AFRICOM and the perception mess

[Entropy]

The Iraqization of Africa?
Looking at AFRICOM from a South African Perspective (http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/esterhuyse.pdf)


The South African government has openly expressed its opposition towards the creation of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM).1 What’s more, South Africa presents its position on AFRICOM as representative of the country as a whole, but particularly on behalf of a group of African countries—the Southern African Development Community (SADC)— which holds an aversive stance towards US plans in this regard.2 This does not represent a radical change in South Africa’s ruling African National Congress’s (ANC) general policy stance towards the United States over the last 10 or more years. While this is not the place to dissect South Africa’s policy towards the United States in general, it is important to ask critical questions
about the legitimacy of the South African government’s position—and that of some other African countries—towards AFRICOM. The discussion is an effort to examine some of the considerations that underpin this scepticism about US motives towards Africa.

[Tom Odom]

It is an interesting read and as a broad brush it is both strong and weak.

Pretty good analysis of US perspectives and tendencies toward Africa.

Weak in that he makes the very same generalizations about Africa that he accuses the US of making. The article is supposed to be about South African perspectives; he spends most of his time speaking to "African" perspectives as if that is viable description.

Weak in that he asserts the US does not have interests in Africa as if it is a fact rather than his opinion.

Weak in that his history is off; we did not suddenly get interested in Africa in 1952. We were interested earlier--much earlier though we covered those interests through colonial powers. Note the US role in disclosing Leopold abuses in the Congo; the US creation of Liberia; US air bridge and naval oips using Africa in WWII; US interest in preservation of strategic mineral access in the Congo in WWII.

Tom

[Stan]

I'll echo Tom's comments... Weak, but interesting.

Abel spends an inordinate amount of text criticizing the USA and China as warmongers merely in search of African minerals without once touching on the lack of African involvement in local catastrophes in the last 4 decades.

Abel opines on Africa's unconventional traditions and our inability to comprehend and flow with Africa. Hmmm, all that intellect but yet managed to not once provide more than a way out of fixing the sierra his ancestors created. Better to slam the US Military than provide sound advice other than "more food for the starving".

Jeez, get a life dude :mad:

EUCOM in her days did a fair job of managing a myriad of programs with a stretched team. Although AFRICOM's current hierarchy has me puzzled, to be fair, AFRICOM is but in its infancy and the programs are both need-based and financially real.

African solidarity translates into simple words that more often than not, require tons of donor cash with no responsibility for Africa's inactions.

Same Old Song and Dance :wry:

[Dayuhan]

This issue has popped up on a number of threads, and I think it deserves its own discussion.

Moderator's Note

Thread closed on 3rd November 2012 as the main AFRICOM thread also has posts on perceptions.The main AFRICOM thread is:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6167

A post by KingJaja on a Nigeria thread is a good place to start...


That's not the point, perception is reality. All the "Als" - Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera and Al Sharpton realise that. That this simple fact is lost on the USG is tragic and difficult to understand.

A textbook case of "how not to do it" was the clumsy announcement of Africom's formation in 2008 and the equally more clumsy search for basing rights in Africa. These two events created a buzz in the local media and generated a lot of negative publicity. Today, the Africom brand is toxic.

An example of this brand toxicity....

http://concernedafricascholars.org/bulletin/78/abegunrin/


AFRICOM is an example of U.S. military expansion in the name of the war on terrorism, when it is in fact designed to secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests on the continent. AFRICOM represents a policy of U.S. military-driven expansionism that will only enhance political instability, conflict, and the deterioration of state security in Africa.

Again KingJaja raises a legitimate point:


This is why the USG's misreading of the complex factors that shape public opinion here and its failure to sell its Africa policy to the African public is baffling. There are so many crazy stories flying up and down about America's intentions in SS Africa. If they are not countered, they could do real damage.

It is the job of the US State Department and Africom to contribute to informed opinion on Africom. If you cannot "encourage" prominent columnists / bloggers to write favourable stories, then you shouldn't be in the business of public diplomacy.

The problem here, again, is not reality, it's perception. Most people here realize that AFRICOM is little more than an administrative repackaging of programs that were already existing. Anyone who looks at the resources actually committed to AFRICOM can see that it can't even dream of trying to "secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests". If anything the actual structure, location and resources of AFRICOM are a compelling testimony to American disinterest. That reality, though, is not the issue: the issue is the perception.

The question is how we managed to turn a minor administrative reshuffle into a public relations debacle, and how we can avoid doing it again.

Thoughts?

[Misifus]

IMO the announcement sounded Wilsonian. Those who are in the business of being Wilsonian will of course welcome these types of things.

[JarodParker]

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

[Dayuhan]

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

Probably not, but the question is not the merit of their ideas, but the extent to which they are believed. As KingJaja pointed out on another thread, AFRICOM really has become a "toxic brand" across a wide audience base. The question here is how those seeking to make the brand toxic managed to convey their perspective more effectively than those that sought to promote the brand, regardless of the relative accuracy of those perspectives.

Of course it's true that an waful lot of people are extremely willing to believe anything negative about the US, but that gets back to the same question. How do we promote the brand more effectively and make it harder to portray as toxic?

[KingJaja]

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora. For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).

Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.

Consider this example, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell estimates the number of Nigerians in the US at 2 million. They are overwhelming from Southern Nigeria and tend to be evangelical Christians. In his words:


It has been a successful immigrant community characterized by entrepreneurship, strong family ties, and an emphasis on education. Socially, it is generally conservative and evangelical or even Pentecostal in outlook.28 It is just starting to flex its muscles in local American politics.

Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.

But this points to a much wider problem, the US government is no longer in the business of selling itself or its policies to an increasingly sceptical world. Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility. The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.

For as little as $20 a month, I can get a cable subscription with the following news channels: CNN, Al Jazeera English, EuroNews, CCTV (China) and CNBC. CNN is good, but it tends to focus a bit too much on American news and pop culture, EuroNews isn't really a player, CCTV isn't really good, but the Chinese are at least trying to make an impact, CNBC is focused on business, so that leaves Al Jazeera English in a strong position (they have much better coverage of "forgotten" parts of the globe - e.g. India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America than their competitors).

The biggest satellite TV company in Africa is owned by the South Africans (and given South Africa's opposition to Africom, you can work that out).

Then there is the slightly unusual spectacle of senior US military officers explaining US Africa policy. Is it so important to raise the media profile of senior US military officers? What do you think the reaction would be if senior PLA officers were given the task of explaining China's Africa policy? The Chinese have smartly refrained from doing so.

Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq (the ambassador Ryan Crocker / General Petraeus model will not work here), stop giving the impression it is the model you are adopting here.

Work your way back, the best outcome is for Africom to do its job well, while giving the impression that Africom does not exist. Anyone who has studied the history of Africa knows that soldiers (both foreign and African) have a very bad reputation. Idi Amin was a soldier and so was Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu also pretended to be one. We have foreign missionaries as heroes, but not a single foreign soldier is treated as a hero in Africa.

Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11. Would the militarisation of US Africa policy be possible in such a world?

[Dayuhan]

Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.

I don't think much effort was made to get anyone "on board with AFRICOM" per se simply because AFRICOM does not represent any significant policy shift or effort: it's little more than an administrative shuffling of existing programs involving a quite minimal commitment of resources. Much of the reaction has been not to what AFRICOM actually is, which is not much, but to what AFRICOM has been portrayed as being.


Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility. The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.

The man on the street in America has much the same opinion, and it's not entirely inaccurate. As far as "US credibility" goes, I'm surprised that there is any left!


Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11. Would the militarisation of US Africa policy be possible in such a world?

I am not convinced that the US has an "Africa policy" in any coherent sense. The overwhelming preference seems to be to not go there, beyond some minimal efforts to show concern.

Your point about the generally unfavorable attitudes toward the military and the undesirability of presenting military officers as communicators is well taken, and I hope somebody listens.

[Stan]

A few links albeit a tad dated.

CSIS (http://csis.org/program/us-policy-towards-africa)
DOS (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2009/117326.htm)



I am not convinced that the US has an "Africa policy" in any coherent sense. The overwhelming preference seems to be to not go there, beyond some minimal efforts to show concern.

[Dayuhan]

A few links albeit a tad dated.

CSIS (http://csis.org/program/us-policy-towards-africa)
DOS (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2009/117326.htm)

I'm aware of the rhetoric, but unconvinced that the rhetoric is being translated into meaningful policy. This may be an excess of cynicism; bit of a habit.

[JarodParker]

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.
That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora.
That wasn't a statement about the relationship between Africans and the African Diaspora. It was a commentary on how easily the diaspora can post a blog or write an open letter and absolve themselves of responsibility. It's easy to sit at Syracuse and point out how the US is doing it wrong.
Sure they send some money... but they could accomplish a lot more if they went back and did the nation building. It shows how even they have given up on the politics, governance, development, etc back home and how it's now each man for himself.


For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).
You're welcome... I take it a good deal of said diaspora live and work in the states, so a portion of that $10billion is another form of US aid. I find it amazing that one would even expect US aid to match the money coming in from the diaspora. It should just be more reason to love the good ol US of A.


Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.
Somebody said earlier that relationships in Africa are complex. That applies to diaspora relationships as well. They do not have 100% credibility... especially the ones engaged in politics from the safety of the west.



Consider this example, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell estimates the number of Nigerians in the US at 2 million. They are overwhelming from Southern Nigeria and tend to be evangelical Christians. In his words:
Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.
First of all, I don't see the need to get them on board. A great majority do not care about Africom and those who do, already have their minds made up one way or the other.
Secondly, if Africom were to engage the African diaspora, how do you propose they go about doing it? Invite them to a town hall with some 4-star general? You seem to state that would be counterproductive in your statement below.


But this points to a much wider problem, the US government is no longer in the business of selling itself or its policies to an increasingly sceptical world. Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility.
I would argue that most reasonable Americans (including the president) appreciate OIF's impact on how others perceive the US.


The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.
That's not just Africans... a lot of Americans believe that as well.


Then there is the slightly unusual spectacle of senior US military officers explaining US Africa policy. Is it so important to raise the media profile of senior US military officers? What do you think the reaction would be if senior PLA officers were given the task of explaining China's Africa policy? The Chinese have smartly refrained from doing so.
I can't argue with you here.


Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq (the ambassador Ryan Crocker / General Petraeus model will not work here), stop giving the impression it is the model you are adopting here.
Can you elaborate on this?


Work your way back, the best outcome is for Africom to do its job well, while giving the impression that Africom does not exist.
The problem with that is, there is no way to keep such things completely under wraps. So once it leaks to the media, then you have a "secret military program" on your hands. That would probably be a bigger PR nightmare than the current one. It's a no-win situation.


Anyone who has studied the history of Africa knows that soldiers (both foreign and African) have a very bad reputation. Idi Amin was a soldier and so was Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu also pretended to be one.
That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.


We have foreign missionaries as heroes, but not a single foreign soldier is treated as a hero in Africa.
My experience is that Africans are as distrustful of missionaries as they are of mercenaries.


Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11.
Why? I enjoy the complimentary happy endings from the TSA.

Africans generally like America. But they're also susceptible to rumors, conspiracy theories and the like. Starving people in East Africa appreciated those sacks of wheat with the red, white and blue stamp... but they were also convinced that the US boiled the wheat before shipping it so they wouldn't be able to sow the seeds. It is believed (even by the educated) that the US dumps millions tons of grain into the ocean each year to prevent prices from falling.
So this is not something that's gonna go away with a new agency name, logo, PR campaign or town hall meetings. That's just how people are. Nothing short of the US giving up any and all economic and political advantage (free trade, free travel zones, debt relief...) will satisfy the "Concerned Africa Scholars".
Americans did not colonize Africa; most of resentment for slavery is confined to the African-American community (not sure about west Africa). Africans in general dislike the Indians and they fear and dislike the Chinese even more. America on the other hand is usually well intentioned, transparent and accountable. Besides, the opposition to US military basing seems to be global... Japan, Korea, Guam (i think), Pakistan, Tajikistan (not sure if the deal fell through). The Africom issue is not unique.

Sorry it's 2am and i have to go to bed.

[KingJaja]

I don't think much effort was made to get anyone "on board with AFRICOM" per se simply because AFRICOM does not represent any significant policy shift or effort: it's little more than an administrative shuffling of existing programs involving a quite minimal commitment of resources. Much of the reaction has been not to what AFRICOM actually is, which is not much, but to what AFRICOM has been portrayed as being.

Once again, someone doesn't get strategic communication - at the highest levels in the US Government. It's not limited only to the bungling of the Africom announcement.

You guys feel that once you've processed a concept within your system and you are okay with it, then all will be well. Because the innate goodness of America is apparent to all and that the whole World sees the Shining City on a Hill and America is an exceptional nation and Americans are exceptional people.

That mindset is great if you want to communicate with the American public, but the American public is not the only audience worth considering.

My major worry is not what Africom is or is not, but that the creators of Africom either don't get Africa or don't take Africa seriously enough. Neither is good. After Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot afford to make that kind of blunder.

