The death of American soldiers in Niger, starts a debate about a military Engagement of the post-Vietnam

in the vicinity

Pentagon officials brief lawmakers on Niger attack

Defense officials hold closed-door briefings to deadly ambush that killed four American troops and the national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports.

The United States found itself involved in a long, sectarian, and military conflict overseas.

An excess of controversial incidents, besieged the U.S. military and is mistaken for official Washington, what to do. A leader in the National security Council argued that the local fighters were, the improvement of their military capabilities. As a result, could cede to the United States, more power to you.

In other words, the war needed to be engineered to “de-America.” Instead of the defence Minister chose a different term: “Vietnamization.”

The above scenario is obviously not about the four U.S. soldiers killed earlier this month in Niger. It is not about President Trump the decision in August to maintain the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and to strengthen the troop levels there.

But what the US is doing in Niger and Chad and Mali, and Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Djibouti and Turkey, and Yemen as well as Jordan and Uganda, and Cameroon, and South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic and in Somalia and in Kosovo as well as in Cuba and in parts of Syria …certainly echoes the Minister of defense Melvin Laird, President Richard Nixon, the United States should Asia “Vietnamize” the battle in South-East-told.

That would be a shift mean. Laird claims that “Vietnamization” characterizes correctly the US commitment to the future. After the United States do not want an open-ended commitment in Vietnam. Many in Washington wanted to as quickly as possible.

Things certainly won’t work in this way. The United States will find itself paralyzed in Vietnam for years. As a result, the “Vietnam syndrome” in the public and the nation’s political leaders. The Americans were reluctant to engage in overseas.

In a speech to the veterans of Foreign wars, President Ronald Reagan said that the United States lived with the Vietnam syndrome “too long.” As a result, Reagan said, the Americans “said that peace would come if we would just stop, disrupt and go home.” Reagan declared: “we honor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died, in that, if we give way to feelings of guilt, as if we were doing something shameful.”

Reagan said, the VFW-that was the “lesson for all of us to Vietnam. If we are forced to fight, we will win the Central and the determination, or we will not have what it takes to secure the peace.”

Two months ago, Trump’s the case, “Afghanize to” the fight. The President said that Afghan forces would carry the “main burden” in this fight. He also spoke of the thousands of U.S. troops who “fought and died in Afghanistan.” Trump suggested the U.S. needs to remain secure committed in Afghanistan”, the cause for which they gave their lives.”

Vietnam was a seminal period in the American experience. It is, of course, to draw Parallels between Vietnam and other protracted military engagement. The United States has now been in Afghanistan since shortly after 9/11.

How long will the US stay? Ironically, military analysts now believe Vietnam is the model that should look like with people, the discussion about Afghanistan. Make a note of how long the United States Peninsula remained on the Korean.

This is ironic. Consider the fact that the 60-plus-year-old US presence there did not inhibit the possibility of the US facing off with North Korea in a nuclear war. These opportunities are now as high as never before.

In June, the President shall submit to the Congress a report, in the all the places that the US military was not involved (most are listed above), information about implementations and justifications for the operations. Most of these missives from the administration to Congress, included a key sentence.

The letter that the member States keep the information that the President sends to Capitol Hill is “consistent with the war powers resolution, as part of my efforts to the Congress informed about deployments of the U.S. armed forces equipped for combat.”

Note: it States, “in accordance with” the resolution. The letter is not “in accordance with.” No government of the two parties has really confirmed the resolution since its adoption in 1974.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution names the President the commander-in-chief. Congress created the resolution as to restrain an additional check on the President, his war-making authority. This effort backfired, as the Congress accidentally assigned the larger room of the President.

So short of declared war, somewhere, President just Congress a note at regular intervals, what the USA do, where. Constitutional? Unclear. “Compliance” with the war Powers Resolution? Not really. “In accordance with” the resolution? You Bet.

This brings us to Niger.

The US think in the “war” in Niger? Why there are four dead Americans and what they did there?

Trump June letter to spell them all out. The President told the legislators that “the United States military personnel in the Lake Chad Basin will continue to offer a variety of support to the African partners in the implementation of the Anti-terrorist operations in the region. In Niger, there are about 645 U.S. military soldiers, in support of these missions.

In Cameroon, for example, 300 US servicemen are also provided, the majority of which is the support of the United States airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations in the region. These forces are equipped with weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security, and stay in Cameroon, with the consent of the government of Cameroon, until their support is no longer needed.”

Time to “Vietnamize” the effort?

“The operation has led us to begin to look again at whether the protection of the force in Niger,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat in the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We have to re-evaluate what we are doing.”

Few Americans even knew the USA was involved in Niger. Sen Rand Paul, Kentucky, controlled fellow GOP sen. Lindsey Graham on Twitter after South Carolina senator NBC said he was fully aware of US military operations there.

“You know, you are in too many wars in too many places, if war can not keep the drivers Lindsay Graham trace,” Paul tweeted.

This is the reason why sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has long argued that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations Congress approved for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are calcified. He pushed for a retrenched permission for the use of Military force (AUMF) for years.

“We have to deal with in Niger, a ISIS threat,” Kaine said. “It is time for Congress to finally get back to full power, which is severely outdated and have a debate on the full view of the American public about all the different countries where we are engaged in military action now.”

Legislators of both parties have flirted with such a proposal for several years. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., shall convene a hearing on Monday on a possible new AUMF with the Secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and the Minister of defence, James Mattis.

“Maybe it’s more important than ever that we said a sober national conversation about the Congress’s Constitutional role in authorizing the use of military force,” Corker.

The Congress was it was in the dark a few weeks ago about what, in Niger and requested further information from the Pentagon. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., summons of the military threatened to you were less than forthcoming about Niger.

The Mattis prompted to pay McCain a free phone call in his office. When asked in the hall, when he urged Capitol Hill, because McCain the subpoena warning, Mattis stopped in his tracks in a corridor of the Russell Senate Office Building.

“Are you kidding me?” an incredulous Mattis replied.

The Minister of defence, to speak as a dare with Graham. After that Conclave, Graham offered perhaps the most sober assessment about the U.S. involvement in overseas and also, perhaps, why the Congress is on a new AUMF.

“This war is getting hotter in places where it was cool,” he said of the broader war against terrorism.

“The war begins to morph,” Graham said, noting that it would be more “not less” –operations like the one in Niger.

Thus, the United States-in Niger and Mali, and Cameroon and Chad and the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a variety of other places that have only heard a few Americans ever say anything about Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The perfect solution to the “Vietnamization” of these conflicts would be Laird, as proposed, so long ago from the Minister of defense, Melvin. But with the US now in the duty, all over the globe, it’s happened quite clearly the opposite. These fights are now “Americanized.”


Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular