It appears as though AFRICOM has finally managed to get a foot-hold on the African continent.
This follows the recent US military exercise in Mali, part of a far-ranging programme to train African armies in counter-terrorism aimed at locating and defeating Al Qaeda-inspired militants. Accordingly, a five-year, US$ 500 million agreement has been entered into between the US DoD and Algeria, Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia. Libya is apparently close to joining this partnership.
This programme will apparently include both offensive and passive actions.
Members of the US 10th Special Forces Group which is based in Germany, accompanied by German and Dutch military instructors, are already in Mali busy with training.
It appears as though the strategy is to contain Al Qaeda in North Africa. Whereas this is a positive step forward for AFRICOM, it ought to be realised that this is a process that will take several years to yield fruits.
USAID has also spent approximately US$ 9 million on counter-terrorism measures in the area to support the planned military operations.
Whereas this is a positive step forward, it is hoped that this will not become another case of a “help-and-betray” policy and that this training will not produce another Bin Laden in the ranks of the recruits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hey Eeben,
The un-elected side of our government has a secret plan for AFRICOM that the regulars are not privileged to. I can only surmise that as usual our allies will be bought and sold as it suits our interests... Same as it ever was.
It is nice to see that you can still project a ray of hope that we won't be ourselves again and......
I sometimes imagine the conversation that go along with the actual planning sessions involved in strategic planning.
Oh.Oh I've got one Mr. President, lets invade a country in the middle east with one of the biggest standing armies in the world with as few men as possible using WWII tactics, then we will disband the entire military and governmental structure, put them on the street lets say. Shock and Awh Brother.
2 weeks later, 600,000 tons of munitions, what munitions? I didn't think they would take them when they left. Its OK, we need more men on the ground, we don't have enough men on the ground.
Your assessment leads one to realise how sad the situation can become, ER.
I think the vast majority of people in Africa are not anti-American; they are anti-American foreign policy and the total chaos it leaves in its wake.
If this plan of AFRICOM is to succeed, they will need to remain loyal to those they have now chosen to be their friends and not betray them as quickly as possible. In doing so, the US will have trained and equipped a potential new enemy.
Rgds,
Eeben
Ive been following Africom for awhile. trying to get beyond the PR stuff on the homepage. I think it was a bold move to put an actual standing base on the continent. I dont remeber the last time america actually did this in the open. Weve had some news reports and photo ops of marines hunting 'terrorists' in the area but the first thing that popped up in my mind was BS ! sure it can be used as a base for the GWOT but it was a perfect opportunity for the US to paint a zebra all black and pass it off as a horse.
I am for involvement in africa but not of the sort of agenda we had in the 20th century. To counteract the chinese and russians we are trying to create allies but as you say, you create a pit bull to protect you and then open the cage and it might turn on you.
We also had an ABC news report on FID in north africa trying to tie it to again the GWOT. It will be interesting and it really is flying as far under the radar as possible to avoid any type of reporting on a possible neo colonialism in sub saharan africa.
I am not happy with Obama as president but perhaps his ties to africa may help set an agenda to make allies in africa over the long term. Anything and everything about Obama remains to be seen. For better or worse, he is my president and hope he makes the right choices.
The AFRICOM concept was a good one, Simon. I do, however, believe that the approach was a bit off course as the manner in which it was done created great resentment to many leaders on the continent.
I too am pleased that the USA has had the courage to admit that they have plans in Africa. But again, I still harbour grave concerns based on historical actions in Africa by the CIA and the US foreign policy people. This may be a little too late insofar as the Russians, Chinese and Indians are concerned as they have really gone out of their way to entrench themselves in Africa. But, only time will tell what the US will do.
I believe that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is a positive strategy but in applying such a strategy, one needs to question the tactics.
President-elect Obama may have more pressing concerns to deal with than Africa. Ironically, had he been in South Africa a few months ago, he too would have been a victim of xenophobia. Now he is being hailed as a “son of Africa”. Strange how the world works, isn’t it? I agree that one ought to accept the political leadership that a democracy elects. We may not always agree with it, but then again, one’s country ought to be greater than the leaders.
Rgds,
Eeben
Hello Eeben,
I find you blog very informative.
There are numerous detractors of AFRICOM. One such effort is Resist AFRICOM, a organization backed by the Washington based “African Security Research Project.” Their primary concern appears to be increased militarization of U.S. policy in Africa (previously civilian affairs falling under military jurisdiction). Efforts such as well digging and building schools will be in the domain of the DoD.
On the other hand, China appears to be taking a primarily business approach to Africa. The growing consensus is Chinese influence is increasing while U.S. influence is waning. Do you think the United States is using the military to recover influence lost on political and economic routes? Why this strange blend of civilian endeavors with military objectives?
