How a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign in DRC was made worse by trump's "America First" policies and the world's neglect

[phands]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7xq45a/a-slaughter-in-silence-democratic-republic-of-the-congo

This is a long and graphically horrific article...I was moved to tears. Once again, trumpo is a piece of inhuman garbage...and religion makes it worse, as always...

BUNIA, Democratic Republic of Congo — It’s the evening before Easter when I meet them outside the Mudzi Maria Health Center. The sky is shifting from ochre to lavender and a choir’s voices soar from the nearby Catholic cathedral. For roughly the next half hour, the faithful offer up the triple chant of “Alleluia, a-llelu-ya, a-leh-heh-luuu-uuu-yah” — ancient argot for “Praise the Lord.”


Across from me sit three generations of women. Jesinne Dhewedza is the oldest, and like many in the region from her generation, she has no idea how old she actually is. Dhewedza doesn’t — maybe can’t — say what the men with machetes who fell upon her village late one night did to her, but her wizened hands tell part of the story. Two weeks ago, she had 10 fingers. Now she has six.


Praise the Lord.


Irene Mave is the youngest of the three. She’s wearing a striped polo shirt, a striped skirt, and an almost vacant stare. She knows how old she is. Before the attack, she could have held up six fingers, one for each year of her life in Logo Takpa, a farming village where the roofs are made of thatch. She can’t do that anymore. Two weeks ago, the men with machetes took her right arm.


Praise the Lord.


The third woman is Marie Dz’dza, Dhewedza’s daughter and Irene Mave’s aunt. Her hair is close-cropped, her frame slender and willowy. Plastic rosary beads the color of a robin’s egg hang around her neck. Two weeks ago, she had five children. Now, because of the men with machetes, she has four. Two weeks ago, she was a farmer, coaxing food from the soil. She harvested manioc with her two calloused hands. The men with machetes took those, too.


Praise the Lord.

Read it all if you have the intestinal fortitude.

 

[phands]

No one else feel sick?

Or has trump world inured us to such depravity?

 

[ZiprHead]

I read the first chapter. Yes, it sounds terrible. Not seeing how Bonespurs is tied into it. Perhaps you could post the pertinent text?

 

[repoman]

Sorry to interrupt, but finally a solid, not over the top and not subject to hand waving away insult to Trump. Bonespurs. Good one, he earned it. Bring more of this and not FFvC and so on.

 

[phands]

I read the first chapter. Yes, it sounds terrible. Not seeing how Bonespurs is tied into it. Perhaps you could post the pertinent text?

Here's a snippet from Chapter 1.....Bold is mine....

What happened in the far east of the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this year was a slaughter in silence. The wave of massacres was ignored by the world, and the humanitarian crisis that followed was amplified by international neglect. The Trump administration’s “America First” agenda played no small part in this disaster; an abrupt change to U.S. support for peacekeeping efforts in 2017 contributed to the constellation of catastrophes that enabled hundreds of machete-wielding militiamen to kill with impunity and cause immense suffering to hundreds of thousands of women, children and men.

The massacres and the mass exodus from rural Djugu barely registered outside the region. There were no tense debates about it on the United Nations’ General Assembly floor, no stern warnings from the White House, no drumbeat of stories leading the nightly network broadcasts or breathless debate on the 24-hour cable news outlets.

Any sane White House would have condemned this from the rooftops...the orange terrorist probably approves.

 

[barbos]

It's been that way forever and nobody could do anything. You now expect Trump to do something? seriously?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what you are saying is that the US should send troops all over the world as the global police officer?

 

[phands]

So what you are saying is that the US should send troops all over the world as the global police officer?

That's NOT what I said, even though the US has been happy to do that for a very long time...as long as there was oil or gas or <insert raison-du-jour> to "justify" it. What if the US was just to have the common decency to lead in Condemnation and support the UN and others who are actually there?

I expect the orange terrorist to do precisely nothing...or if he does intervene, it will make things worse.

 

[bilby]

From the article:

In 2017, Nikki Haley, President Trump’s new ambassador to the U.N., pushed for and won major reductions in funding for peacekeeping troops, including MONUSCO. Afterward, Haley hailed the cuts as a harbinger of what to expect from the new administration. “We have an obligation to the American people to show value in the use of their taxpayer dollars,” she said. “Just five months into our time here, we’ve already been able to cut over half a billion dollars from the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and we’re only getting started.” VICE News repeatedly reached out to Haley’s office for comment; ultimately a spokesperson said, “We don’t have anything additional to add to her public remarks.”
...
Long before the effects were felt in Ituri, a 2017 report published by the International Peace Institute warned that Haley’s gambit “tipped perilously toward cost-cutting as an end in itself, rather than reflecting a clear vision for a more effective mission, or a more peaceful DRC.” An even more detailed report by the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), published in January, warned there might be “significant gaps in protection for civilians in conflict-affected areas.”

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what you are saying is that the US should send troops all over the world as the global police officer?

That's NOT what I said, even though the US has been happy to do that for a very long time...as long as there was oil or gas or <insert raison-du-jour> to "justify" it. What if the US was just to have the common decency to lead in Condemnation and support the UN and others who are actually there?

Actually, when the UN sends troops, it is usually US troops, with a couple of advisors from a couple of other countries to "make" this an "international" task force.

Asking the UN to send troops usually means asking the US to send troops.

If all you're asking for is a condemnation, to say "that is bad", okay. It doesn't actually do anything, but then I'm not in favor of US troops outside the US so I'm okay with not actually doing anything.

