Well, it was a French/Belgian colony, so they get to carry the burden. That's the way things usually go in Africa. If the West has to go in, it usually sends the old colonial power.

It would be too risky for the US to send ground troops to Africa. The North of the continent is Islamic. Some people there might just see it as a further example of the US pushing for an empire.

Then you have the fact that truthfully, the Congolese rebels will be no match for the Western troops. Most conflicts that are dealt with by the West in Africa require relatively few soldiers. France can afford to use a few of it own military resources. The US doesn't need to get too involved.

The logistics and cash will be enough.

I suppose at the end of the day though the real answer should be - "Who cares who goes in? Just get it done".

One other thing that I've just realised would make it very difficult for the US to act in Africa.

There are a lot of Afro-Americans in the US forces.
You only have to look at the history of slavery to see that sending US troops would be wrong.

Europe's armed forces are predominantly white.

What the hell does slavery have to do with anything?

Please explain.

Because soemthing like 40% of Americas armed forces are persons of color.

Good, let the French babysit the congo retards for a change. Why the hell do I wanna send troops to africa when Im still hoping and protesting and demanding that troops in all the other countries we invade come home soon?

Let France play policeman. We still have a mess in iraq thats only getting uglier by the day.

Good to hear

The Population in general is more prepared to acknowledge the French presence in respect to history.

Sending US troops would probably cause a whole lot of confusion and result in those who would be prepared to support the French not be as certain of what they were doing.

If the French do find themselves having problems the US will assist, but for now this is the best thing to do.

We all saw what happens when they send US Forces into Africa...

They end up making an overly patriotic hollywood movie that demonises the population of the country they invade.

I think it's hilarious that an invading force can declare they they were defending themselves from a population protecting their country.

Somalia wasnt an Ivasion, Somalia was a stupid UN-type "mercy mission". A police action. No invasion, we were there to guard UN mercy shipments to the starving people and attempt to bring some order. Like any UN mission, it failed miserably.

Another reason why we shouldnt get involved in police actions or UN bright ideas. In a situation where youre dealing with warlords, men who basically kill and maim for a living, and force is a way of life, you must use measures and tactics they understand.

Send in assasins to fight the assasins. Small specialized OPs trained in such matters to go in and pick off the jackasses. Civil war. Never pretty.

I never said that Somalia was an invasion. But have you seen footage of the Rangers landing on the beach in Somalia? Or read about the assault on Mogadishu in the book BHD and portrayed in the movie? It might not have been an invasion...but 100 Rangers sealing off the city and 40 Delta troops assaulting the Olympic Hotel doesnt sound like much of a humanitarian mission...and you cant tell me that the Somali people didnt view all this as an invasion of their country, regardless of what the UN says it was.

I was also referring to Iraq with that population defending their country comment.

Never seen Black Hawk Down. Little interest.

Somalia, we were dealing with war lords, thus, the invasion tactics. It was, in general, humanitarian, at least in therory. the Somalis were getting slaughtered by civil war. hey simply took a break to shoot at the newcomers.

Regardless, somalia was stupid. Its a civil war. Hasnt anyone learned u dont get involved in civil wars?

Whoever does get involved, they better assemble a better force than the 700 or so UN tourists there now.