Thanks,
Charles
Hey Eeben,
Yes the expectations for our President Elect are running extremely high. Most reasonable people here in the USA realize that the institution that our new president will step into has been in place for many years and has endured many 4 year election cycles.
They (?) are plugging the cost of the presidential election at 3 plus Billion Dollars. Mr Obama raised a record $700,000,000. yes seven hundred million dollars is a little less than 2 years. Despite what may be heard, average citizens, $200.00, two hundred dollars or less accounted for 26% of contributions, pretty much the same a previous 3 elections cycles, at 24 and 25% of total. Fair to mention the total amounts raised did not equal what was raised with this election cycle.
What I am saying is that regardless of what anyones election promises may be, the old mighty dollar is more evident in this election cycle than any previous cycle.
I am not condemning our president elect, Mr Obama to trek the same path as his predecessors, but I just don't see how there will be any real difference.
Our track record in foreign policy has no rhyme or reason other than money, like it or not. Our president will change, the people with money will remain the same.
A foreign policy based on military intervention, under the guise of whatever is what our path seems to be again.
Thanks for the compliment, Charles.
I suppose given the policies the US has adopted towards Africa in the past, it is only natural that many people view AFRICOM with suspicion. I do also believe that the military can make a huge contribution to the type of civilian support activities you mention as it has a well-oiled logistical machinery at its disposal. Usually, these activities are part of the overall “hearts-and-minds” approach and can be very useful in demographic mapping. From a military planning point-of-view, these activities are key to planning combat operations.
Again, given the loss of US influence on the African continent, AFRICOM seems to be a knee-jerk reaction in attempting to recover some influence. But, I do believe that it was badly marketed, hence the negative reaction to it. The recent exercises in Mali coupled to the US military’s training programmes in that area are, in my opinion, part of an operation to try to re-establish some lost credibility and in the process try to establish some form of influence.
Rgds,
Eeben
I think one can equate the situation to a ship’s captain, ER. When sailing along at full-speed, he can’t suddenly turn the ship around due to its momentum. It is a movement that will take many sea-miles to accomplish. In many ways, political changes are similar – nothing happens quickly when a policy-direction is changed.
The amount of money the president-elect raised was staggering. But, in the US, your economy drives the political machine and anyone who promises to improve the economic situation is bound to receive massive support. In Africa, the political machine drives the economy and its end result is vastly different – hence all the problems we see in Africa.
The money-makers are the ones who can either ensure a president’s election or prevent it. I believe that not too much will change with regards to foreign policy as it is after all a policy dictated by economic interests.
Rgds,
Eeben
Hey Eeben.
Man, the more you dig up the more problems we see. When the NY Times comes down that hard on the UN, you know there is something wrong with the operation.
The description of the UN and it's capabilities in a combat situation equals loser. No intelligence, strategy, command control, wishie-washie, corrupt on the ground as well as in the office.
Probably most interesting of all is they are not willing to engage the bad guys who have the guns. How can sitting back and observing, and then collecting the bodies under rebel control have anything to do with a mandate? What a bad joke that is being plaid on people of the Congo.
Not that I wish and bad will on our brave soldiers on UN Peacekeeping MIssions, but if they were actually doing their jobs engaging the enemy they would have to be watching out for their won asses, which would put them at a state of readiness to protect themselves as well as the civilians under their mandate.
One article points to the 112,000 troops and support staff of the UN. I'm not sure of this number, but for US forces is it 3 to 1, as 3 supporting personnel for on combat troop?
Thanks for the info Eeben.
ER, my wife told me that she has come to the realisation that the UN’s peacekeeping force is the largest, most ineffective sheltered employment agency in the world. Given the wastage of funds and lives, I have to agree – but also add that it is the most dangerous one for those who have it forced upon them.
Engage the enemy? Not the UN – they are probably worried that it may force them to finally do something.
The 112 000 men is apparently correct. But, it does not include the “political” types that form part of it. The figure of 3 to one is a commonly accepted guideline for force composition but is not written in stone. It can be adapted and modified depending on the mission-profile a force must adopt.
Rgds,
Eeben
Hey Eeben,
Well, being compared with your wife, I guess that to be a compliment, depends upon what kind of guy you are. I guess you meant that even citizens that do not follow the political working of the world are being made aware of the failings of the UN in Africa. This could end up being a good thing, as the UN can declare that the shortcomings "lie" in the inadequate funding imposed upon them by the developed world. It can then be realized that all of their shortcoming can be overcome with more funding, obviously...
I believe that the more people who know about the UN’s failings and their duplicity, the better, ER. Of course, the UN will continue to claim their success but people ought to know that they (UN) are being very economical with the truth. This may spur them on to either do their jobs properly (unlikely) or to shut it down (more unlikely).
Rgds,
Eeben
Post a Comment