Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Borders in places like that can be nebulous. Even the local residents tend not to respect them (borders often intersect tribal regions), and terrorists certainly don't respect them.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with official State Department releases detailing a five-year plan for U.S. involvement in a specific country.
Or are you suggesting that the State Department doesn't know one country from the other either?
As I said before, that area of the world is covered by 3rd Special Forces Group, and I get it that their primary mission is to train local forces in conventional and unconventional warfare. Embedding with the local population and training them is the bread and butter of Green Berets (winning hearts and minds). So I don't have a problem with that scope and concept in general.
However, they have absolutely zero business going on wild goose chases for the sake of ego. These guys were out on a previous mission for over 24 hours and had no backup support (another 12 man Green Beret team couldn't join them, and trust me, that would have made a HUGE difference as one US Green Beret is worth more than 20-30 conventional local soldiers in terms of firepower and know how).
I guarantee some local gung ho commander saw faulty intel about a high value target and his ego overcame the safety of his own men. I hope he can sleep well at night.
Also, if you look at the last few Presidents, it doesn’t really matter who is in office, the country is always fighting someone. If you only blame ONE president, (not the others), yeah, you are a political hack and an idiot.
It sounds nice, good luck with that. I doubt it is going to happen anytime soon.
Oh, I do not disagree, maybe if the military had more say in which conflicts THEY have to fight things would change, yes, Not gonna happen. Stuck with it, for now.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with official State Department releases detailing a five-year plan for U.S. involvement in a specific country.
Or are you suggesting that the State Department doesn't know one country from the other either?
Wouldn't surprise me, but still...
I'm suggesting that "ground truth" isn't as neat as you'd like it to be.
Of course, that should be an in-going consideration of which Congress cannot claim ignorance. Anyone in the DoD or State Department could tell them in a five-minute briefing that terrorists operating in Nigeria are moving in from Mali, Chad, and Niger, and must be "followed to their lairs" as necessary with agreement from those governments.
And if they don't like that prospect, then don't go at all...because an ROE that stops US forces at the borders is definitely going to get Americans killed.
"the Department of State and the Department of Defense to develop jointly and submit to Congress a five-year strategy to help Nigeria, members of the Multinational Joint Task Force to Combat Boko Haram, and relevant partners to counter Boko Haram, and to assist Nigeria ..."
Fun fact: Niger and Nigeria are not the same country.
A funner fact, the continuation of a sentence:
"and relevant partners to counter Boko Haram, and to assist Nigeria and its neighbors to address legitimate grievances of vulnerable populations in areas affected by Boko Haram"
Comprehension, good for the body...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.