Africa is huge. The map below shows how massive it is.

http://blogs.cfr.org/campbell/files/2011/11/africa-true-size-of-africa-11082011.jpg

[KingJaja]

That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.

You don't create a professional military in a vacuum!

[JMA]

For as little as $20 a month, I can get a cable subscription with the following news channels: CNN, Al Jazeera English, EuroNews, CCTV (China) and CNBC. CNN is good, but it tends to focus a bit too much on American news and pop culture, EuroNews isn't really a player, CCTV isn't really good, but the Chinese are at least trying to make an impact, CNBC is focused on business, so that leaves Al Jazeera English in a strong position (they have much better coverage of "forgotten" parts of the globe - e.g. India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America than their competitors).

The biggest satellite TV company in Africa is owned by the South Africans (and given South Africa's opposition to Africom, you can work that out).

Ae you speaking about DSTV here? It is part of the stock exchange listed company Multichoice. They are intelligent to avoid getting into the news broadcast business here in Africa directly as that always draws attention from governments.

The premium subscription here in South Africa offers the following news channels:

BBC world
CNN
Sky News - UK
eNews - Independently owned South African news channel
Euro News
RT - Russian
Aljazeera
ndtv - India
CCTV - China
CNBC-A
Bloomberg

You make your own choice.

[JMA]

That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.

The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=122159&postcount=37)

It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.

Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).

[Stan]

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic :eek:




The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=122159&postcount=37)

It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.

Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).

[Dayuhan]

Once again, someone doesn't get strategic communication - at the highest levels in the US Government. It's not limited only to the bungling of the Africom announcement.

They don't get it at all. It's not limited to the AFRICOM announcement and it's not limited to Africa... here in Asia it's been a running theme for decades in my experience and much longer from the accounts of others. I've given up hoping for improvement.


You guys feel that once you've processed a concept within your system and you are okay with it, then all will be well. Because the innate goodness of America is apparent to all and that the whole World sees the Shining City on a Hill and America is an exceptional nation and Americans are exceptional people.

Part of the problem is that those themes are almost mandatory in domestic political communication, but in today's world what's said for domestic consumption often goes out to a much wider audience... and often spills into non-domestic communication as well.


My major worry is not what Africom is or is not, but that the creators of Africom either don't get Africa or don't take Africa seriously enough. Neither is good. After Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot afford to make that kind of blunder.

They don't get it, and probably never will. The blunders go back way farther than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they probably will continue. Fortunately that's not the end of the world. They never got Asia or Latin America and proceeded with epic blunders in both, but despite that there's been real progress in both domestic conditions and relations with the US.

[JMA]

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic :eek:

Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.

It all fell apart in the old Brit colonies with the indigenous regiments when the (expat) officers packed up and went home (to mother Britain). It worked for the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) as for their officers Rhodesia was their home.

How long would it take to take 700 odd people and knock a battalion into shape (with some degree of sustainability)? Minimum ten years.

Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.

The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.

[ganulv]

That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora. For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).

Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.I have a friend who works with Nigerian entrepreneurs in NYC (http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=14424); it’s not as if all Americans are unaware of the goings-on of the world. And since we’re talking perceptions I’m going to bring this up: Nigerians don’t exactly enjoy a sparkling reputation amongst other Africans. Are you so sure Nigerians carry a lot of weight in shaping public opinion outside of their home country?


Africa is huge. The map below shows how massive it is.All of the UCCs are huge. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Unified_Combatant_Commands_map.png

[Stan]

Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.

Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.

Strange that, the African Americans in Zaire felt that it was harder for them to get along. We don't actually employ any Americans and our support and training is governed by Geneva (UN) and what we call IMAS - International Mine Action Standards. AFRICOM should be looking at our program so we can expand (hope we don't have to wear those funky patches with our baby blue helmets :D )


The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.
That's a tough one. The vetting process is straight forward but is dependent on the current host country government to provide information to initiate vetting.

[KingJaja]

I have a friend who works with Nigerian entrepreneurs in NYC; it’s not as if all Americans are unaware of the goings-on of the world. And since we’re talking perceptions I’m going to bring this up: Nigerians don’t exactly enjoy a sparkling reputation amongst other Africans. Are you so sure Nigerians carry a lot of weight in shaping public opinion outside of their home country?

I totally accept that we don't enjoy a sparkling reputation anywhere. I refer to my Nigerian passport as the Mark of Cain. However, due to our size, our cultural exports (most of Africa watches Nollywood), our record as a peace-keeping nation, the popularity of our public intellectuals (Soyinka, Achebe) and the reputation of our business people we tend to be listened to.

See a BBC article - How Nigeria has affected the rest of Africa.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11429067

When I mentioned that Africa was huge. I wanted to bring out the fact that the distance from Dakar to Mombasa is greater than the distance from Seattle to Florida. That Congo DRC is a very different country from either Senegal or Nigeria. That the lessons you learn from dealing with Rwanda and Congo do not necessarily apply to Ghana or Cameroon.

Nobody makes such generalisations about Asia or Europe. Africa is clearly the least understood combatant command area.

For example, some of you talk about food aid and its importance in Africa. A West African sees food aid much differently from an East African (West Africa has a lot less famines than East Africa so depends much less on food aid). He doesn't attach the same importance to food aid as a person who grew up in the horn. Thus, a message tailored for the East African audience may seen as an insult in much of West Africa.

[JMA]

Strange that, the African Americans in Zaire felt that it was harder for them to get along. We don't actually employ any Americans and our support and training is governed by Geneva (UN) and what we call IMAS - International Mine Action Standards. AFRICOM should be looking at our program so we can expand (hope we don't have to wear those funky patches with our baby blue helmets :D )

Stan, are we not perhaps at cross purposes? I believe you are talking about demining teams? I was talking about training battalions as per the Stars and Stripes articles.

My thoughts were of staffing over a 10 year period involving permanent postings preceded by extensive language training etc etc. The issue of staffing would relate to officers on the Gurkha model or the RAR model, perhaps starting on a earlier colonial model (which included key NCO posts as well) and depending on the local ethnic/tribal military history (I'll come select them ;) ). Perhaps for a different discussion sometime?

[KingJaja]

Stan, are we not perhaps at cross purposes? I believe you are talking about demining teams? I was talking about training battalions as per the Stars and Stripes articles.

My thoughts were of staffing over a 10 year period involving permanent postings preceded by extensive language training etc etc. The issue of staffing would relate to officers on the Gurkha model or the RAR model, perhaps starting on a earlier colonial model (which included key NCO posts as well) and depending on the local ethnic/tribal military history (I'll come select them ). Perhaps for a different discussion sometime?

Does your concept have political support both in the US and Africa?

I haven't read the Stars and Stripe article, but if you are pushing for a model like Glover's Hausas or the Nubian dominated King's African Rifles, I have three words for you: don't try it.

We've been there, done that. Works very well for a colony, doesn't work well in an independent nation.

[JMA]

Does your concept have political support both in the US and Africa?

I haven't read the Stars and Stripe article, but if you are pushing for a model like Glover's Hausas or the Nubian dominated King's African Rifles, I have three words for you: don't try it.

We've been there, done that. Works very well for a colony, doesn't work well in an independent nation.

OK, well read the Stars and Stripes article for context then comment.

A lot of what is discussed here is merely theoretical or from some based their own limited experience, thats why its called a discussion forum. ;)

Feel free to make a concrete contribution on how best to staff military support missions to Africa (frrom the US or other countries) and how that would differ in approach between say Nigeria and the DRC, Egypt and Somalia. etc etc.

[KingJaja]

I've read the article.

1. Clearly Joseph Kabila doesn't depend on these guys for his personal security. He seems to be applying a popular model in the developing World - i.e. lavishly fund an elite unit largely composed of members of your tribe / mercenaries and treat the rest of the army like crap. (I might be wrong here). I find it hard to be believe that while Rwanda can field a modestly competent army, Congo DRC cannot.

He doesn't trust these guys, so he'll pay lip service to anything you tell him to secure his next tranche of aid funding.

2. The problem with Congo DRC is political, not military and Joseph Kabila clearly isn't the man you should be dealing with.

3. No amount of exposure to the US army is going to change the nature of military-civilian relations in the Congo DRC (to put it mildly), unless the underlying, socio-economic and political problems are dealt with. All armies reflect the values and the education levels of their lowest recruits and the leadership qualities of their commanders. The Nigerian army for example, has a well earned reputation for brutality, but it is less likely to sink to the level of the Congolese army because its leadership and rank and file are better educated and better orientated.

4. A nation the size of Western Europe cannot be effectively administered from Kinshasa. It's time to break up the Congo and deal with the constituent parts. The US military intervention merely continues the false notion that Congo DRC is a united, contiguous entity and should be treated as such.

5. On the balance, what the US army is doing is better than doing nothing, but it is not sustainable.

[Stan]

I've read the article.

1. Clearly Joseph Kabila doesn't depend on these guys for his personal security. He seems to be applying a popular model in the developing World - i.e. lavishly fund an elite unit largely composed of members of your tribe / mercenaries and treat the rest of the army like crap. (I might be wrong here). I find it hard to be believe that while Rwanda can field a modestly competent army, Congo DRC cannot.

Very well said and precisely the problem even in 1984. The only difference then were non-State actors like Belgium, China, Egypt, France, Israel and USA all took care of some unit with both funding and training. Rwanda's military even during the genocide was better trained and equipped and gave the FAZ a run for their money.


He doesn't trust these guys, so he'll pay lip service to anything you tell him to secure his next tranche of aid funding.

Seems it was never an issue of trust even during the EUCOM days. But to be fair, it was the US Administration's policy and we had to manage it whichever way possible.


5. On the balance, what the US army is doing is better than doing nothing, but it is not sustainable.

Agreed. We are not staying there for 25 years again and it would take that amount of time to have completely retrained and funded the Congolese military.

[KingJaja]

Stan,

So you worked with Mobutu? I actually think that the Cold War was a wasted period in Africa. The US pursued very narrowly defined goals (Soviet containment), missed the forest for the trees, hastily withdrew when the Soviet Union collapsed, left a vacuum and raced back when the Chinese and Al Qaeda appeared to be exploiting that vacuum.

(Your history makes me wonder when next you'll head for the exit. Anyway, I digress...)

Please what really are America's long-term goals in Congo? Is it to contain Chinese influence or create a sustainable environment for trade and prosperity or is it merely to satisfy the expectations of NGO crowd or the fear of regional destabilisation?

I suspect your policy is more driven by threats (China, Regional Destabilisation) and managing the expectations of Jeffery Sachs. These are great, but the Congolese will be eternally grateful to America if it could craft a bolder policy driven more by opportunities than fears and threats.

Congo DRC needs to be shaken up. The people of Congo have had a raw deal since King Leopold and the Force Publique, they lack the internal capacity to reform themselves and no one in Africa (Nigeria included), has the resources or diplomatic capacity to do that.

I am told that 5.4 million have died between 1998 - 2008. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers tell us that the political architecture of Congo needs to be renegotiated. Let's stop the pretense and break the country into component parts, starting with Katanga.

[Dayuhan]

I am told that 5.4 million have died between 1998 - 2008. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers tell us that the political architecture of Congo needs to be renegotiated. Let's stop the pretense and break the country into component parts, starting with Katanga.

I can see the logic in that, but I can't see any way that it would be appropriate or possible for the US to initiate such a move.

Look back at the creation of AFRICOM... this represented a very minor shift, yet it was presented, and largely accepted, as evidence of a sinister American grab for African influence and resources. Imagine how the same people - "the Als", as you described them - would spin an American-initiated effort to dissolve the Congolese government and partition the country. Would that not be interpreted, presented, and accepted as evidence of the most naked kind of paleo-colonialism... no matter what the actual intention?

I do not personally think it would be wise or necessary for the US to try to directly counter or contain Chinese influence in Africa. We have a saying about allowing someone to have the rope with which to hang themselves...

[M-A Lagrange]

Congo DRC needs to be shaken up. The people of Congo have had a raw deal since King Leopold and the Force Publique, they lack the internal capacity to reform themselves and no one in Africa (Nigeria included), has the resources or diplomatic capacity to do that.

I am told that 5.4 million have died between 1998 - 2008. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers tell us that the political architecture of Congo needs to be renegotiated. Let's stop the pretense and break the country into component parts, starting with Katanga.

Kingjaja:

Please, the numbers are between 3.6 and 4.2 million people who died during that periode due to the consequences of war (displacement, malnutrition, banditry...).
Combats have made approximately between 250 000 and 500 000 victimes directly.

Also, the political architecture of DRC has been renegociated by the congolese themselves in Sun city through the dialogue inter congolais. They came out with a decentralised state in which provinces are semi autonomous and have provincial parliament. The decentralisation had to be accelerated in 2006 after the first elections since independance as said in the constitution.
In 2011 Joseph Kabila, DRC president decided to postpound indefinitely the decentralisation after not implementing it during 5 years. No congolese reacted because they are used to their 11 provinces.

