American Troops in the Congo About to be a Reality?

Just 5 days ago we reported on the prospect of Obama sending American troops to intervene in the Congo. Yesterday, the Economist echoed what many are asking Obama to implement as his policy in the African region:

As for Mr Obama, he has a chance to restore America’s moral leadership. That is not something he should do by scouring the world in search of new monsters to slay. Nor, though, can a war-weary America turn its back on people threatened by ethnic cleansing or genocide. Since 2005 the UN has accepted a responsibility to protect people in such cases, so this is not a burden for America alone. But since the UN has no army, and no other countries have the military resources America boasts, there may be times when only the superpower can move soldiers swiftly where they are needed.

Should that call come, Mr Obama will need the courage to respond, notwithstanding Americans’ fatigue. In extremis, if the danger is great and veto-wielding members of the Security Council block the way, he and others might have to act without the Security Council’s blessing, as NATO did in Kosovo. Far better would be an early effort by Mr Obama to reach agreement on the rules to apply and forces to earmark so that the UN can actually exercise its collective responsibility to protect. That will be hard, but Mr Bush was actively hostile to such work. How fitting if the next president made possible a genuinely global response to the next Rwanda, Congo or Darfur.

And so, that is the demand that many will be making upon Obama. But would he be willing to send American troops to fight in the Congo? The answer is yes. Based on what we reported last week:

What has Obama said of American troop involvement in African conflicts?

ABC's Diane Sawyer asked Obama Jr., on Jan. 3, about his appeal to the people of Kenya and "particularly to President Kibaki of the Kikuyu tribe" to do something to stop the violence.

"If you were the president, at this moment," Sawyer asked, "would you do more. Would you send in troops to stop that violence?"

"Well, I don't think we're at that stage yet. Obviously, at this point, we're monitoring the situation," Obama Jr. answered.

American conservatives already suspect that Obama Jr's much proclaimed opposition to America's war against Muslim terrorist in Iraq is more about his Muslim heritage than peace. Obama Jr's "I don't think we're at that stage yet" answer to Sawyer stirred immediate reaction from a former U.S. Congressman who saw the Sawyer interview. "Yet"? We all know what that means. If elected, at what stage will Barack Obama be willing to send American servicemen and women into the Kenyan meat grinder."

Never mind we're discussing the Congo. The above comments show that despite the wisdom of every president before him, Obama believes there is a tipping point in African conflicts at which the shedding of American blood is acceptable. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no national interest in any of the war-torn countries, Obama has shown that he is at least willing to consider the idea of commiting American troops in battle on the dark continent.

During a 2006 Kenya visit, Obama Jr. was asked if he sees himself as a Kenyan-American. He answered, "I'm an American and proud of it, and I'm also an African-American, which means I share a bond of struggle but also joy with people of African descent everywhere."

Obama Jr made a point of saying his heritage in Africa and Asia would shape his presidency, giving him special insight and impact on "the next hot spots" around the globe. Obama Jr. told the people of Kenya that he wanted everyone in America to know about their troubles and promised to push for the United States to help.

In addition to perhaps wanting to send troops to Africa to help his motherland, would Obama send troops to Africa to aid one of his biggest supporters. Warren Buffet?

But why would Buffet want Obama to send troops to Africa? The answer? UNICEF. Warren Buffet is tied to UNICEF as the director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which recently gave a large sum of money to the US Fund for UNICEF. And as fate would have it, UNICEF is currently trying to distribute aid in the Congo. And things are not going so well in that regard.

A fragile ceasefire is falling apart in North Kivu province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, further deepening an already catastrophic humanitarian situation. Over the last two days, fighting between rebels and government troops and their allies has forced thousands more to flee.

“This illustrates just how on edge the population is,” said UNICEF Communications Specialist Jaya Murthy in Goma. “These people have fled several times. Today could have been their fifth or sixth time.”

UNICEF was in Kibati camp administering an emergency measles vaccination programme for 13,000 children when the exodus began. The vaccination program is now on hold.

“We just don’t know what’s going to happen, never mind from day to day but from hour to hour,” said Mr. Murthy.

Warren Buffet has been one of Obama's most noteworthy supporters. He has endorsed Obama. He has donated to Obama's campaign. Last summer, he even booked himself for two $28,500 Obama fund-raisers in Chicago. In addition, Obama has already mentioned that Buffet may serve as his Treasury Secretary. Further, Buffet has been considering business investments in South Africa. Investments that would benefit from a stable Africa.

It can be openly speculated that Warren Buffet will demand repayment for supporting Obama by having the US Military send troops to Africa to control rebels so that UNICEF workers can provide aid. Clearly the two share the same sympathies when it comes to assisting Africans in need. And Buffet is above all, an investor. And he is on record as considering investing in South Africa. Investments that would not be prudent on an unstable continent. This speculation would move that much closer to reality if Buffet is indeed named as Treasury Secretary. Buffet already has Obama's wallet. Such an appointment would give him Obama's ear as well.

So is it beyond imagination to think that Obama would embroil American troops in an African conflict? Not at all. Consider Joe Biden's comments when calling for the immediate deployment of a peacekeeping mission to Darfur.

“The U.S. and the international community must deploy a multilateral peacekeeping force as soon as possible. This force must be sufficient in size and equipment and have the mandate – and the means – to protect the people of Darfur. Peace in Darfur requires a global response. The U.S. can and will play a major role, but so must the United Nations and the African Union.”

Not only is the possibility of Obama deploying American troops in an African conflict a possibility, if we believe Joe Biden, it's a guarantee.