Africom, the U.S. military's Africa Command has now been launched. Questions abound as to message and mission of the Department of Defense’s newest expansion project.

It would be wrong to blame the Pentagon for this very unusual expansion. It was, in fact, the spend happy Congress that put this into motion. Congress voted to provide $266 million taxpayer dollars to fund Africom’s first year of operations.

The creation of Africom has confused Americans and citizens of African nations alike. "It's coming to the African region, so ask the African Union or the SADC about it. I do not know whether Africa stands to benefit," said South African Defense Ministry Spokesman Sam Mkhwanazi. Echoing that, South African security analyst Tom Wheeler remarked: "A number of Africans do not like the idea because they do not know what it is about. The US has not been very clear about Africom. 

Africom, which will be based in Germany and not Africa, had been marketed initially as a counterterrorism, training, and humanitarian effort by the U.S. government. Some U.S. officials said the new command would help “coordinate” U.S. policy in Africa. Pentagon officials have changed a bit of their tune since receiving the funding, and have now dropped claims of any humanitarian work. Now, they say, Africom will support other U.S. government agencies and focus on helping bolster African militaries.

A better clue to the command's mission has come from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, Teresa Whelan, who told Congress during the funding hearing: “Africom will support, not shape, U.S. foreign policy on the continent.”

For certain it is known:

•  1,300 people will staff the command center, some civilians, some military.
• Africom will assume control over the largest U.S. military base in Djibouti.
• Africom will take charge of small U.S. military teams already in Africa.
• All African countries, except Egypt, will fall under Africom’s jurisdiction.
• Africom’s commander Army Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward reports to Robert Gates.

Strategically, Africa is a continent with great natural resources including newly discovered oil reservers that China has been eager to tap. So perhaps this latest foray into Africa has something to do with both oil and China — this idea being gaining credence by the fact that the Pentagon denies such claims. “This is not a scramble for the continent,” says Theresa Whelan. Again, whenever the U.S. government says one thing, they usually mean the opposite.

Inside information can be garnered from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) website. Written in May, 2007, the CFR’s article on Africom is highly interesting. The CFR was certain that funding would be approved by Congress and the operations could begin in September 2008.

Again, gleaned from the CFR’s article is insight into why the command is in Germany, and not at the Pentagon. The CFR sees Africom as an interagency command, therefore, interagency members could have the authority to make decisions “without consulting Washington.”  U.S. naval presence will also be increased, the CFR speculates, and all programs supposedly in place to combat terrorism and limit Islamic extremism will also remain in place.

Africans are not welcoming this latest intrusion. Some humanitarian organizations insist that American intervention and covert operations in Somalia and elsewhere fueled and even caused violent Islamist insurgencies, resulting in civilian injuries and deaths. A Nigerian newspaper reported, “Several African countries’ resistance to the United States’ proposed African Command is one which the African Union should spearhead in order to spare the continent the agony of being the sparring ground for the United States.” And South Africa’s defense minister, Mosiuoa Lekota, has refused to meet with General Ward. “Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil,” he said. Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia all complain of not being consulted before the launch of Africom. Mike Mulongoti, a spokesman for the Zambian government, says allowing America in would be “like allowing a giant to settle in your home.”

This surely is another sample of Bush’s militaristic global policy. The humanitarian and security problems his policy purports to address will not be achieved at the barrel of a gun. The almost constant civil strife that holds back many African nations, the supposed terrorism, most of which is actually state-sponsored by some very brutal communist dictators, and even the natural and economic problems and competition for natural resources, do not warrant a military presence.

But, most importantly, the question is rarely asked if the creation of Africom really supports the actual defense of the United States of America. Of course it does not. None of the nations of Africa represent a military threat to the safety and security of the American people. Like so many of the other ways in which the U.S. military has been misused since the end of World War II, Africom is unnecessary and should be dismantled. In this time of financial trouble, our troops should be brought home, and the expenditures made on our military adventures overseas radically reduced and the cost savings passed on to the much taxed American people.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments