FWIW - I struggled a bit as to whether or not to post this as I figured the 'authors' were merely being used as a 'face' for some group seeking exposure for their cause.
I also weighed the overt political message of the piece vs the intrinsic value of reminding people of an obvious point for major trans-national conflict...the on-going struggle for the world's finite mineral resources and why it might affect us in ways we (as a nation) never think much about - until our political leadership makes a case for intervention on the evening news.
Notice how I only hi-lighted a few of the passages and strayed away from the overt political message of the authors with the exception of the one passage which explicitly identifies
their 'cause.'
However, this conflict itself involves much more than the mineral issue of the article, is on-going, and has cost an estimated 5m+ lives.
I think
AFRICOM is going to be in for a hell of a time here pretty soon and it is important to remind ourselves there's more to the world than SWA - including the potential for encountering nuclear weapons issues in Africa, too.
And consider we've now got a POTUS of unknown designs (other than his obvious plans to socialize America) with both close relatives and influential supporters/followers who may have (as yet TBD) long range plans for that part of the globe.
Just some thoughts for consideration.
Richard's $.02