Also, Katanga province is hightly controled by Kinshasa which is 3000 km far away. Actual president Joseph Kabila is originating from Katanga and Maniema. The Baluba from North Katanga are in power in Kinshasa. The actual president of the electoral commition is a Baluba from Katanga. In an interview he said: "before, I wanted to become a soldier to become very rich."
The actual governor of Katanga, who is the brother of the man controling all the logistic road export of mineral from Katanga to Mombassa has been harrassed by the members of president circle because he wanted more transparency in the mining exploitation in Katanga. He extended a ban on conflict mineral set by the president himself from Kivu and Maniema provinces to Katanga. By doing so he allegedly stopped illegal exports of conflict mineral from Maniema through Katanga. Maniema is a province where business is controled by DRC president twin sister...

The only people who want Katanga independance are radical extremist from congolese extrem right. In the 90, their movement, at that called UFERI, lead by the actual president of Katanga parliament killed more than 100 000 people because they were Baluba from Kasai.

Shall I continue to explain why your understanding of DRC is just wrong and dangerous? :mad:

[Stan]

Hei Jaja !
You always have only the hard questions !


Stan,

So you worked with Mobutu? I actually think that the Cold War was a wasted period in Africa. The US pursued very narrowly defined goals (Soviet containment), missed the forest for the trees, hastily withdrew when the Soviet Union collapsed, left a vacuum and raced back when the Chinese and Al Qaeda appeared to be exploiting that vacuum.

Yep, worked right inside his presidential palace at Gbadolite in 1984 as a team leader instructing on armored vehicles :eek: I quickly picked up Lingala and began my bastardized version of Belgian Frog too !
Those were the days when Kinshasa was truly "Kin La Belle" !

There were no defined goals back then, and the EUCOM objectives were at best foggy. My team ended up all over the country and our mission statement was baffled by the Zairois. SIGH ! We had Russians and Cubans across the river trading diamonds for anything that remotely appeared to be military hardware, rebel insurgents 300 clicks west, expats building and maintaining a power dam, and very hungry businessmen mining everything that Zaire stood for. A vast country with no infrastructure outside of perhaps Bas-Zaire and Shaba Provinces.


(Your history makes me wonder when next you'll head for the exit. Anyway, I digress...)

It wasn't intended to be an "exit strategy" and you have a very valid point and concern. Sitting in your shoes I would also be worried.

Our history in Zaire was strange for most of us working there. The end of the Cold War did not have to mean the end of Zaire, but the US Administration and half of Europe were no longer in need of a dictator and pushed for a democratic Zaire along with the Zairois. Well, as JMA so eloquently put, how do you force free and democratic elections on a country that never had them and has no need for elections (Uncle Mo was not leaving) ?. The pace that the Clinton Administration pressed on the Embassy was unrealistic for even a modern western culture. Our Ambassador, a tall and attractive white female, would have the honor of addressing Mobutu with the plan :D
The rest you know !

I was optimistic when Obama was elected, and I'm sure the Africans were also relieved and had some high hopes (Americans did).


Please what really are America's long-term goals in Congo? Is it to contain Chinese influence or create a sustainable environment for trade and prosperity or is it merely to satisfy the expectations of NGO crowd or the fear of regional destabilisation?

Gotta answer your questions backwards:
The NGO crowd has no real influence and they are quick to back off when one considers where all their operating money comes from. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Trade and prosperity were always on the table, but, as you already described perfectly, the Congolese govt. will only play along until the next tranche of aid is provided. We can change the name of the country, but we will never manage to change the Zairois mentality by playing an American game with Zairian rules. I believe an open trade policy is also on the table for Nigeria, but I don't know what the conditions are with the exception of our stupid selective-vision/hearing human rights policies tied directly to foreign aid. With that, I'll answer number 3..

The (current) USG concern about China is her provision of unconditional foreign aid. China achieves diplomatic, military, and economic influence in African nations in exchange for unconditional foreign aid, regardless of the benefiting country's human rights record or political practices. That's probably not good for anyone in Africa but dictators love free cash :o
Dayuhan has an excellent post to you on China. He hit every single salient point as if he lived in Zaire with me. The only thing he might have missed was how much China got involved with the Zairian Army. That spelled real trouble when we are trying to clean up what the FAZ has been accustomed to doing for 3 decades.

What I despise about US foreign policy with regards to financial aid is we often end up selectively blind or deaf when we need to; It should never get to that point. If we're going to get on our high horse with moral judgement, then we should stay there.


...but the Congolese will be eternally grateful to America if it could craft a bolder policy driven more by opportunities than fears and threats.

I agree but I have no clue how to get there. My programs are also partly financed by the USG and there are more rules than I can even begin to comprehend. Estonia is a small country and very easy to manage. Congo is huge and Africa is a giant. AFRICOM was designed to handle that while trying to battle for the same pot of money the rest of us are expected to share. A real hard nut to crack.


I am told that 5.4 million have died between 1998 - 2008. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers tell us that the political architecture of Congo needs to be renegotiated. Let's stop the pretense and break the country into component parts, starting with Katanga.

More war stories:
In 94 I literally watched over 4,000 people die a day as a member of a 3-man team. That was the longest 6 months of my life.

Inchi ya Katanga
Katanga has been saying that since 1960 and things would be slightly different if they had nothing to mine and sell. Let's be realistic, Katanga constitutes almost 50% of all revenues even today. Would your break up of the DRC include equal shares of revenues ? How do you propose to prop up the remainder of the country ? Be careful, the Russians are also trying to get into Katanga and nearly support their desire to become and independent State. That my friend is what they do all over the world and make the Chinese look like amateurs.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

Shall I continue to explain why your understanding of DRC is just wrong and dangerous? :mad:

Hey MA,
I was wondering just how long you would lurk around in the African threads :D

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan has an excellent post to you on China. He hit every single salient point as if he lived in Zaire with me.

Interesting... I've never been there, but I guess that leopard wears the same spots in a lot of places. What's your read on how people were reacting to the Chinese presence, both on the level of the major project investments and the street-level commercial presence?

[M-A Lagrange]

[QUOTE=KingJaja;128589]I've read the article.

1. Clearly Joseph Kabila doesn't depend on these guys for his personal security. He seems to be applying a popular model in the developing World - i.e. lavishly fund an elite unit largely composed of members of your tribe / mercenaries and treat the rest of the army like crap. (I might be wrong here). I find it hard to be believe that while Rwanda can field a modestly competent army, Congo DRC cannot.

Simply because of what you just said: he treat the rest of the army like crap...


2. The problem with Congo DRC is political, not military and Joseph Kabila clearly isn't the man you should be dealing with.
So who should be DRC president part from Stan and me? or Tom?
If you tell me the opposition, then I will advise you to just take the time to read DRC news from the last week and you will understand.


3. No amount of exposure to the US army is going to change the nature of military-civilian relations in the Congo DRC (to put it mildly), unless the underlying, socio-economic and political problems are dealt with. All armies reflect the values and the education levels of their lowest recruits and the leadership qualities of their commanders. The Nigerian army for example, has a well earned reputation for brutality, but it is less likely to sink to the level of the Congolese army because its leadership and rank and file are better educated and better orientated.

Yep, and how do you solve the issue when a whole country has a culture of stealing, corruption and fraud? As Mobutu said: I cannot pay you anymore, so you will have to steal. Don't steal too much but steal anyway cause that your only way to get paid.



4. A nation the size of Western Europe cannot be effectively administered from Kinshasa. It's time to break up the Congo and deal with the constituent parts. The US military intervention merely continues the false notion that Congo DRC is a united, contiguous entity and should be treated as such.

That war costed at least 2 million lives. Wanna try again?


5. On the balance, what the US army is doing is better than doing nothing, but it is not sustainable.
I agree with you.

Now the real question how do you "force" a government to implement a security sector reform that he is not willing to conduct as it would endanger its grip on populace and make people in power less rich?
And that's not a rethorical question.

[Stan]

Hey Dayuhan,

In the early 80s the Chinese presence was not so apparent in town, as the majority were military “advisors” (technicians) working on tanks and patrol boats outside the capital, and training the 41st Commandos in north-eastern Zaire. With perhaps the exception of our weekly attaché briefs and several sponsored visits to their sites, I would have told you there were no Chinese in Zaire.

In early 1990 however the Chinese came back to (ahem) assess things and it was estimated that over a thousand Chinese were in Zaire. In true fashion, the women encroached on small shop owners selling jewelry and clothing to tourists at rock bottom prices. That led to conflict at the markets and the Chinese moved out and set up shop in Gombé, the heart of the business sector. By now the majority of western financial aid was gone and 91 saw social and political upheaval like never before. Interestingly enough, most of the foreigners evacuated leaving only the Chinese and some Lebanese diamond dealers behind.

The Chinese were really good at playing on Zairian fears, warning Zaire and the west about Russians and Cubans, and used that to their every advantage. The trouble with most of us (the west) was we were not convinced, but as our financial aid dwindled (only humanitarian aid was permitted), our voices of reason were no longer welcomed.


Interesting... I've never been there, but I guess that leopard wears the same spots in a lot of places. What's your read on how people were reacting to the Chinese presence, both on the level of the major project investments and the street-level commercial presence?

[KingJaja]

Also, Katanga province is hightly controled by Kinshasa which is 3000 km far away. Actual president Joseph Kabila is originating from Katanga and Maniema. The Baluba from North Katanga are in power in Kinshasa. The actual president of the electoral commition is a Baluba from Katanga. In an interview he said: "before, I wanted to become a soldier to become very rich."
The actual governor of Katanga, who is the brother of the man controling all the logistic road export of mineral from Katanga to Mombassa has been harrassed by the members of president circle because he wanted more transparency in the mining exploitation in Katanga. He extended a ban on conflict mineral set by the president himself from Kivu and Maniema provinces to Katanga. By doing so he allegedly stopped illegal exports of conflict mineral from Maniema through Katanga. Maniema is a province where business is controled by DRC president twin sister..

I might be wrong (I don't claim to be an expert on Congo), but what happens when the non-Katangese rule Congo? Will Katanga still be happy with the arrangement? I am asking this question because I see parallels in the situation in Nigeria.

In 1993, Babangida annulled an election won by a Yoruba (Abiola). During the nineties the Yoruba and the Niger Deltans were the most dissatisfied by the situation in Nigeria. When Obasanjo (a fellow Yoruba) came to power, the level of dissatisfaction declined.

When Jonathan (an Ijaw from the Niger Delta) became Vice-President, I began to notice a decline in the level of violence in the Niger Delta. (There were other factors, like Yar'adua's amnesty programme, but the presence of a fellow Ijaw at Abuja had something to do with it). If you notice, since Jonathan became president, Niger Delta militants have been a lot more quiet than usual (Boko Haram is giving us far more pain).

In the future, when the Katangase no longer control Kinshasa, will they be still be happy to go along with the present arrangement?

[ganulv]

My significant other is away to the African Studies Association meeting (http://africanstudies.terradotta.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Abroad.ViewLink&Parent_ID=0&Link_ID=9E03FB90-26B9-564D-D66B771C7C118F7C) and it occurred to me to browse the program to see how many presenters are taking AFRICOM as their topic. Only two, it turns out, both of whom list Africa Command as their affiliation. I suspect that runs counter to some folks’ perception of perceptions in a couple of ways.

-------------------

Commanding Africa (Saturday 1415–1615)

Chair: William Minter, AfricaFocus

Liza Briggs, US Africa Command – “US Africa Command: a socio-cultural lens on military engagement”

Ibrahim Ndzesop, University of Paris I – “Mercenaries and military manpower in African history: when do states use mercenaries?”

Stephen Harmon, Pittsburgh State University – “Kidnapping and contraband: al-Qaeda in the Sahara-Sahel region and its implications for regional policy”

Maureen Farrell, US Africa Command – “Gender mainstreaming with African militaries: a role for AFRICOM?”

Discussant: William Minter, AfricaFocus

[Stan]

I'm surprised AFRICOM even got into the venue. But then, money talks and I'm sure they pay dearly for such an event. Public Affairs can do wonders with our taxes !

I am most interested in Mercenaries and military manpower in African history and would love to hear what your better half has to say on that subject. A ton of evidence that the Serbs were Mobutu's final frontier but none were actually killed nor captured. However, they left a significant amount of anti-personnel mines behind that are still being cleaned up as we speak.


My significant other is away to the African Studies Association meeting (http://africanstudies.terradotta.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Abroad.ViewLink&Parent_ID=0&Link_ID=9E03FB90-26B9-564D-D66B771C7C118F7C) and it occurred to me to browse the program to see how many presenters are taking AFRICOM as their topic. Only two, it turns out, both of whom list Africa Command as their affiliation. I suspect that runs counter to some folks’ perception of perceptions in a couple of ways.

[carl]

Two comments based on my brief time in Congo.

First, I don't think the race of any American military adviser sent to Congo would make a difference. An American was a mundele no matter what color they were.