 

[bilby]

So what you are saying is that the US should send troops all over the world as the global police officer?

That's NOT what I said, even though the US has been happy to do that for a very long time...as long as there was oil or gas or <insert raison-du-jour> to "justify" it. What if the US was just to have the common decency to lead in Condemnation and support the UN and others who are actually there?

Actually, when the UN sends troops, it is usually US troops, with a couple of advisors from a couple of other countries to "make" this an "international" task force.

Asking the UN to send troops usually means asking the US to send troops.

If all you're asking for is a condemnation, to say "that is bad", okay. It doesn't actually do anything, but then I'm not in favor of US troops outside the US so I'm okay with not actually doing anything.

Your assumptions are contradicted by the facts:

As of December 2016, the largest Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) are India (3,679) and Pakistan (3,481). The next largest group of contributing countries are: Bangladesh (1,905); South Africa (1,359); Tanzania (1,265); Nepal (1,048), and Uruguay (1,160).
...
The US contributes three soldiers to the mission. There are only 727 women in the MONUSCO mission, or 3.8%, compared to 4.3% across all UN peace missions.

My bold. (source[pdf] pp 4-5).

That's three out of 18,753 uniformed personnel, made up of 16,957 troops, 446 military observers, and 1,350 police.

 

[phands]

So what you are saying is that the US should send troops all over the world as the global police officer?

That's NOT what I said, even though the US has been happy to do that for a very long time...as long as there was oil or gas or <insert raison-du-jour> to "justify" it. What if the US was just to have the common decency to lead in Condemnation and support the UN and others who are actually there?

Actually, when the UN sends troops, it is usually US troops, with a couple of advisors from a couple of other countries to "make" this an "international" task force.

Asking the UN to send troops usually means asking the US to send troops.

If all you're asking for is a condemnation, to say "that is bad", okay. It doesn't actually do anything, but then I'm not in favor of US troops outside the US so I'm okay with not actually doing anything.

I'm asking (vainly, under this foul administration) for the US to display some leadership, as it used to do.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, when the UN sends troops, it is usually US troops, with a couple of advisors from a couple of other countries to "make" this an "international" task force.

Asking the UN to send troops usually means asking the US to send troops.

If all you're asking for is a condemnation, to say "that is bad", okay. It doesn't actually do anything, but then I'm not in favor of US troops outside the US so I'm okay with not actually doing anything.

Your assumptions are contradicted by the facts:

As of December 2016, the largest Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) are India (3,679) and Pakistan (3,481). The next largest group of contributing countries are: Bangladesh (1,905); South Africa (1,359); Tanzania (1,265); Nepal (1,048), and Uruguay (1,160).
...
The US contributes three soldiers to the mission. There are only 727 women in the MONUSCO mission, or 3.8%, compared to 4.3% across all UN peace missions.

My bold. (source[pdf] pp 4-5).

That's three out of 18,753 uniformed personnel, made up of 16,957 troops, 446 military observers, and 1,350 police.

What you've established is that this particular mission doesn't include US troops. That makes this mission unusual, and the lack of US involvement is part of phands' complaint against the US.

He wants more US involvement, but when I pointed out that meant the US continuing the role of world policeman he backtracked from that.

 

[bilby]

Your assumptions are contradicted by the facts:

My bold. ([URL="http://pksoi.armywarcollege.edu/default/assets/File/(170331)%20Peacekeeping%20and%20Stability%20Operations%20Institute%20MONUSCO%20(DRC)%20Estimate.pdf"]source

[pdf] pp 4-5).

That's three out of 18,753 uniformed personnel, made up of 16,957 troops, 446 military observers, and 1,350 police.

What you've established is that this particular mission doesn't include US troops. That makes this mission unusual, and the lack of US involvement is part of phands' complaint against the US.

He wants more US involvement, but when I pointed out that meant the US continuing the role of world policeman he backtracked from that.

The topic is DRC, so it's certainly on topic to discuss only that particular mission.

But if you prefer to look at the general case, you are STILL wrong.

As at August 2016, the US ranked 73rd of the 123 nations providing troops to the UN; US personnel accounted for 68 of the 100,950 UN uniformed forces. (source)[/URL]

So the MONUSCO force has indeed got rather fewer US troops than is typical for a UN force of its size; three soldiers, rather than the twelve or thirteen you might expect to see in a force force of nearly 19,000.

Still, your claim

Actually, when the UN sends troops, it is usually US troops, with a couple of advisors from a couple of other countries to "make" this an "international" task force.

Asking the UN to send troops usually means asking the US to send troops.

is very clearly untrue.

Basing your smug indifference to this horrific but distant situation on this counterfactual belief is no doubt more comfortable than accepting that US assistance would not entail putting US servicemen at risk. But it's a comfort that is founded in a lie.

Facts exist. You can't just make up new ones that suit your agenda.

 

[bilby]

As at August 2016, the US ranked 73rd of the 123 nations providing troops to the UN; US personnel accounted for 68 of the 100,950 UN uniformed forces. (source)

Sorry, I stuffed up the [URL] tag for my source link in the above; The source for these data is: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/aug16_2.pdf

"US troops plus a couple of advisors" cannot possibly be an accurate description of any UN force in excess of ~70 uniformed personnel.

 

[Underseer]

Isn't it amazing that the libertarians who complain the most bitterly about any comparison between conservatives and libertarians are the ones leaping to the defense of the Trump administration for purely partisan reasons?

Methinks thou dost protests too much.