Reuters: Uganda Rebels kill nearly 200 in raid

[undergroundrailroad]

22 Feb 2004 16:00

Uganda rebels kill nearly 200 in raid 

By Paul Busharizi

KAMPALA (Reuters) - Ugandan rebels shot and burnt to death 192 people in a camp for displaced civilians in their bloodiest attack in years, a local official said on Sunday.

The killings by guerrillas of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a group based in lawless areas of neighbouring southern Sudan, cast fresh doubt on repeated recent assertions by the Ugandan government that its army is about to defeat the LRA.

The chief administration officer of northern Lira district, Daniel Odwedo, said authorities had counted 192 bodies following the attack on Ogur camp, making it one of the worst killings in the LRA's 17-year-old insurgency.

"They have counted 192. I'm here at the hospital in Lira and this is the toll we have received," Odwedo told Reuters from the district's capital, which bears the same name.

---

[Dudley_DUright]

1. That is horrible

I don't hold out much hope that the Bush administration will try to do anything about it unfortunately. Clinton himself admits that one of the big stains on his legacy was (no not Monica) letting the Rwanda situation spiral out of control.

[no one in particular]

2. LRA

The LRA wants to build a government based on the ten commandments.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm

[hang a left]

3. They should try following that do not kill one.

n/t

[PsychoDad]

9. Agreed.. eom

[Sufi Marmot]

4. The LRA is a gruesome death cult that victimizes children...

From your GlobalSecurity link:

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOâs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially.

I would argue that this would be a good case for international intervention...

-SM

[I AM SPARTACUS]

5. Hmm. What sort of international intervention did you have in mind?

...that's an opening for discussion, NOT a challenge...I have a bit of rather direct experience in the issue...

[Sufi Marmot]

6. Excellent question...

Unfortunately right now there isn't an effectice vehicle for preventing atrocities - I guess that for the present maybe a multinational NATO or UN force - since Uganda used to be a British colony maybe they could do a lot of the heavy lifting if the Ugandan government was amenable. I have no illusions that the US would be sending any troops there...

Your question raises a bigger issue, which is that there probably ought to be a UN-sponsored rapid intervention force that could swoop in and stabilize humanitarian crises: ethnic cleansing, atrocities, etc. Not simply UN Peacekeepers, but a well-disciplined, well-armed, well-paid professional force comprised of multinationals, under an unambigous command structure. A force with the ability to take control of an area, disarm combatants, and restore order so that humanitarian aid can be distributed safely. A force that will use sufficient firepower to eliminate hostile combatants if they did not willingly disarm. I guess this would end up being a force of UN-led "civilized mercenaries", if there is such a thing, but my point is that they would have to be professional and restrained enough to obey orders, not commit war crimes, and not brutalize the locals.

Yeah, I know - this raises a ton of sticky political issues - whether to intervene without the permission of a country's government, how long to stay, what critera would merit intervention, etc. I would argue that it should be used sparingly, probably only where there are serious human rights violations occuring, rather than just taking sides in a "normal" civil war. In the case of Uganda, I don't know if the present government would be amenable to such a force, although a priori I would think they would be happy to get rid of the LRA. And obviously, such a force would leave after their objectives had been accomplished, and they could adequately be replaced by regular army troops from the "host" nation. At any rate, I think it would be a better solution in Uganda than plying the government with a bunch of military hardware/weapons, which they would likely to use to cause problems for their neighbors.

My current feeling is that there are times when humanitarian concerns trump political or diplomatic nicities, particularly when the ruling government or rebel groups are committing atrocities against civilians to achieve their political aims. Rwanda/Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Congo, Columbia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. - I'm sure you could add others to the list.

Given today's political realities, I suspect this will never come to fruition - too many countries with their own agendas (including our own...), but I often wonder if 5000 troops armed with automatic weapons could have saved 750,000 Tutsis from being hacked to death with machetes...

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the issue.

Cordially

-SM

[I AM SPARTACUS]

7. a compliment on your considered reply...

...you express a solid idea, along with a serious caveat on its practical application.

(friendly, conversational voice, so we don't have to be all academic or something...)

I'll start with the Rwanda reference. No, I don't think that 5000 troops would have prevented that particular genocide, unless they were mandated to replace the Rwandan government or otherwise force the government to change its policy of initiating and promoting the genocide.

For me, humanitarian concerns trump just about anything. Now, that said, yes, I do live in the real world, and spend big chunks of time living in the starkly real world of humanitarian assistance. As such, I tend to look at political and diplomatic niceties as tools to be used or judiciously ignored in achieving humanitarian outcomes.

Now, I have to stress - many?most?all? of these situations are incredibly complex environments. At least the ones I've seen are. Uganda is an excellent example - there's actually three wars in the North: gov't vs. LRA; gov't vs. Acoli people; LRA vs. Acoli people. The history of Acoliland, the current regime, the military, various ever-changing agenda and alliances, economic interests, mirrors in and with neighboring countries, the agenda of the international community, all real-life gordian complexity to account while one gets to figuring out what the LRA might want. Which in itself, is a question that leads to many more: what does the LRA want; are they one or two or several factions; was a particular incident perpetrated by true LRA, or bandits, or gov't troops? Displaced camps - forced migration and set-up as targets? Actually, in spite of the occassional(?) presence of "advisers", I think the US, UK, and Russia are/were at least marginally trying to avoid arming-up Uganda (in large part for the reason you already identified). Meanwhile, someone's arming the LRA. Aside: that just scratches the surface of the LOCAL complexity - how many decisions made in boardrooms half-a-world-away...