Second, it might make great sense to break Congo up into parts but I am not sure the Congolese see it like that. They seemed to accept the idea that the DRC was one country and should stay that way.

[Stan]

Hey Carl,
Hope your C12 adventures are still keeping you excited :D

A good point, but I would also like to point out that most of the missionaries and Belgians that were born there and could dance the lingo with the best of the Zairois also called Zaire home. What did Tom accuse me of ? Reading your opponent before he ever had the thought of doing it. Not a language thing and not a skin color thing. Being called mundele never much mattered to me, but the compliments I did enjoy.

We could no more break up Congo than we could separate NY from the USA. Regardless of the shape she's in, the people still think of it as home in one piece. At least the people still pathetically believe in their country (something I would have never thought after the abuse they have been through).

Take care, Stan



Two comments based on my brief time in Congo.

First, I don't think the race of any American military adviser sent to Congo would make a difference. An American was a mundele no matter what color they were.

Second, it might make great sense to break Congo up into parts but I am not sure the Congolese see it like that. They seemed to accept the idea that the DRC was one country and should stay that way.

[Dayuhan]

My significant other is away to the African Studies Association meeting (http://africanstudies.terradotta.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Abroad.ViewLink&Parent_ID=0&Link_ID=9E03FB90-26B9-564D-D66B771C7C118F7C) and it occurred to me to browse the program to see how many presenters are taking AFRICOM as their topic. Only two, it turns out, both of whom list Africa Command as their affiliation. I suspect that runs counter to some folks’ perception of perceptions in a couple of ways.

-------------------

Commanding Africa (Saturday 1415–1615)

Chair: William Minter, AfricaFocus

Liza Briggs, US Africa Command – “US Africa Command: a socio-cultural lens on military engagement”

Ibrahim Ndzesop, University of Paris I – “Mercenaries and military manpower in African history: when do states use mercenaries?”

Stephen Harmon, Pittsburgh State University – “Kidnapping and contraband: al-Qaeda in the Sahara-Sahel region and its implications for regional policy”

Maureen Farrell, US Africa Command – “Gender mainstreaming with African militaries: a role for AFRICOM?”

Discussant: William Minter, AfricaFocus

Interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it kind of stands out that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM... no AID, no DoS. That kind of matches what KingJaja said about the US presenting a military-dominated face... you'd think they'd want to balance out a bit by sending at least one from the civilian side, though it may just be a matter of insufficient interest.

Second, the topics chosen by the AFRICOM speakers seem intentionally bland. Given the range of issues confronting African militaries and the range of problems presented by civil/military relations, a discussion of "gender mainstreaming with African militaries" seems deliberately peripheral.

I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by backing away from major issues, even if those issues are controversial and present few really good options. I'd like to see more discussion on issues like... well for example: given that human rights abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, for many African militaries, what's a more effective way to improve that situation, isolation and exclusion of offenders or an attempt to engage and influence?

Of course nobody really has a good answer to that question, because there is no really good answer to that question... but it doesn't hurt to let people know we're thinking about it and soliciting opinions for consideration.

[KingJaja]

Interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it kind of stands out that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM... no AID, no DoS. That kind of matches what KingJaja said about the US presenting a military-dominated face... you'd think they'd want to balance out a bit by sending at least one from the civilian side, though it may just be a matter of insufficient interest.

Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM? If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.

We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?

I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.

So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.

Once again, I might be wrong.

[Dayuhan]

Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM?

The cited agenda listed two presentations from AFRICOM representatives and none from other American agencies. Others might have been attending.


If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.

I don't think funding would be the constraint: it costs very little to send someone to give a talk in New Jersey. More likely they just didn't bother.


We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?

Do you have a source on that one quarter of the budget figure? It sounds superficially unlikely, but many things are possible.


I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.

I'd be happy to have them send half the contingent here over there. We won't miss them: nobody seems to have any idea what (if anything) they actually do.


So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.

That seems likely, though whether it's because of a shortfall in DoS staff or because the DoS staff aren't involved in any visible activity is difficult to say.

[ganulv]

[T]he topics chosen by the AFRICOM speakers seem intentionally bland.
They’re probably a good call. As my advisor once told me about the general topic of a paper I was scheduled to give, it can sometimes be difficult to underestimate how little your audience knows about certain areas.


Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM?
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of African Affairs (whew) is going to be part of a roundtable about Côte d'Ivoire-related issues and the Senior Advisor for Workforce Development and Youth in USAID’s EGAT/Office of Education (whew) is giving a paper.

[Stan]

Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM? If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.

I sincerely doubt AFRICOM is better funded than State for several reasons, but the most obvious are the number of both personnel and locations. The other thing about major commands that tap into foreign assistance money is, the cash is State's and without their approval money is not coming.


We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?

Sadly, I was unable to store all this info (http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/c6112.htm) in my head so that I could simply regurgitate it at a moments notice herein.... So I googled it :D
I'm really not interested in all those pdf files, so you'll have to do the digging yourself.

This next story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/02/u-s-state-department-asks-for-6-2-billion-budget-for-iraq/) you probably will not like when you read exactly why State is asking for the 62 billion. Scroll down about half way where they discuss barrels of oil !

Equally relevant to your question on the size of State's budget. More interesting are the traditional military duties of the Office of Defense Cooperation - Foreign Military Sales and International Military Education and Training - are being handled by State. Embassy personnel really don't care for us when we're doing our job abroad, now they have to do our job :D


The embassy plans to double in size next year to 16,000 personnel, when it takes over many military tasks after US troops pull out of Iraq at the end of this year, including military sales and training of Iraqi security forces.


I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.

So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.

Once again, I might be wrong.

Actually I see just the opposite occurring. Most African posts are short handed - not a lot of happy volunteers. The embassies in Europe are fat and people will be expected to rotate if they wish to retain their career status.

Other than the number 2 at AFRICOM the majority are military and DA civilians. Military and DA civilians cannot replace Foreign Service and Senior Foreign Service personnel. An entirely different mission and training.

[Misifus]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

[Ken White]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?No.

Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily because the number of persons senior enough to hold that Command who can have, much less will have, experience of Africa is microscopic if it exists at all.

Answer the question my answer will generate: To achieve an end state of Africom commanders possessing local experience would require two things; extensive and long US involvement with the Continent and / or promotion of African experienced FAOs to General Officers in sufficient quantities to provide a pool large enough for a constant stream of 4 Buttons. Neither of those is likely.

A remedy that is available is to better educate General Officers in the Army (or US Flag Officers in general) to pay more heed to their area specialists instead of relying on their ego centric determinations and to insure that African FAOs are heavily represented on the Africom staff instead of being placed in totally non-germane assignments. Does an African FAO need to be a Training Battlion XO? Almost certainly not. Nor will one do much good in PacCom, FORSCOM, TRADOC or US Northern Command.

In the design of Africom IIRC, they put an Ambassador nominally with African experience on the TDA, that too is necessary but someone needs to insure he's (a) not an incompetent; and (b) is listened to...
In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?Excellent point. There are cases where certain skills matter a great deal, no question. There are others where they matter little. The US Army's problem is that it has been forced by Congress to take the position that rank is generic and not skill specific. That is, people must be selected for rank as fairly and objectively as possible and the system must cater to that by providing the skills and knowledges to allow the marginal person to perform at a minimum level of effectiveness.

Unfortunately, that's what the system manages to do -- head for that minimum level of effectiveness. No question that many, even most, in the Army transcend that and can do far more than hit that minimum level but too many can do little or no better yet they must be tolerated due to the 'fairness' stricture. :mad:

The fact that warfare isn't fair seems to have escaped notice...

Thus my answer to that problem is that the Army must do a better job of identifying what skills wil best contribute to war fighting and articulate a need for Congress to change OPM 21 and allied laws to allow the Personnel system (which needs to lose it's 1917 mindset...) to adapt, place needed skill where they are required and stop wasting money trying to make everyone equal in 'qualifications.' They will never be equal and we waste gallons of money trying fruitlessly to change that. The waste is a problem, a larger problem is the decrease in combat capability and effectiveness that waste produces...:rolleyes:
How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?I opine that level of Command shouldn't exist -- but no one asked me. If it does exist as it obviously does, then the requirement for Staffers should insist on the maximum degree of local or area expertise and knowledge that is available.

The requirement that knowledge be employed is harder to enforce... :rolleyes:

I know most are aware of all that, just wanted to write it down... ;)

[Misifus]

Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily... Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.

Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' As a simple analogy, someone can describe to me how to dig a ditch and I can gain the 'knowledge' of how to dig a ditch. But unless I go out there and actually dig a ditch myself, I really don't know squat. For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.

[KingJaja]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

Such an individual needs to understand Africa, he needs to understand ethnic rivalries and ethnic compositions. He needs to understand that there are many sides to a story and if there are 250 ethnic groups, there are 250 different sides to the same story. He should be able to smell out whether the host nation military he is dealing with is a national army or merely an ethnic militia.

He should understand the broad socio-cultural trends in the African continent. He should be able to distinguish between the "Bantus" and the "Nilotics", the "Afro-Asiatics" and the "Niger-Congo" people. He should be aware of African colonial history and its impact on the perception of the US in Africa. He should have a frame of reference for assessing the impact of the insertion of US forces in a given host nation.

He should be able understand the impact of displaying pictures of US forces training soldiers of "country X" today on AFRICOM's website and soldiers from country X massacring civilians tomorrow on US public diplomacy. He should understand demographic trends (on a regional / country basis) intimately.

Finally, he should know Africa, not as "Africa" but as a continent of 54 different and unique nations.

I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

[Misifus]

...I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

I think there are several 48's ("48" is/was the numerical designation for a US Army Foreign Area Officer) who do understand what you cited above in post #46. I am hoping that today's US Army appreciates this skill set more than yesterday's US Army. This of course would be due to the increased complexity of the world.

P.S. Just for the record I have never been a 48 or the counterpart known as a as a "38" for Civil Affairs. In my time 38's were generally in the US Army Reserve, not on active duty.

[Ken White]

Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees. Thus instead of getting GOs with WW II experience in the Pacific to fight in Viet Nam, we got a slew of them with north western European experience...

Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately. As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...:rolleyes:

I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place. As I said, I disagree with the existence of CoComs. We haven't gotten much right in the world since they were invented -- or, more correctly, over-empowered. That means I disagree with you and the Army. :wry:
Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' ...Obviously, agreed. Kniowledge cannot substitute for experience but some knowledge is better than none.
...For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.One approach -- also one that has major difficulties in implementation. The size of the force and the vagaries of mission locations -- and shifting focus -- will not allow such a tailored approach. It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough -- but I suspect it would be a hard sell to Congress, much less to the Army heirarchy. Recall also that developing GOs is a 30 year or so process and while that could be shortened -- might benefit from being shortened -- it still will entail more than 15 years or so; a lot can happen in that time. You're also confronted with the changeover in US national focus every 2,4,6 and 8 years due to the electoral cycle; continuity r not us...:wry:

Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe. I suspect we'll have to get by with are knowledge and not area experience -- it'd be really cool if they'd just use that knowledge... :cool:

[Stan]

I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

Jaja,
Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"

[ganulv]

As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...:rolleyes:I believe this is the same as what anthropologists refer to as “the dead hand of competence.”

[Misifus]

I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees.Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.


Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately. Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"


I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place. I agree. You didn't see me jumping up and down at the formation of AFRICOM. But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it. Instead of picking just someone who has been designated as "bright." Like I said, "talent" is so overrated these days. Look at all that "talent" on Wall Street, the banking industry, insurance, etc. They've done wonders for the economy, eh? ;)


It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.


Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe...

You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain. Like you said, maybe we just don't want it badly enough.

Thanks for your feedback.

[KingJaja]

Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"

Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.

[Stan]

Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.

Sorry Jaja, I meant do a SWC search for those subjects. AFRICOM and FAOs have been discussed for nearly 5 years herein. Not something new.

That's a fair question. For some reason all the major commands have been 4 stars. I have no clue ;) I am but a mere retired and grumpy SNCO.

[Ken White]

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.The Geographic Combatant Commanders do a lot of face to face 'diplomacy' -- or the military to military equivalent -- with the commanders or Chiefs of Staff of Armies and Armed Forces in the nations in their area of responsibility. Military folks are notoriously rank sensitive... :wry:

That's why the French have no one star general and their equivalent to a US four star wears five French stars... :D

[Ken White]

I am but a mere retired and grumpy SNCO.Us retarded senile non-sufficient ossifers are NOT grumpy -- WE are normal; others are just inadequately aroused. ;)

[Ken White]

as the Actress said to the Bishop...:D
Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.Ain't that the truth...

I think a big part of the problem in both regions was that the rice farmers and goat herders were deemed to be just that. Hudson High and post grad degrees could not / cannot conceive such persons to be a threat. And yes, trying to fight a land war in Europe in the rice paddies didn't help. Egos... :mad:

However do recall (as those aforementioned graduates did not) those Rice Farmers were well traveled internationally and had the benefit of some good foreign education and training plus a heavy supply of effective combat goodies -- and competent, experienced advisers -- from others.

