Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 24 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama: U.S. may take military action to help Americans in South Sudan

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 23, 2013

President Barack Obama told Congress today that he may take further military action to protect Americans in violence-plagued South Sudan.

In a letter to Congress, Obama said that about 46 U.S. troops were deployed Saturday to help evacuate Americans. That's in addition to another 45 troops deployed to reinforce the U.S. Embassy in Juba.

Four U.S. troops were injured in the evacuation mission Saturday when gunfire hit three military planes. All four are in stable condition, the White House said.

Obama is on his annual vacation in Hawaii, but he said in the letter to congressional leaders that he's monitoring the situation. Earlier Sunday, Obama was briefed by advisers on events in South Sudan following a meeting that his national security adviser, Susan Rice, held with national security aides and U.S. personnel still in South Sudan.

"I may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel, and property, including our Embassy, in South Sudan," Obama wrote.

Fighting continued Sunday in South Sudan, where the central government has lost control of the capital of a key oil-producing state. The unrest has raised fears of full-blown civil war.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 24 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
GWakai02 wrote:
4 injured, cut and run.
on December 22,2013 | 11:08AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
No, he better not. He does not know what he is doing and the state run media will just spin it or down play his ineptness.
on December 22,2013 | 11:56AM
eoe wrote:
Excuse me? "I may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel, and property, including our Embassy, in South Sudan." Doesn't sound like cut and run to me. Compare and contrast: "Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." Hmm, who was that again?
on December 22,2013 | 12:16PM
cojef wrote:
Wonder if the National Security Advisor was on leave. Don't think she has any military savvy. She was transferred to this position over the Benghazi debacle.
on December 22,2013 | 11:31AM
eoe wrote:
Oh you said Benghazi... Benghazi ... Benghazi ... Kill the Malaysian Prime Minister!
on December 22,2013 | 12:33PM
Charliegrunt wrote:
That's our problem. Neither did Condaleeza Rice, her predecessor and a bunch of other former National Security Advisers know anything about national security or military operations. 45 and 46 troops are platoon sized units led by lieutenants. It's ridiculous to expect these two small forces to secure the evacuation of US citizens and government employees. Have the Navy's big guns; AF AC-130s, fighters/bombers; and Army and Marine brigade/regimental sized units at the ready with divisions on call to support the evacuation. If you have enough force and fire power, you may not have to use them. If you send in small units piecemeal, you make sacrificial lambs.
on December 23,2013 | 07:44AM
HD36 wrote:
You mean we might take action to protect the oil fields in South Sudan from getting into the hands of the Northern/China backed Sudan that controls the pipleline to China. China is the biggest foreign investor in North and South Sudan. It has turned into a tribal war between the Dinka and the Nuer. Although Sunni, Iran is their biggest ally. Again, like Syria, many behind the scene forces at play, but a simple benign, altruistic reason is given for sending in troops to die.
on December 22,2013 | 11:31AM
aomohoa wrote:
Isn't almost always about oil??
on December 22,2013 | 01:41PM
eoe wrote:
Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrdS8mYtEh4
on December 22,2013 | 12:34PM
eoe wrote:
Sorry, this was supposed to be attached to the Malaysian PM comment above - basically every time I hear the word "benghazi" I think of this scene.
on December 22,2013 | 12:40PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
What are you waiting for, another American to be shot? Do whatever it takes to get our people out, leave the country and let those crazy Sudanese kill each other.
on December 22,2013 | 12:49PM
eoe wrote:
Sorry, can't do that ... there is oil involved.
on December 22,2013 | 01:01PM
what wrote:
Thar ain't no oir in Afghanistan, why da heck is Obama wasting our countree's lives and resources over thar? It's nuttin' but a veilred form of national welfare. Obama likes welfare. It ain't enuff to win wars no more, we gotta rebuild countrees now. I blames Obama.
on December 22,2013 | 01:41PM
HD36 wrote:
There's a gas pipleline being built, that China funded with billions, that runs from Iran, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan, to China. The US is pushing for the Saudi Pipeline, through Afghanistan, where only US dollars can be used to buy the gas, thus preserving the Petro-Dollar system, strengthening our currency, and preventing China from circumventing the system.
on December 22,2013 | 05:54PM
what wrote:
So what are you guys saying? We're in Afghanistan because of Chinese oil interests?
on December 22,2013 | 08:10PM
aomohoa wrote:
Sad but true.
on December 22,2013 | 01:44PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Hold your fire, saywhatyouthink. The Sudanese have been killing each other since Sudan became Sudan. The fact that the southern part separated from Sudan in 2011 and became an independent country called South Sudan changed nothing. Sudanese still are killing each other and both Sudan and South Sudan are very dangerous places. So before you say we should do whatever it takes to get our people out, you have to ask yourself why so many foreigners are in South Sudan. Some are with the US Embassy and certainly deserve protection as a condition of their employment, but I dare say that most are in oil-rich South Sudan because of greed - to get rich quick working in the oil fields. They went there on their own knowing it was a dangerous place, so why should American military lives be put at risk to get them out of harm’s way? No American soldier should take a bullet because of another American’s bad judgment.
on December 22,2013 | 02:26PM
eoe wrote:
What are you talking about? That is what the military is there for - outsourcing risk and providing cannon fodder for our big oil companies and corporations.
on December 22,2013 | 04:28PM
HD36 wrote:
If other countries could buy oil without using the dollar, they wouldn't have any use for it. Although the dollar isn't backed by gold anymore, it's backed by the strongest military in the world, as long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. OPEC is our greatest ally, hence the war in Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria.
on December 22,2013 | 06:45PM
Ronin006 wrote:
So you think it is ok for Americans to enter foreign countries where civil wars are raging and then send in American troops to rescue them when they get caught up in the fighting? I don't. The State Department has long warned Americans not to travel to South Sudan because of the dangers involved. Those who ignore the warnings and enter the country knowing the dangers should have no expectation of being rescued by American troops when the bullets start whizzing by their heads. The military exists to defend the country against enemies and not to rescue every American who makes a dumb decision anywhere in the world.
on December 22,2013 | 07:54PM
eoe wrote:
I don't either, I'm just saying what happens. Look at this story. We are there to "rescue Americans caught in the fighting" but zero mention is made of why those Americans are there.
on December 22,2013 | 08:44PM
entrkn wrote:
on December 22,2013 | 01:28PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
on December 22,2013 | 02:08PM
serious wrote:
When I was in VN, I flew the Stinger, AC-119K, the Spooky was the AC-119, and the AC-130 was Spectre. In any event great firepower. But I flew in the Congo Airlift in 1959 to evacuate massive amounts of people being slaughtered--no traffic control, small arms fire, etc. Today I am sure they have air to ground missiles so it's not an easy task. Better, a division of Marines in tanks and heavy armament and fire power.
on December 23,2013 | 06:20AM
Breaking News