Horribly, starvation, displacement, disease - these are weapons, and they are used consciously.

It could prove advantageous for there to be an entity such as you describe. But - and I mean this most friendly - you've sorta described the Jedi Knights. It'd be great if they came with that neat hand-wave trick, leaving the wicked somewhat dazed and mumbling that they "have to go home and rethink (their) lives". And I suspect that the Jedi hand-wave trick would in each situation, be required simulataneously in various parts of the globe to solve any one "complex emergency". Sadly, I don't think humans are up to it. Let's you and I make an agreement - if either of us finds a genie in a bottle, that'll be one of our three wishes...we toast on it...(clink!)

In the interim, we have the vastly underwhelming marginal-and-temporal effect of an armed force standing between two opposing armed forces. Even if fielded with the best of intentions and preparation, that proposition seems doomed to frequent failure and a generous side of unintended consequences.

Hmmm. The same could be said of the humanitarian impulse at large - SEEMS doomed...but the promise, the impact of even marginal success...those are PEOPLE out there.

[Sufi Marmot]

10. Thanks for your comments...

You obviously have a lot more first hand experience and knowledge, than I, a casual observer, do. Much for me to think about...

I'll start with the Rwanda reference. No, I don't think that 5000 troops would have prevented that particular genocide, unless they were mandated to replace the Rwandan government or otherwise force the government to change its policy of initiating and promoting the genocide In my naive and highly-idealized best case scenario, I had envisioned a force coming in as soon as it became clear that the Hutus were using the local media to incite ethnic violence. Obviously not all the deaths could have been prevented, but if they had shut down the radio stations and imposed a strict curfew/martial law (backed up with a willingness to use automatic weapons, if necessary) then I wonder if the casualties couldn't have been drastically reduced. Just enough overwhelming force to deter marauding Hutu gangs from hacking their Tutsi neighbors to bits. But upon further reflection I admit this would probably require a lot more than 5000 troops.

I once saw film footage from a documentary shot DURING the violence as the Belgians/UN troops (I forget which), were evacuating - there was footage of a bunch of terrified and completely unarmed Tutsis cowering in the bushes near a church/school compound - they knew what was going on and feared for their lives. They were begging the soliders to leave them weapons - anything with which to fight back. Of course this didn't happen and they were all found massacred in the church - hacked to death. I can't help but wonder how even ONE automatic weapon and a small amount of ammo might have altered that ghastly outcome.

Regarding your comments on the LRA - although I didn't know it was the case in Uganda specifically, I realize that many such conflicts are multipartite, and terribly complex at the local level: multiple ethinic groups, religions, rebel factions, etc, all vying for control. Again, my naive optimism wonders whether a blanket intervention in such areas couldn't be the stick that forces opposing factions to the bargaining table once the chaos is stabilized a bit. A very big stick: 'You can disarm now and enter into negotiations or you can keep fighting and we'll eventually eradicate you, and maybe whoever's left after we get through will be a bit more sensible.' This would also be a good opportunity to twist the arm of the ruling government to address the grievances of their opposition, if they're reasonable. I know, it sounds good on paper, but in the real world it's probably not going to happen.

A few specific comments:

The history of Acoliland, the current regime, the military, various ever-changing agenda and alliances, economic interests, mirrors in and with neighboring countries, the agenda of the international community, all real-life gordian complexity to account while one gets to figuring out what the LRA might want. Which in itself, is a question that leads to many more: what does the LRA want; are they one or two or several factions; was a particular incident perpetrated by true LRA, or bandits, or gov't troops? Displaced camps - forced migration and set-up as targets? I definitely agree that the approach I'm describing is fraught with peril and uncertainty - in the absence of good intelligence (preferably from ostensibly unbiased observers such as NGOs) it would be very easy to make a mistake: to blame the wrong faction, to be tricked into using force against those who are innocent, etc.

Specifically regarding the LRA - based on what I've read about them in the media, I'm disinclined to worry too much about what they want. Call me callous or impatient, but when a group kidnaps impoverished children, brutalizes them, forces them to kill, I feel that their political goals are irrelevant and they should be liquidated. In my eyes, such people, having committed those atrocities, forfeit their right to have their political agenda addressed by peaceful means. Or in other words, the position of the UN in such cases should not be: "Please stop hacking off people's limbs (cf. Sierra Leone), and come to the bargaining table...", but rather "Hacking off people's limbs is going to bring about the quick and brutal end of your insurrection." Again, good intel is the key here - we all know that ruling governments brutalize their own populations and then blame it on the rebels (and vice versa..) Sigh...

Meanwhile, someone's arming the LRA. Yeah, curbing the international weapons trade is another Sisyphesian task...

Let's you and I make an agreement - if either of us finds a genie in a bottle, that'll be one of our three wishes...we toast on it...(clink!) I will definitely drink to that...

Cordially,
-SM

[I AM SPARTACUS]

8. sorry, accidentally double-posted