Further consider that the current problem is not the goat herders -- it is our less than stellar state of training and general competence plus the penalty of being the Armed Force drawn from and representative of a very risk averse civilian society that has no clue about the application of force. Couple all that with a lack of will to be mean for fear of international and US public condemnation. IOW, it's not the goat herders; we have met the enemy and he is us in the current sessions. :rolleyes:

None of that is to excuse the US Army who did not and is not doing as well as could rightfully be expected for the support it is freely given. :mad:
Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"All things considered, yeah. Trust me, it could've been worse and it could not have ended much differently no matter what -- or who had been in Command. Wrong war at wrong time, etc. etc. The Brothers Kennedy wanted to boost the US economy and it spiraled rapidly out of hand.
But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it...I don't disagree but I think (a)Africom was not solely the Army's idea -- in fact. I heard they tried to squelch it; and (b) The Per system is too dysfunctional to handle that. That should not be the case but it is and part of the responsibility for that lies outside the Army and within the Congress.
Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.Absolutely -- probably didn't really want it that badly in the first place but unfortunately the 'system' needs crises. Any crisis will do just so long as we have to one to which to move...
You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain.That's essentially true but when you meld that regional experience requirement with other requirements believed to be important it isn't all that easy. Age old problems; priorities and time. My perception is the grand schema places regional expertise below tactical and technical competence which in turn is below pedigree and / or appearance or presentation. That's unfair to many but too applicable to some -- the system allows that, even encourages it. It should not.

[Stan]

That's why the French have no one star general and their equivalent to a US four star wears five French stars... :D

And it doesn't end there. The Estonians go from E-1 to O-00 (a 3rd lieutenant if you will) in a breathtaking 5 years - talk about a pay raise :eek:

They've also done away with Brigadier (as if butter bars weren't already bad enough).

But, it's a good if not sad point regarding rank and military diplomatic events. There's so much power in the room it's humbling.

[Stan]

Us retarded senile non-sufficient ossifers are NOT grumpy -- WE are normal; others are just inadequately aroused. ;)

That's a sweet looking patch. I could add it to my leathers, which would start even more stories about the "American spy in Estonia" riding a Harley :eek:

The last time I showed up at the Ambassadors with my LOM and Retired Army pin (just a smiggin above my good ol' NRA Life Member lapel pin) the conversations and future invitations seem to dwindle... SIGH

I managed to drink enough free beer to convince myself it was worth getting dressed and coming. :D

My admin boss, another real black beret wearer, swiftly took me to a local bar concerned over his retirement potential.

[Misifus]

...real black beret wearer... Could you explain to us what that means?

Thanks.

[Stan]

Jeez, don't you take the weekends off :)


Could you explain to us what that means?

Thanks.

With the introduction of the entire Army wearing a black beret signaled an end to what the berets and colors signified throughout history. I know darn few that could complete the Q course and there's a good reason for the high attrition rate even today.

When my last Colonel arrived (typically they are mine and I manage their care and feeding) and had to be briefed by the DCM he would be told (tab in full view)


the DCM was given to equating all military with the local mob. Soldiers were by definition suspect members of a sometimes necessary but never trusted evil.

I had a lump in my throat and never felt prouder that day :cool:

Some things simply cannot be explained.

Scouts Out !

[Misifus]

...When my last Colonel arrived (typically they are mine and I manage their care and feeding) and had to be briefed by the DCM he would be told (tab in full view)

I had a lump in my throat and never felt prouder that day :cool:


Huh?


Jeez, don't you take the weekends off :) Actually I have only been here the last few days because I have been off. Will back to work soon and then y'all can be merry again without me :D At least until the next break ;)

[Stan]

Huh?

Actually I have only been here the last few days because I have been off. Will back to work soon and then y'all can be merry again without me :D At least until the next break ;)

Not sure what happened to my quotes here, so I'm stuck on the "huh ?" as far as what is huh? The Colonel's tab was in full view as the DCM began his rambling. Better ?

In any case and yet another example, we have a chopper pilot here who refuses to wear the beret while in uniform (defiant O-4) and his boss, a real Ranger far senior in rank who will not wear his uniform, and will not scold the O-4 for lack of headgear.

It's apparent even in this tiny little place with very few US Army personnel, that the policy to change headgear was a mistake and has destroyed an institution and its heritage.

The beret, regardless of color, use to instill fear. When the Belgian and French paras "dropped in" during our first uprising, the mutinous Zairois fled as if the devil came a callin'.

The only thing I see now is how many different (wrong) ways there are to wear it :wry:

EDIT: This thread is all about preconceived misconceptions about AFRICOM. In the years that I worked under EUCOM funding with nearly the same guidance and US Military, I don't recall so much attention. In fact, seemed at the time few even cared. Could have been all those dictators quelling the masses ? We didn't have much of an internet back then and the local news was suppressed (unless you had a death wish -- nobody dicked with Uncle Mo for very long). Other than a strange patch and really stupid name nothing has really changed.

[Misifus]

...I'm stuck on the "huh ?" as far as what is huh?...

No biggy. I think it's a vernacular/jargon issue. In the background you told me
...I don’t know any scrolled Rangers... But then upthread you referred to a
...real black beret wearer...

A real black beret wearer would be a scrolled Ranger. You would get the black beret and the scroll when you serve in a Ranger battalion. The unit patch is referred to as the scroll. Those who have served in Ranger units are said to be "scrolled Rangers."

There are some Rangers who are tabbed only, some Rangers who are scrolled only, and then there are Rangers who are tabbed and scrolled. Sometimes within the Ranger community there are these flare-ups about what constitutes...a real Ranger..., which is another phrase you just used.

I hear what you are saying about the Shinseki decision on the black berets. It pissed a lot of people off. What I hear from my son, who is not scrolled or tabbed, is that most of the guys in the regular force can't stand the black beret and are glad that it has been retired (or soon will be). I'm not sure if the Ranger Regiment will be retiring the tan beret in order to go back to black.

Getting back to AFRICOM. Most of the fighting there historically involves light infantry type operations, IMO. Since the CINC is from Armor branch, at least being a tabbed Ranger we can assume he has some knowledge in these types of operations and can appreciate what it means to roll around in the dirt.

[Misifus]

Other than a strange patch and really stupid name nothing has really changed.

Probably true. I think what changed were the key events coming out of Africa in recent history:

1. The Somalia debacle.
2. AQ type terrorists in Eastern Africa.
3. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Saharan Africa, and now Arab Spring.
4. Piracy.
5. Oil.
6. China influence.

The above coupled with what you say about the internet and news dissemination...There you have it.

[KingJaja]

Probably true. I think what changed were the key events coming out of Africa in recent history:

1. The Somalia debacle.
2. AQ type terrorists in Eastern Africa.
3. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Saharan Africa, and now Arab Spring.
4. Piracy.
5. Oil.
6. China influence.

The above coupled with what you say about the internet and news dissemination...There you have it.

A lot more than that happened. They only key events in that list are (5), (6) and the Arab Spring, the rest are distractions, are peripheral or are merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

[Misifus]

A lot more than that happened. They only key events in that list are (5), (6) and the Arab Spring, the rest are distractions, are peripheral or are merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

Of course a lot more happened. That was a short list. However, over here in the US, those are some of the perceived things that happened that are used to advertise/justify the existence of an AFRICOM (though it already existed under another name).

We can add more to my short list, like the Rwanda genocide, the wonderful world of Robert Mugabe, etc., etc., etc.

However, like I said before, I am all for Africa working these problems out for herself.

[Stan]

No biggy. I think it's a vernacular/jargon issue. In the background you told meBut then upthread you referred to a


...I don’t know any scrolled Rangers...

A real black beret wearer would be a scrolled Ranger. You would get the black beret and the scroll when you serve in a Ranger battalion. The unit patch is referred to as the scroll. Those who have served in Ranger units are said to be "scrolled Rangers."

There are some Rangers who are tabbed only, some Rangers who are scrolled only, and then there are Rangers who are tabbed and scrolled. Sometimes within the Ranger community there are these flare-ups about what constitutes...a real Ranger..., which is another phrase you just used. .

I'm not divulging my age herein and you like old jargon more than I ;) but I think our definitions or versions are similar, you just gave it a better text book version :cool:

There are no scrolled in the units or organizations where I served (to include now) and they (real Rangers) are adamant about real beret wearers and real Rangers. It is in fact all about perception too.


I hear what you are saying about the Shinseki decision on the black berets. It pissed a lot of people off. What I hear from my son, who is not scrolled or tabbed, is that most of the guys in the regular force can't stand the black beret and are glad that it has been retired (or soon will be). I'm not sure if the Ranger Regiment will be retiring the tan beret in order to go back to black.

It's not just a Ranger thing either. Along the Korean MDL everybody wore the UN tab and crest, but barely a handful of us every attended training that entitled you to both. The other half of the unit were grunts (not that I have anything against the Infantry) all wearing MP helmets, sidearms and shoulder patches. There were in fact only five real MPs with riot control training on the whole Camp and barely 10 of us with real UN training.

Hanging out on the MDL with the Neutral Nations was not fun and everything was about what the North Koreans perceived. Huge grunts (the size of Sears refrigerators) would set the stage facing off with 4 foot 9 ferocious North Korean guards :D

So, is AFRICOM coincidentally or inadvertently the refrigerator sized grunt, or, have we just been naive as to what the Africans care about and perceive all these years ?


Getting back to AFRICOM. Most of the fighting there historically involves light infantry type operations, IMO. Since the CINC is from Armor branch, at least being a tabbed Ranger we can assume he has some knowledge in these types of operations and can appreciate what it means to roll around in the dirt.

Agreed. I would rather have him around that some diplomat when the Sierra hits the fan ! The years and money the UN teams have invested have not borne fruit and you may be correct in most places that the carrot and stick approach is not working.

Our association with professional military training makes us think we can convert a mentality that has not evolved nor existed in harmony for decades. Sometimes that training works (so long as we don't try to dictate how to apply in every situation) and often it just doesn't get it.

Sorry for the long dissertation, but African rulers will not submit to relinquishment of power and if we back out as has been suggested, there are more than enough takers (China and Russia to name just two) that we will end up back on the front burner anyway. May as well just "dork it up" ourselves and take the blame now.

I'm for trying and dump the human rights tag on all our programs.

[Stan]

Just stumbled across this link known as Pambazuka (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/Africom/). It never occurred to me that such a site would expend so much energy on the subject of AFRICOM. Admittedly, I had to wonder about seemingly innocent posts bantering about drones and counter terrorism ops. Look no more :rolleyes:

[KingJaja]

Almost every educated African was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was a sixties-era socialist in the West or who went the whole hog in the Eastern bloc. It doesn't also help that Nkrumah, Lumumba, Agostinho Neto and Thomas Sankara are still very popular here today.

We were taught to be suspicious of American military power.

That's just the way it is.

[Stan]

Some valid points although none of these men had anything to do with AFRICOM.

I'm just curious why EUCOM never made it to sites like pambazuka. EUCOM (http://www.eucom.mil/mission/background/history-of-eucom) has been around since 1952 and I would have thought their operations in Africa are far more intriguing than that of AFRICOM.

Patrice Lumumba's demise was in fact part of that era and not the AFRICOM period. His popularity in the 80s and 90s BTW was all but gone with a new generation of Congolese. It's always nicer and easier to reminisce in the past even if you and I are not even remotely part of it.

The Western educated Africans I know never returned. I doubt that had much to do with American military.

[KingJaja]

We don't all live in Congo.

By "Western educated", I don't mean educated in the West, I mean formal schooling to college degree level.

CIA was the old bogey man, not EUCOM. AFRICOM is the new CIA. Names matter, EUCOM doesn't sound threatening, AFRICOM does.

[Dayuhan]

CIA was the old bogey man, not EUCOM. AFRICOM is the new CIA. Names matter, EUCOM doesn't sound threatening, AFRICOM does.

In many ways it comes down to that, no? A simple change of designation - ironically intended to show more concern for and attention to Africa - becomes a bogeyman through the power of a name, and the power of propaganda (not that the US didn't stick its tender bits right into the rotating knives of the propaganda machine with that one).

It's almost amusing to think of an entire continent quivering in fear before the presumably diabolical powers of 1600 staff workers in Stuttgart, but such is the power of bogeymen. It would be interesting to take the total number of combat troops assigned to AFRICOM and break them down to see how many there would be per nation, or how many hectares of African soil each one would represent. Not that this, or any other logical process, would have much impact on perception!

[KingJaja]

The fireworks over Somalia and the Libyan operation may or may not be handled by the 1,600 out of Stuttgart. But the point is moot.

There is something in the African psyche that abhors the presence of white men with guns. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about Africa.

Ojukwu, who led Biafra (he just died) explained that on reaching the rank of Major, his father was overjoyed, because his grandfather (a titled Chief) was slapped by a British Army major. Many of us have similar stories.

That is just the way it is and there is nothing you can do to change it. Learn to live with it. A US military contingent on African soil is never going generate rave reviews.

