Article
The United States Defense Department has received permission from the government of Niger to store and fly out drones from the Nigerien capital. Nigerien officials have allowed the arming of aircraft in Niamey by the African military and it is said to cost fifty million dollars. They also plan to deploy more American troops in Niger in order to counter "violent extremism" or terrorism. This will significant increase the number of American troops in Niger from the current eight hundred. Supposedly, the placement of these drones will decrease the difficulty of gaining access terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. This will be the second time America has stationed military drones in Africa.
I think that helping Niger counteract terrorism is good, but it should not be prioritized over the safety of our country. Additionally, I think stationing troops in Niger could incite more wars and other conflicts that we really don't need right now. Because the investment is so high, I do not think it is worth it.
What do you think? Do you think stationing troops and storing armed drones in Niger is a good idea? How might this affect foreign affairs? Do you think the expansion of America's military is a good idea?
12 comments:
I think that military involvement in countries in that area of the world is OK by the US as long as they don't get too invested in a particular country or area. Terrorism is bad and all but I also don't want a repeat of the Vietnam War.
The US will not station troops and invest their own resources in other nations without a reason to do so. I would assume both nations are mutually benefiting from US presence. Since the US has friendly diplomatic relations with Niger, it would be in their interest that Niger remains stable. The US already has many other overseas bases around the world, so I do not think this level of military presence in Niger would be ridiculous. However, there are many cases that the local people will protest the US military presence. If this too happens in Niger, the US should rethink their decision and possible withdraw, although I don't think they usually do. Just as Matt says, as long as the US does not get extremely involved or carried away, it should be fine.
I also agree with you guys that stationing troops in Niger may be a good first step in counteracting the terrorism that occurs there. However, like Matt pointed out, I think that the U.S. needs to put a limit on how involved it is in a country because countless times in history, we have seen how the U.S. gets involved in things that aren't really its businesses, and then having to lose many lives and a lot of money for it. However, terrorism is a more global threat, and so I guess it is kind of the U.S.'s "business" in this case. Therefore, I support this move of the U.S., however I think that the U.S. should not constantly be expanding the number of drones and investing larger and larger amounts into them in Niger because like Donald C. Bolduc from the article said, "drone strikes aren't the final, end-all solution to terrorist groups."
Honestly I don't think the US should be setting up any more bases in other countries. We already have many military bases all over the world, and it feels like the US is starting to have an assertive presence in other nations (if it doesn't have one already). I mean it's not like these are embassies, they're armed military bases with US troops. I suppose in this case if the placement of drones is agreed upon by both countries, there should be a lesser degree of harm. However, as stated above, the US has a record of overstepping its bounds with regards to other nations' affairs, especially on issues related to terrorism.
I agree that the US should limit its military presence. I'm not sure if they aimed to counteract terrorism like they said, or maybe even send a sort of warning to terrorist groups, but this just seems unnecessary. I don't think Niger is in any real danger, so I think the US is wasting resources here: money spent on the drones and the increased amount of forces. Even if the US put drones in Niger as a precaution, like Brandon said, it comes off as kind of an aggressive action. Yes, there's the threat of terrorism, but I don't think the US should get involved if they don't have any direct connection to the event or what they think will happen in the future.
I agree with the commenters above and the original poster. I think stationing drones in another country overseas will increase tensions between the US and other foreign countries. I think if we're going to expand our military, we should do so cautiously as not to create unnecessary conflict with other countries and threaten peace. I especially agree with Haley in that I also think stationing the drones in Niger could come off as aggressive, especially since we are not directly involved in a military issue over there. Even if it is for a precaution, this could make things more difficult between the US and other countries moving forward.
I agree with Sarena above that US military presence in Niger may be warranted. Certain areas of Africa have experienced genocide and have suffered under the attacks of violent, extremist, terrorist groups. Undoubtedly, if the US had played a more active role in 2014 to counter the spread of ISIS, then ISIS might not be as strong as it is today, and we might not have had the horrendous terror attacks in Brussels, London, Paris, and New York. The same concepts work here in Africa. By increasing US military presence, we can inhibit the growth of extremist groups that can potentially grow and prosper. The Niger military in itself is not strong enough to hold down these extremist groups. Furthermore, I disagree with Matt above. The US is not trying to start another Vietnam War there; we are merely stationing troops and weaponry.
I don't believe that military expansion is a smart idea at the moment. By placing another military base, the US is wasting precious money and weapons on creating an act of masculinity. Counteracting terrorism is a goal, but by asserting our presence our nation may be stirring up unnecessary tension with certain nations.
I love that everyone is complaining that Trump doesn't do anything against terrorism, but when he does people complain. This is a preemptive measure against future terrorist attacks, and currently holds good tactical positioning. He puts a military base in Africa and dares anyone to mess with the US strongholds. I believe that this is not a waste of money but instead a preemptive measure against future attacks.
I think that keeping weapons more spread out and in places other than the US makes it seem like were going to attack which is not the vibe I think we want to give out when tensions are so high with many foreign countries. We need scale back on the weapons and keep them close by to show were not asking for trouble or think we'll be in under attack anytime soon.
I agree with Sarena; I believe that stationing troops in Niger is not a problem. Due to being on good terms with Niger, I see mutualism here between the two nations. For the US, it gives us good positioning and helps our fight against terrorism. For Niger, it could protect them from terrorist attacks and keep them safe. As long as the US does not go overboard with troops or involvement, then I think this was a good idea and investment.
This is an interesting topic, because from what I've seen people are divided on whether or not this military involvement is a good idea. From what I see it boiling down to is expansion of military vs military cutbacks. Personally I see large scale military action, and especially drone warfare as cruel and bullying. Others clearly disagree, seeing military involvement as a preventative measure. I question. When, since WW2 has the military succeed? Small and obscure successes such as killing bin laden and "fighting terrorism" don't count in my mind. I see military involvement as destructive and unproductive, and therefore I think there could be different ways to fight terrorism, fist off by scaling down military.
Post a Comment