most interesting commentary I've seen on the subject.


The White Savior Industrial Complex

[JeffL]

That's a thought provoking article. The links he has in the article are also well worth reading, including this one:

http://www.warscapes.com/reportage/not-click-away-joseph-kony-real-world

[Juan Rayo]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/) is the most interesting commentary I've seen on the subject.

Thanks for posting that, great read.