I'm not sure what bothers me most: the naivete of positing assassination as a straightforward solution to the problem or the fact that she talks like a local newscaster. Too bad!

Quoting Baltimoron: ~4 minutes: I have to chuckle at the naivete of liberal internationalists like Spiegel who firstly call for "surgical force", and then moan when the application of force is "messy".

Disagree. There is a difference between, say, carpet-bombing an area where you guess someone might be, and having real intelligence and rapid response squads that can get to a precise location quickly. The latter is far more expensive, admittedly.

How is her advocacy of force any different from the bad use of force and other bad policies that led to the creation of LRA? This is a vicious cycle fueled by "good" intentions.

Sometimes you have to stop trying to balance everything from the first tick of history and deal with the here and now. To the degree that I understand it, the LRA are unarguably bad guys, and moreover, do not seem to respond to anything besides the use of force. I think you're straying into a false equivalence, here.

Quoting Ray: ... the fact that she talks like a local newscaster.

I wouldn't go that far, but for what it's worth, Julia, your answers did sound a little rehearsed to me, too. I expect you've heard lots of these questions many times before, and so that's understandable. It is, however, something to think about, since it does tend to weaken your effectiveness. My memory of your last appearance was that your answers were more compelling.

No one cares about Africa. Evidence: the paucity of comments on these types of diavlogs. No matter how many people are butchered in the latest African strongman war, the world turns its attention (by at least three orders of magnitude) to the Israel-Gaza conflict, which by body count over the years has seen far fewer people die than in the various African wars.

Quoting InJapan: No one cares about Africa.

Evidence: the paucity of comments on these types of diavlogs.

No matter how many people are butchered in the latest African strongman war, the world turns its attention (by at least three orders of magnitude) to the Israel-Gaza conflict, which by body count over the years has seen far fewer people die than in the various African wars.

"Africa" is a far more vast set of circumstances than I/P. The coverage, particularly in the States is sparse and un-illuminating. And, speaking for myself, the motivation to speak out about I/P has more to do with my frustration about how the debate is generally framed, than with any sort of specific emotional stake in the conflict itself. (Which is not to say I have zero invested there, just that the framing issue seems more immediate to me. and seems more like something I have at least a [miniscule] chance to have an effect.) I know a lot less about Africa, generally than I'd like; and as you said there's a lot less debate to get involved with. Why don't you try to get something started?

Yes, this discussion is relatively predictable in terms of its vague calls for military action, the lack of success of military action, as it is actually tried, claims that everything is now worse, and hoping to salami-slice the US and UK into the action. Yes, this is 'liberal internationalist' flim-flam in its most undiluted form. Nevertheless, I enjoy Julia's visits every few months. UN dispatch could do with more of these semi-regulars, and probably can get them on more topics if bh.tv tried.

Quoting bjkeefe: Disagree. There is a difference between, say, carpet-bombing an area where you guess someone might be, and having real intelligence and rapid response squads that can get to a precise location quickly. The latter is far more expensive, admittedly.

Expensive or not, we all know it's true: once you neatly and nicely, surgically incise Joseph Kony's eye with a properly sterilized bullet, all of those soldiers who've been rapin' and killin' in the jungle since they were eight will beat their AKs into ploughshares and skip jauntily to the nearest cassava field. Fact!

Quoting Ray: Expensive or not, we all know it's true: once you neatly and nicely, surgically incise Joseph Kony's eye with a properly sterilized bullet, all of those soldiers who've been rapin' and killin' in the jungle since they were eight will beat their AKs into ploughshares and skip jauntily to the nearest cassava field.

Fact!

Well, obviously not, but there is something to be said for cutting off the head and watching the body die. And there is a lot to be said for not killing innocent people, for both moral and strategic reasons.

Quoting bjkeefe: Disagree. There is a difference between, say, carpet-bombing an area where you guess someone might be, and having real intelligence and rapid response squads that can get to a precise location quickly. The latter is far more expensive, admittedly.