As we speak, there are hot heads in African Universities indocrinating the next generation of African intellectuals on the evils of AFRICOM. The body of scholarship to support their views is vast and is being updated as we speak.

(It doesn't help that "CIA killed Lumumba". CIA=US=AFRICOM).

[KingJaja]

In understanding the African aversion to AFRICOM it is important to consider the parallels between the last great imperial power in Africa, Britain and the United States.

1. Unchallenged Naval power: The greatest beneficiary of the Napoleonic Wars was Britain. It allowed Britain to dominate the World's seas during the Victorian era. Similarly, the greatest beneficiary of the Cold War is the US and the US Navy dominates the 21st Century the same way the Royal Navy dominated the 19th.

2. Privatisation of War: The major fallout of the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns is the reluctance of the US to commit ground troops to on foreign soil. As Robert Gates so delicately put it; "anyone who wants to send American troops to a large scale war in either Asia or Africa should have his head examined". This creates a wide space for non-state actors like the South African mercenary community and Blackwater. It is interesting to note that the primary agents of British imperialism were private companies (Royal Niger Company, East India Company) with their own private armies.

The process of arriving at this point may be different. For the Brits, private companies came before British army engagement and for the US, private armies are a result of US reluctance to conduct risky operations on African soil. The consequences are similar, both the British and US Government believed/are beginning to believe they have reduced the risks of military engagement in Africa.

3. Small Wars: The title of this discussion board says it all. The Victorians fought a series of small wars across Africa, ranging from battles against the Mahdi in Khartoum, to the Boer war, to campaigns against the Aro and the Bini in Nigeria. The US army /marines, like the British Army before it is gearing up to fight a series of small wars across Africa. The transition from "advisor" to "combatant" can be very short, and events have a way of creating their own dynamic.

4. The Wonder Weapon: For the Brits it was the Maxim gun. It was used to devastating effect in Matabeleland and in Khartoum.

In the words of Hilaire Beloc:

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

(I learned that poem in high school).

For the Americans, it is your drones. (Sadly, Beloc is no longer with us, so we have to make do with tepid consultant-speak like Asymmetricization) :D

The effect is the same, the risks of going to war are reduced.

5. Great Power Rivalry: Up until the Berlin Conference, British faced off a number of imperial rivals: France (primarily), Portugal, Germany and Belgium. For the US today, its China.

6. The Allure of a Noble Cause: For the Brits it was spreading Christianity and civilisation. For America it is eliminating terrorism, spreading democracy and human rights and securing our national security interests.

7. You both speak English!!

I am by no means suggesting that Americans have the same imperial designs as Victorian Britain, but the parallels between Victorian Britain and 21st Century America send alarm bells ringing in our minds. We may be silly or paranoid or both, but you cannot erase 100 years of history.

We all know how the Victorian Brits ended up in Africa, it was a pretty bloody affair.

[Stan]

(It doesn't help that "CIA killed Lumumba". CIA=US=AFRICOM).

I'll only interject once herein with - I would love to have proof of that theory. No, not everybody lives in Congo and not everybody has studied and lived in Congo - but I have.

Please do not link me to Wiki nor to some fanatical website set on names for military units located thousands of miles from ground zero.

I will accept a university study from any country as positive proof.

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

If you notice, the comment is in quotation marks. I don't have proof that the CIA killed Lumumba and I don't neccessariy believe it did.

In Africa, nobody is looking for an academic study to validate an assertion. If it is out there it tends to be believed as Gospel truth.

[Fuchs]

My 2 cents:
All those regional / continent commands are useless if not harmful, wasting taxpayer money with bloated staffs.

SHAPE (NATO) and EUCOM (US) as well as whatever minimal bureaucracy the EU already has for security topics should be destroyed and a new European defence supreme HQ should be created with a Mediterranean and a East European branch.

There's no need for any US HQs for any other region than Pacific, NorthCONUS and CONUS-Carribbean.


The idea that a nation has a need for standing regional commands for distant regions is hubris, wasteful and not supported by history.
It's difficult to name any benefits of having such bureaucracies (in my opinion). Besides, militarised/military foreign policy is a stupid idea. Foreign policy with intelligence services is a stupid idea as well.
Let foreign politicians and top diplomats/ambassadors handle this instead - fully!

A hospital ship visit to a distant country is a good idea?
Fine, let your ambassador suggest it to your secretary of foreign affairs. He can then drop a request memo to his secretary of war colleague during the next cabinet meeting, talk about it for minutes and the navy HQ can work make it happen and adjust its schedules.
There's no need for a regional command getting involved.

[KingJaja]

To buttress my point, here's a comment from an individual from Gabon on the AFRICOM website.


We, Africans, do not want the Africom on our soil. We don't trust White people at all. The long term impact of this Africom in Africa is disastrous. The USA will use this millitary base to oppress Africans who dare questions their stupid leaders what they are doing with our resources. Africom is a coverup Africa is still suffering from the cold war. Look at DRC. Mobutu was an American puppet. Americans kiiled Patrice Lumumba and put Mobutu in order to control the Soviet Union. Take a look at what he did to his country. We, Africans are always going to suffer if we let others tell us what to do in our [con]tinent. White people don't have our interests at heart.They are coming to Africa with the hidden intent to under cut China's investement in Africa. That, to keep Africa underdevelopped for ever. They don't want us to develop.
Africa needs investement not millitary. we already have alot of it and it hasn't helped. France has its millitary bases in its former colonies. Where did that lead us? That had not help us developped or be in peace or prevent coup d'etats. On the contrary, it actually helped fuelled them. The reason African e[con]omies have been looking good in recent years is because China is investing heavyly accorss Africa.
I calling on all Africans to remember this, The West does not want us to make it They are afraid that Africa develop. They will do anything they can to stop it from happening. Be aware Africa, Be aware. They fooled us once using our ignorant leaders. So, shame on them. Let not allow them to fooled us twice.
Gabon, Central Africa

http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=1644&blog=all

Just to tell you that the feeling is widespread.

[Stan]

My 2 cents:
All those regional / continent commands are useless if not harmful, wasting taxpayer money with bloated staffs.

Hmmm, I won't go saying that EUCOM was bloated with only one desk officer and assistant for Zaire with seven additional countries. Our USMM (Zamish) with six soldiers was stretching us to our physical limits in 1985. We had over seven million for an annual budget and could barely keep up. Six military personnel was the congressional limit for manpower and still is. Bloated ? How about understaffed ?


A hospital ship visit to a distant country is a good idea?
Fine, let your ambassador suggest it to your secretary of foreign affairs. He can then drop a request memo to his secretary of war colleague during the next cabinet meeting, talk about it for minutes and the navy HQ can work make it happen and adjust its schedules.
There's no need for a regional command getting involved.

Now this is a waste of time and money. A ship visit is huge and nobody in their right mind would allow such a waste of money and time. Trust me, a ship full of sailors and marines 300 kilometers from nowhere IS horrific and Bravo Sierra in any country.

The purpose behind a regional command is to get involved. To think that your Ambassador can just dial up a ship visit is ridiculous. Do we actually think that a career diplomat has a clue what it takes to organize a ship visit and the logistics in country ?

You must be joking, or, you have never done a ship visit.

[Stan]

To buttress my point, here's a comment from an individual from Gabon on the AFRICOM website.

http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=1644&blog=all

Just to tell you that the feeling is widespread.

I'm happy to see that, despite your lack of desire to visit and use the AFRICOM website to your advantage, you are in fact doing so :)



Africa needs investment not military. we already have a lot of it and it hasn't helped.

Imagine how many of us actually agree with you to a point. Why should we invest ? Who then is right for the job ? Why should I donate (bad idea and pun) my taxes to some NGO to invest in Africa ?

AFRICOM, much like EUCOM, is but a two-way street. Our presence should be beneficial to both parties. What good is it to send you or me abroad if we don't learn anything ? How are we expected to appreciate and learn about your culture (that you claim we know little about) if we don't go "there" and "do it" ?

[KingJaja]

Al Jazeera documentary on AFRICOM.

Moderator Adds

Link to this 2009 documentary:http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2009/09/2009910121135544650.html

[Stan]

Africom was a consequence of the so-called war on terror.

I think most of us have established that this is not the case. We have also established that African perception rules, regardless of the circumstances.

Off topic slightly:
I check on the Aljazeera news each week, but I also try to get a balanced view from other sources. This article doesn't do much for me.

[KingJaja]

I'm happy to see that, despite your lack of desire to visit and use the AFRICOM website to your advantage, you are in fact doing so

I don't think you followed my posts in the past. I went to the AFRICOM website and found it to be extremely badly designed (more like a 1995 era website). However, I still made an entry there.

I also saw a lot of stories about saving babies and working with soldiers from Botswana to prevent poaching, but little about the Libyan operations.

Please get me right. I never said I have problems with Americans coming down to Africa to learn about our culture. You can come but we prefer you not be affiliated with the US military. We've had the Peace Corps around for fifty years and we have no problems with them. We don't need another Peace Corps with M-16s.

Reading through the comments on the AFRICOM page. I noticed that:

1. Many if not most of the comments were negative. Many of the positive comments came from the States, many of the negative ones came from Africa.

2. Themes covered in the negative comments included slavery, George Bush the war-monger, colonialism, French imperialism in Africa, stupid African leaders who have no mind of their own, Americans deliberately training the military of Cameroon and Gabon so that they are better positioned to oppress their people, Vietnam, American involvement in the murder of Lumumba, America's abandonment of black people during Hurricane Katrina, Iraq and America's love for war.

One poster was of the opinion that the American Military has a tendency to escalate crises. He/She said that "once the Americans left Vietnam there was peace".:rolleyes:

It was a conspiracy theorist's paradise.

As I said earlier, Africans will never be comfortable with AFRICOM. With the exception of the Russians, all Europeans are comfortable with EUCOM. The Saudis, Bahrainis and Kuwaitis are comfortable with CENTCOM and the Japanese and South Koreans don't have too many problems with PACOM.

Africa is different, appreciate that and move on.

[Fuchs]

Six military personnel was the congressional limit for manpower and still is. Bloated ? How about understaffed ?

One would be too much.



And ship visit; come on. The USN is crazy enough to cruise with many ships in distant places for most of the ships' lifetime. Entering a harbour with one of them is hardly a major undertaking.
Besides; a hospital ship tour was a PR posterchild for SOUTHCOM (?) a year or two ago.

[Dayuhan]

As we speak, there are hot heads in African Universities indocrinating the next generation of African intellectuals on the evils of AFRICOM. The body of scholarship to support their views is vast and is being updated as we speak.

I have to wonder if "the next generation of African intellectuals" will ever start to look beyond the indoctrination and see what's really there.

I wonder when they will notice that AFRICOM has minimal funding and resources, and that Africa gets less attention from the US military than any other part of the world, save perhaps Antarctica.

I wonder when they will realize that there is absolutely zero enthusiasm in the US and among US political parties for military intervention in Sub-Saharan Africa, and that one of the only items of truly bipartisan consensus in Washington is that military intervention in SSA is about as welcome as a virulent case of drug-resistant gonorrhea.

I wonder when they will do a bit of research (SWJ is a good place to start) and realize that drones are not some sort of super-weapon and, while useful in some situations, are never going to give anyone ideas about trying to dominate Africa.

I could go on, and on... but I wonder most of all when they will start to realize that white men with guns were yesterday's problem, and that today and tomorrow have far more pressing problems.

The best way the US can defuse the paranoid fantasies is to ignore them, and to continue with what amounts to a policy of neglecting, avoiding, and as much as possible ignoring Africa. In a few decades, maybe somebody will figure out that the bogeyman really doesn't care, and that there are other problems to worry about.

[M-A Lagrange]

I could go on, and on... but I wonder most of all when they will start to realize that white men with guns were yesterday's problem, and that today and tomorrow have far more pressing problems.

The best way the US can defuse the paranoid fantasies is to ignore them, and to continue with what amounts to a policy of neglecting, avoiding, and as much as possible ignoring Africa. In a few decades, maybe somebody will figure out that the bogeyman really doesn't care, and that there are other problems to worry about.

Despite the fact that I agree with you on most of your description of US interrest in SSA, I also wonder when washington will understand that the choice of supporting institutions against population hopes is and will undermine US perception in Africa for a very long period.
Radicalisation comes also from being ignored by ambassadors "who know" and disregards peoples voice and political opposition (Who many times are not a real alternative).
Actual situation in DRC is a good illustration of this. There is a need for US to stop acting as people do not count on this continent. It helps no one and certainly not the US on the long run.

[Dayuhan]

There is a need for US to stop acting as people do not count on this continent. It helps no one and certainly not the US on the long run.

Is the US acting as if people do not count, or are African governments acting as if people do not count? If African governments are acting that way, what exactly is the US supposed to do about it?

What is the US supposed to do, realistically, to act as if people count?

[KingJaja]

Is the US acting as if people do not count, or are African governments acting as if people do not count? If African governments are acting that way, what exactly is the US supposed to do about it?

