Army sends troops to South Sudan, gear to African Union….Thoughts?

<p>Good question, MAJ Jason B.: I've been to South Sudan doing "things" professionally from time to time (all I care to say on that). Our military people there now are supposed to be doing a NEO (noncombatant evacuation order). That's just fine! It's their job. </p><p><br></p><p>Our main national interest in South Sudan is mostly to counter intense Chinese interests in what is a LOT of mineral wealth, and to contain Islamic instability from Sudan out of Khartoum.</p><p><br></p><p>The US military isn't ready and never has really been ready for conventional&nbsp;military operations in Africa.&nbsp;There is a small, VERY small, group of US military trained for that&nbsp;region. What's more,&nbsp;senior leadership has no idea how to effectively conduct&nbsp;operations in Africa, so they often botch it unless they listen to that very small group of people who know what they are doing.&nbsp;With deference&nbsp;and no offense meant&nbsp;to AFRICOM, that includes them.&nbsp;</p><p><br></p><p>Hopefully, our government will be prudent enough to evacuate our civilian folks and any military associated with AFRICOM; and then leave the mess to the professionals until it's safe enough to bring back a hardened core of Embassy staff. South Sudan is not worth a fight.</p>

<p>Sudan has oil and other mineral resources.</p><p><br></p><p>We established AFRICOM for a reason.&nbsp; I hope I am wrong on this, but I foresee a "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident happening in the near future which will suck us into that area on a larger scale.&nbsp; Africa has historically been carved-up by Western powers for their own purposes, causing much of the strife we have been seeing for decades.</p><p><br></p><p>Again, I hope I am wrong on this.</p>

South Sudan? &nbsp;What is our vital national strategic interest in South Sudan? &nbsp;What is the justification for the financial costs and the potential loss of American Soldiers in that place?