Intelligence can only be precise for a brief period of time, generally too short for "squads that can get to a precise location quickly," but often time enough to deliver some ordinance that is hopefully on target. But the use of ordinance means some level of collateral damage and the inevitable out cry against this damage. One only need look at the use of "precision" weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and the latest round of trying to remove the head of the snake in Gaza. By the way carpet bombing has not been the general policy of the US armed forces since Vietnam, and then it was used against believed mass formations of the enemy in lightly populated areas. Give me one example of it being used in any of our current conflicts.

Quoting piscivorous: Intelligence can only be precise for a brief period of time, generally too short for "squads that can get to a precise location quickly," but often time enough to deliver some ordinance that is hopefully on target. But the use of ordinance means some level of collateral damage and the inevitable out cry against this damage. One only need look at the use of "precision" weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and the latest round of trying to remove the head of the snake in Gaza. By the way carpet bombing has not been the general policy of the US armed forces since Vietnam, and then it was used against believed mass formations of the enemy in lightly populated areas. Give me one example of it being used in any of our current conflicts.

Agreed, re: difficulties of rapid response, likely reliance on less precise means of attack, and inevitable "collateral damage." I still think things can be better if there's a will, though. Also, I accept your terminological quibble. I was using the term "carpet bombing" loosely. I did not mean the precise definition that you imply. Sorry for the confusion.

I personally get a lot out of my interviews with Julia. She's one of the smartest analysts of this conflict--which is sadly overlooked in the MSM. She also brings extensive on-the-ground experience, which makes her doubly valuable for interviewing. Also, folks may be interested in this statement on the subject by Russ Feingold. FWIW, I think he's the only Senator with staff dedicated exclusively to Africa regional issues. "I am horrified by the reported massacres that rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army have carried out over recent weeks in Congo and Sudan, leaving hundreds of people dead, scores of women raped, children abducted and villages ransacked. I condemn these atrocities in the strongest terms. Regional militaries have an important role to play in addressing the LRA threat, but I have long warned of the risks of rash and poorly planned military action and I am concerned the current offensive has been just that. It has not done enough to save rebel abductees, left civilians vulnerable to reprisal attacks by the rebels and fueled regional instability. Regional militaries must make civilian protection a priority. I call on the Bush Administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the international community to

Quoting InJapan: No one cares about Africa.

Evidence: the paucity of comments on these types of diavlogs.

No matter how many people are butchered in the latest African strongman war, the world turns its attention (by at least three orders of magnitude) to the Israel-Gaza conflict, which by body count over the years has seen far fewer people die than in the various African wars.

totally agree and i don't know why no one else won't say this "out loud." it's painfully obvious to anyone that no one actually cares. i appreciate that the talk was short and insightful and that the guest was hot but i'd have to put this topic in the same folder as the gaza war titled: "Probably not gonna change in the next few undred years." what's the point of tracking all the details if you're gonna be dead before it ends?

I agree with Piscivorous and Ray - that was sarcasm, right? But, generally I was backdooring the R2P issue. I did research on the role of outside powers intervening in resource-induced civil wars, assuming intervention was a bad thing. But now, in DRC, where there's a civil war going on with natural resources involved, it's alright to intervene to stop one of the original interveners, the LRA? Isn't this just exacerbating blowback?

It's not that I don't appreciate Spiegel's opinion - agree is another matter. But, one appearance, she's a guest; two+ appearances, she's open game. Just like any 'head!

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, obviously not, but there is something to be said for cutting off the head and watching the body die. And there is a lot to be said for not killing innocent people, for both moral and strategic reasons.

I guess I'm not being clear. Cutting off the head will leave a highly toxic, dangerous body that will roam around the region killing and raping motherfuckers. ???

I really appreciate this video. Spiegel' s presentation was thorough and drew important distinctions between, for example, a surgical operation to take out the leadership as opposed to air bombing that scattered the insurgents into the civilian areas to forage for survival; or between a multi-national effort to stabilize the region, as opposed to mission-creep where the various militaries begin to carve off pieces of the Congo in order to control raw resources. She distinguishes between insurgent groups where there is a leadership infrastructure and voluntary recruits so that removing the current leadership will not solve the crisis, as opposed to this case where members of the militia are not volunteers and there is no structure to replace the current leaders once they are gone. I think the interview shows the complexity of many of these conflicts. It gives viewers a sense of actions and their consequences (and the consequences of inaction) which one could never get from conventional media.