What is the US supposed to do, realistically, to act as if people count?

Isn't that the lesson from the Arab Spring?

The US spent several decades courting the likes of Mubarak, pretending that civil society in the Arab World didn't exist or ignoring it. It was great while it lasted (40+ years). But now that there is a real prospect of an alliance of Salafists and the Brotherhood in power, America will be forced to do what it should have done all that while.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a couple of years behind the Arab World (i.e. the voice of the Street is yet to be heard, loud and clear). This a very good time to get past the leadership and try to understand what the street is saying.

Secondly, you cannot, on the one hand, claim to champion the spread of democracy and human rights, while ignoring the voice of civil society.

For example, virtually all the lofty social development schemes being devised by the West, have little or no input from the African people (and in many cases, their Governments). The limited success of initiatives like the Millennium Development Goals stems from that. (If the USG had consulted with African Civil Society, many quixotic schemes would never be attempted. Instead Bono and Madonna are allowed to take the place of African public opinion).

If the US was China, with a modest and understated approach to foreign policy, the present arrangement would suffice. But the US is the Shining City on a Hill and the Hope for all Mankind :rolleyes:.

On a more serious note, there is a lot the US can do engage more with the African people - especially in more open democracies like Ghana.

Some US ambassadors are taking the initiative to interact more with civil society. For example, when Walter Carrington represented the US at Abuja he had a very positive impact on civil rights groups, he was one of the best representatives the US Government ever sent to Nigeria.

[Stan]

And ship visit; come on. The USN is crazy enough to cruise with many ships in distant places for most of the ships' lifetime. Entering a harbour with one of them is hardly a major undertaking.

I guess the only way you're going to find out is by doing a ship visit. Start about 2 months out and finish about 1 month later following a 3-day visit. How much is a lot of fuel, a lot of garbage, a lot of potable water, a lot of eggs, a lot of rats, etc. ? That's the 2 months prior and you don't have a parking space because we don't pay bribes. So, your tub toy is now anchored 3 kilometers from the harbor and all the aforementioned problems get to be taxied to the ship. That's a good ship visit in Europe. Care to ponder what Africa is like ?

I've only done 17 ship visits in 15 years, so I don't actually have much experience doing them :o



Besides; a hospital ship tour was a PR posterchild for SOUTHCOM (?) a year or two ago.

Those are few and far between and SOUTHCOM doesn't do AFRICOM - wrong turf.

[KingJaja]

I'm not saying it isn't expensive to do this, but the Chinese have already sent their hospital ship down to Africa.

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads//2010/08/Chinas-Peace-Ark-2.jpg


China’s 10,000 ton hospital ship “Peace Ark” left Zhoushan Port today en route to the Gulf of Aden on its first overseas medical mission, according to a Chinese government announcement. It says the ship carries 428 “soldiers, officers and medical workers.” During its 87-day mission the ship’s medical staff will provide treatment to people in Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, the Seychelles and Bangladesh.
The Chinese are adept (and becoming more so) at the use of soft power in all its forms, not just economic, as this deployment makes clear. Taking a page from the U.S. Navy playbook, the hospital ship will become a major tool in China’s soft power exploits.
The Peace Ark’s deployment should be seen in the same light as China’s PLA Navy participating in anti-piracy patrols: maximizing the strategic and messaging value of the limited number of ships it’s able to maintain on long patrols. Undoubtedly, a major public relations campaign will follow the hospital ship’s various port calls.
Very few world navies have purpose built hospital ships and it’s rather significant that the Chinese built such a large one. That they did goes to the drivers behind China’s naval expansion. The Peace Ark is another signal that the PLA Navy is moving beyond the defending territorial claims imperative into more far ranging economic interests.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/31/chinese-hospital-ship-peace-ark-sets-sail-for-africa/#ixzz1fUViN200
Defense.org

Please note: I am by no means suggesting that AFRICOM do this sort of thing. (Though part of AFRICOM's mandate seems to be humanitarian aid). This is just FYI.

[M-A Lagrange]

Is the US acting as if people do not count, or are African governments acting as if people do not count? If African governments are acting that way, what exactly is the US supposed to do about it?

What is the US supposed to do, realistically, to act as if people count?

Dayuhan, I fully get your point.
My point is rather US, and some others, should stop to play institutions legitimacy at any cost. This is damaging US image more than they can imaginge.

[Stan]

I'm not saying it isn't expensive to do this, but the Chinese have already sent their hospital ship down to Africa.

Please note: I am by no means suggesting that AFRICOM do this sort of thing. (Though part of AFRICOM's mandate seems to be humanitarian aid). This is just FYI.

Here's an interesting link regarding the world's hospital ships. China has one, but so does Cameroon. Almost any of these vessels can be requested by the host government. A hospital ship normally does not pay for a port call, but, they pay for fuel, electricity, food, garbage disposal, etc.

Hospital Ship International Registry (http://www.oocities.org/hospitalship/FletReg1.html)

AFRICOM is but a conduit for a ship visit as are the AFRICOM personnel at the embassy in your country.

[Fuchs]

I guess the only way you're going to find out is by doing a ship visit. Start about 2 months out and finish about 1 month later following a 3-day visit. How much is a lot of fuel, a lot of garbage, a lot of potable water, a lot of eggs, a lot of rats, etc. ? That's the 2 months prior and you don't have a parking space because we don't pay bribes. So, your tub toy is now anchored 3 kilometers from the harbor and all the aforementioned problems get to be taxied to the ship. That's a good ship visit in Europe. Care to ponder what Africa is like ?

I've only done 17 ship visits in 15 years, so I don't actually have much experience doing them :o


Did you ever compare their costs to a single SSN patrol that has next to no purpose?

[Ken White]

However, they do help keep people sort of honest so perhaps I should've said they have "next to no purpose..."

About like SSN Patrols. ;)

[KingJaja]

This is the last time I'm going to post this sort of thing. To understand where the unease about American military / quasi military organisations comes from, read articles like this.

These articles are written by intelligent, well-educated people and they are discussed whenever educated, politically-aware Africans meet (like in Nigeria's many beer parlours). The other reviled and vilified US-dominated organisations are the World Bank and the IMF. (That's a topic for another forum and another day).

Excerpt:


The US-sponsored plot to kill Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congolese independence, took place 50 years ago today

Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was assassinated 50 years ago today, on 17 January, 1961. This heinous crime was a culmination of two inter-related assassination plots by American and Belgian governments, which used Congolese accomplices and a Belgian execution squad to carry out the deed.

Ludo De Witte, the Belgian author of the best book on this crime, qualifies it as "the most important assassination of the 20th century". The assassination's historical importance lies in a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being the global context in which it took place, its impact on Congolese politics since then and Lumumba's overall legacy as a nationalist leader.

For 126 years, the US and Belgium have played key roles in shaping Congo's destiny. In April 1884, seven months before the Berlin Congress, the US became the first country in the world to recognise the claims of King Leopold II of the Belgians to the territories of the Congo Basin.

When the atrocities related to brutal economic exploitation in Leopold's Congo Free State resulted in millions of fatalities, the US joined other world powers to force Belgium to take over the country as a regular colony. And it was during the colonial period that the US acquired a strategic stake in the enormous natural wealth of the Congo, following its use of the uranium from Congolese mines to manufacture the first atomic weapons, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

With the outbreak of the cold war, it was inevitable that the US and its western allies would not be prepared to let Africans have effective control over strategic raw materials, lest these fall in the hands of their enemies in the Soviet camp. It is in this regard that Patrice Lumumba's determination to achieve genuine independence and to have full control over Congo's resources in order to utilise them to improve the living conditions of our people was perceived as a threat to western interests. To fight him, the US and Belgium used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations secretariat, under Dag Hammarskjld and Ralph Bunche, to buy the support of Lumumba's Congolese rivals , and hired killers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination

It's also instructive to note that there are very few, if any emphatically pro-Western African public intellectuals. If you read Ali Mazrui, Julius Nyerere, Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and George Ayittey, you'd understand that immediately. Chinua Achebe's seminal novel Things Fall Apart has an interesting theme. George Ayittey is of the opinion that the West cynically uses to prop up dictators and Nyerere's views are well known.

These men are widely read.

Now we have a better understanding of where the perception problem comes from.

[Stan]

This is the last time I'm going to post this sort of thing. To understand where the unease about American military / quasi military organizations comes from, read articles like this.


First off this doesn't need to be your last post and it seems applicable to the thread. Secondly, according to your link, it was in fact the Belgian military. But your point is well taken. We should make the distinction of US Military and CIA so someone doesn't think the CIA are in the US Military.


These articles are written by intelligent, well-educated people and they are discussed whenever educated, politically-aware Africans meet (like in Nigeria's many beer parlors).

Indeed most of these are well read individuals and there's nothing like a good chat over beers at any bar.


Now we have a better understanding of where the perception problem comes from.

This is where I disagree again.
How about the writings of Ludo de Witte ? I don't have a link but I do have his book. How about the writings by the Command and General Staff College on the Shaba wars ? Both with very different views totally disagree with the blog article you quoted.

A CIA agent with a lethal potion for Lumumba's tooth brush.

Belgian operatives carried out the murder, and even helped dispose of the body.

Declassified message traffic from the 1959 and 60 describing a Lumumba-led Soviet Communist takeover.

CIA hatching plots against Fidel Castro.

Later being arrested and sent to Katanga and facing a firing squad.

How about our perceptions and bewilderment of the dark continent ? Since we are talking about AFRICOM (the US Military) it might be easier to swallow if we had military-related misconceptions/perceptions.

[KingJaja]

Definitely not my last post. I wanted it be my last post about Lumumba.

The point is that Mobutu benefited from the death of Lumumba and the United States was one of the most prominent Western sponsors of Mobutu for a period of about thirty years. So the US is guilty by association (in the African mind).

There are many American misconceptions about Africa. Like the common belief that "Africa is country", that we wrestle with lions and monkeys on our way to work, that we all live on trees etc. No amount of education or media exposure will change those views entirely, but we've learned to live with them.

(I was asked a lot of stupid questions about Africa in Britain and America).

(I recall a Kenyan businesswoman seeking for a loan to expand her mobile phone related business. She told her Western contact that Africa had 600 million mobile subscribers. The response was: but who do they call?)

The same applies to African perceptions of the US Military. It is just what it is. We've had fifty years of conditioning, so it will take a herculean effort to change our minds. Similarly, Hollywood and Western media have sold a negative image of Africa for the past hundred years. Consequently, the man on the street in America finds it extremely difficult to think positively about Africa.

It goes both ways.

[Dayuhan]

The point is that Mobutu benefited from the death of Lumumba and the United States was one of the most prominent Western sponsors of Mobutu for a period of about thirty years. So the US is guilty by association (in the African mind).

There's a lot of guilt from that period, and not only in Africa... both the US and the Soviets spent those years freely propping up despots that suited their interests and trying to undermine the other guy's despots. Proxy war was never pretty.

Still, at a certain point the past has to be the past. Latin America and SE Asia saw as much of this as Africa, but most countries in the areas have let go of the past and established functional working relationships with the US. The Vietnamese took as much merde from the Americans as anyone and have more reason for lasting suspicion than most, but they've managed to build a quite reasonable working relationship.

The wild-eyed conspiracy stuff is not just historical residue, it's a bogeyman myth concocted and preserved by political factions that use it to advance their own interest. That myth will eventually fade, but pushing that process along isn't just about Americans putting effort into winning African opinion over, it's also about Africans waking up to the fact that past is past and that the Americans aren't the only ones who have manipulated and used them. The people who aggressively cultivate fear of the US are doing that too.


The same applies to African perceptions of the US Military. It is just what it is. We've had fifty years of conditioning, so it will take a herculean effort to change our minds. Similarly, Hollywood and Western media have sold a negative image of Africa for the past hundred years. Consequently, the man on the street in America finds it extremely difficult to think positively about Africa.

The negative impressions of Africa aren't entirely the product of media distortion, just as the negative impressions of the US in Africa aren't entirely the product of distortion. There's a lot in the history in both cases to justify negative impressions, and if "herculean efforts" are going to be made to correct the various misimpressions on both sides, those efforts have to be made on both sides.

I find it a bit ironic that the US is so routinely (and justifiably) castigated for propping up compliant dictators in the past, while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today and nobody seems to mind.

I do not see any justification for a "herculean effort" to win over African populaces. I don't think any such effort would accomplish anything: no matter what the US says or does it will be interpreted as a manipulative and evil conspiracy to gain control.

My solution for the US is to simply and to the greatest possible extent... disengage. Leave. No point in being where we're not welcome. Pack up the aid, pack up everything else, and walk away. People don't want us there, fine, we won't be there. Africans want to deal with the Chinese, no problem at all for us. In a decade or two they'll realize they've been recolonized with their own consent. That will be a hole to dig out of, and it'll be a problem, but it won't be our problem.

I see no reason why the US should have any presence beyond minimal diplomatic representation in any African country, unless that presence has been openly requested by a government that has a reasonably legitimate claim to represent its populace.

[KingJaja]

I find it a bit ironic that the US is so routinely (and justifiably) castigated for propping up compliant dictators in the past, while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today and nobody seems to mind.

The Chinese, unlike the US, don't describe themselves with missionary language. They don't claim to be a shining city on a hill or the hope for all mankind.

You are judged by the standards you set for yourself. You've set very high standards which you are not meeting (doing business with the likes of Idris Debby and Obiang). On the other hand, the Chinese have set very low standards.

Finally, the Chinese are one of your largest trading partners. So if you don't have any issues dealing with them, why should Africans?

[Dayuhan]

The Chinese, unlike the US, don't describe themselves with missionary language. They don't claim to be a shining city on a hill or the hope for all mankind.

There's no shortage of smug and self-serving rhetoric coming form the Chinese... and at the end of the day, why would anyone judge anything on the basis of what anyone says?


Finally, the Chinese are one of your largest trading partners. So if you don't have any issues dealing with them, why should Africans?

A lot of Americans do have issues with the way China does business... often less than rational ones, but such is the way of issues. If the Chinese were openly bribing our politicians, buying up land and importing their own laborers to work it, taking over the retail sector, etc and ad nauseam, I think there would be more issues. More likely hysteria.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Africans should or shouldn't "have issues" with the Chinese. Not my problem, nor that of any American. It's almost amusing to hear all the recitations of American evil in support for the pliable dictators of the past while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today without complaint, but hindsight is always clearer. Eventually the realization of recolonization will set in, and with it, presumably, the realization that the today's thief walked in the door while the intellectuals were all ranting about the need to keep yesterday's thief out.

[Fuchs]

African retail is hardly being taken over by Chinese -rather wholesale.

Well, who dominated the Sub-Saharan African wholesale sector previously?

First did
- in West Africa the Europeans
- in East Africa the Arabs
then for several centuries the Europeans everywhere, and then during living memory afaik:
- in West Africa the Lebanese
- in East Africa the Indians

The black Africans are hardly losing much if the Chinese take over 'their' wholesale sector.



Btw, I do occasionally think about economic development issues at a low level (= so called "less developed countries").
One of the inhibitors to development appear to be a competent and reliable pool of personnel for technical and organising jobs.
Infrastructure projects, major plantations, new industrial plants and new mines require such personnel, and the Chinese bring this to the deal.
Their managers may still be corrupt, but they steal from their Chinese overlords more than from their African clients afaik. Plus the job gets done, often even in time afaik.
This is a fruit of decades of investment in education. The stability of China post-Mao enabled this and now the Chinese have the skilled personnel for a middle class that's still relatively rare in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Dayuhan]

African retail is hardly being taken over by Chinese -rather wholesale.

Well, who dominated the Sub-Saharan African wholesale sector previously?

First did
- in West Africa the Europeans
- in East Africa the Arabs
then for several centuries the Europeans everywhere, and then during living memory afaik:
- in West Africa the Lebanese
- in East Africa the Indians

The black Africans are hardly losing much if the Chinese take over 'their' wholesale sector.

In much of Africa, particularly in the east, the Chinese are becoming a ubiquitous presence in retail as well, right down to the street vendor level.

While it's easy to say the Africans aren't losing much - and to an extent true, as many of them haven't much to lose - they may at some point want to gain, and to regain control of economic sectors that have been traditionally dominated by foreigners. There is some potential for tension and conflict there, especially when the foreign presence is perceived to be sustaining its presence and privilege by paying off corrupt officials.


Btw, I do occasionally think about economic development issues at a low level (= so called "less developed countries").

It is good of you to devote an occasional moment to the problems of the larger part of the world, and I'm sure that you won't need much more than the occasional thought to solve such low level problems.


One of the inhibitors to development appear to be a competent and reliable pool of personnel for technical and organising jobs.
Infrastructure projects, major plantations, new industrial plants and new mines require such personnel, and the Chinese bring this to the deal.
Their managers may still be corrupt, but they steal from their Chinese overlords more than from their African clients afaik. Plus the job gets done, often even in time afaik.
This is a fruit of decades of investment in education. The stability of China post-Mao enabled this and now the Chinese have the skilled personnel for a middle class that's still relatively rare in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

That's one of the problems, yes... one among many. It's exacerbated when many of the qualified indigenous personnel leave to work elsewhere.

Of course this has traditionally been an argument used to support colonial and neo-colonial investment: the colonist/neocolonist provides the capital and expertise needed to develop all of those lovely plantations, mines, and factories. The problem is that the colonist/neocolonist develops and organizes these systems for their own benefit, not for that of the host country. That's not immediately apparent, and in the early stages, when the net flow of resources is inbound, the host may feel like they're getting a good deal. When those projects mature and the net flow of resources starts running the other way - as is clearly the intention; the Chinese aren't in it for charity - things may start to look a bit different.

[KingJaja]

The Chinese are not recolonising Africa. That perception comes from Western Media. It is wrong.

There is a China Town near my house (walking distance), it is a very small affair and the Chinese are leaving because they cannot compete with Nigerian business men (who have found out the route to Shenzhen and know the Nigerian market much better than the Chinese).

One out of every five Sub Saharan Africans is a Nigerian, so what happens in Nigeria is significant.

If East Africans cannot compete against Chinese business people on their soil, it is hardly colonisation, it points to a lack of business acumen. You cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Secondly, Chinese may be corrupt and steal from their bosses, but they don't demand to stay in five star hotels like Westerners, so their costs are lower and they are more efficient.

[Fuchs]

It is good of you to devote an occasional moment to the problems of the larger part of the world, and I'm sure that you won't need much more than the occasional thought to solve such low level problems.

Show me anyone who's delusional enough to believe he can 'solve', not just 'understand' the problems.

Besides, you misunderstood me. I am an economist and keep myself fit beyond my (these days quite repetitive) job by thinking a lot about case studies. The (not so much) developing countries provide interesting (different) case studies.

After all, one of my focus studies back at university was "growth and income distribution", so I'm equipped with the basic tools of the trade (and no, IMF recipes are not really economic science).

[Dayuhan]

The Chinese are not recolonising Africa. That perception comes from Western Media. It is wrong.

There is a China Town near my house (walking distance), it is a very small affair and the Chinese are leaving because they cannot compete with Nigerian business men (who have found out the route to Shenzhen and know the Nigerian market much better than the Chinese).

One out of every five Sub Saharan Africans is a Nigerian, so what happens in Nigeria is significant.

What happens in Nigeria is significant, especially to Nigerians, but it's not all of what happens in Africa. A Senegalese or a Zambian or an Angolan might have a different view of whether China is recolonizing Africa... and in fact Senegalese author Adama Gaye is one African intellectual who has specifically stated the belief that China's aspirations are colonial. It's not just the western media.

In fact China's goals in Africa - access to resources and export markets on preferential terms - are not much different than those of past colonists. The Chinese just find it cheaper to gain preferential terms by bribing government officials than by physically taking control. Of course the Chinese have another goal that previous colonists didn't have: they are using Africa as a dumping ground for excess and potentially disgruntled labor, a trend that is likely to continue as the Chinese real estate bubble deflates and Chinese construction slows, leaving a lot of laborers unemployed, something China can ill afford.

Imagine that everything the Chinese are doing today in Africa was being done by [I]white people: the Americans, British or French. Don't you think that the same African intellectuals who are making a mountain of the molehill that is AFRICOM would be howling over the new colonialism? Of course they would. They don't recognize the new colonialism because it's entrenched in their minds that colonialism and neocolonialism are by definition things done by white people. In time - like I said, give it a decade or two - it will be too obvious to deny.


If East Africans cannot compete against Chinese business people on their soil, it is hardly colonisation, it points to a lack of business acumen. You cannot blame the Chinese for that.

People can - and will - blame their governments for not passing (or more often enforcing) laws keeping non-citizens out of jobs and businesses that can just as easily be done by citizens. This is common enough in the developing world, and even in the developed world.

[KingJaja]

You don't get it, the West has history stacked against it in a way the Chinese never will. It happened, it is unfortunate and we are trying to get past it, but the effects linger.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/30/article-1224189-0705983B000005DC-764_468x324.jpg


His ebony skin stood out in sharp contrast to the white crowd pressing to get a better view.
The young African boy bared his teeth at the men and women staring at him through the bars. They were sharpened into dagger-like points, making him appear all the more barbaric to the ignorant hordes.
Above the cage hung a sign proclaiming: 'The Missing Link.' A baby chimp sat disconsolately at the bottom of the enclosure, a single companion to the boy.

The year was 1906. This was a pygmy, brought to America as a novelty to be put on display in the monkey house.
The New York Times reported: 'There were 40,000 visitors to the park on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the star attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa.
'They chased him about the grounds all day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him.'
Suddenly, the boy turned. Taking the bow and arrow given to him as an ethnic accessory, he shot at the gawpers. His arrow did no harm, but he did scare the life out of the onlookers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224189/Caged-human-zoo-The-shocking-story-young-pygmy-warrior-monkey-house--fuelled-Hitlers-twisted-beliefs.html#ixzz1fl1y2ZcH

As Faulkner wrote; The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past. Take a trip to Georgia (I was there in 2005), and you'll see flags like this:

http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2022747.gif

Those flags are still being sold and used. If the American South can't get over the Civil War, then Africans will find it difficult to deal with the legacy of the West in Africa (and the intense humiliation that accompanied it).

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
You may be mistaking what we call "Southern Pride". It has little today to do with the South and the North. As you may have studied, the Civil War was not just about slavery, but Money as well. The North could not have financially survived if the South was to become independent.

The funny part about the Confederate Flag is that many in fact erroneously think the Confederate battle flag is the official flag of the Confederacy. The actual battle flag was/is square (based on the cross of St. Andrew).

[KingJaja]

I know the rationale for the Civil War is a little bit more complex than the abolition of slavery. I also know that Lincoln wasn't the unquestioning abolitionist he is made out to be. (He was a little bit of an opportunist).

The point is that the South still bears some grievance against the North (or somebody), 150 years after the fact. It has mellowed and is almost benign but it still exists.

People don't forget their history. We have the tradition of the griot in Africa, griots remind us of where we are coming from, so we can understand where we are going. The West is a large part of where we are coming from, and our history with the West will not be forgotten.

So the American tendency assume that the rest of the World operates on a "forget and forgive" basis acts as an impediment to understanding the rest of the World.

For example, the US government has spent the past sixty years dealing with all sorts of nasty fellows in the Arab World. The general tone from US official pronouncements and from some of the most esteemed think tank scholars assumes that the Arab Street will simply abandon this history and enter a new age of cooperation with the US.

That is cognitive dissonance.

[Fuchs]

It's a bit more than just that.

It's a national belief in the malleability of almost all foreigners and their national ability to exploit it.

[Stan]

The point is that the South still bears some grievance against the North (or somebody), 150 years after the fact. It has mellowed and is almost benign but it still exists.

There are several members herein that live in the South and can better address that subject than I can. I don't see even the most remote grievance you speak of and don't take much stock in listening to someone with a flag in his pick-up that can't even tell me why, yet alone the fact that the very same individual probably did not study history nor can tell me much about our history.


People don't forget their history. We have the tradition of the griot in Africa, griots remind us of where we are coming from, so we can understand where we are going. The West is a large part of where we are coming from, and our history with the West will not be forgotten.

With the exception of my Lingala teacher, I don't know many Africans (present company accepted) that knew much about their heritage. Hard to be pissed off about something that you know little about. Kind of like the guy with a flag in his truck and 6th grade education.


So the American tendency assume that the rest of the World operates on a "forget and forgive" basis acts as an impediment to understanding the rest of the World.

For example, the US government has spent the past sixty years dealing with all sorts of nasty fellows in the Arab World. The general tone from US official pronouncements and from some of the most esteemed think tank scholars assumes that the Arab Street will simply abandon this history and enter a new age of cooperation with the US.

That is cognitive dissonance.

I think the military (EUCOM and AFRICOM) have taken great steps to make sure their service members serving in Africa have a better understanding through language and cultural training. I can't speak for the remainder of the USG.

Dayuhan provided you with an excellent example where people are willing to forget and move on.

People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. :D

[Stan]

It's a bit more than just that.

It's a national belief in the malleability of almost all foreigners and their national ability to exploit it.

We've learned from the best Europe and Africa have to offer - when one considers where most of us came from :D

Except the American Indians !

[Fuchs]

I doubt that it's about forgetting and moving on. Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this.

It's rather about resurfacing, about anti-colonialism being part of culture, scapegoating, politics, about explaining how the world works.

Look at Greece. Almost no Greeks remember German occupation, but some idiots dragged the issue back to the surface in the wake of the fiscal crisis - even after being allied and befriended with Germany for decades and having signed a treaty in the 60's that settled all claims once and for all.


Caucasians as evil wannabe colonialists will likely remain in the cultural/political repertoire of Sub-Saharan Africans for generations to come.


If I was British, I would be more bothered about the Chinese culture's memory, though...

[davidbfpo]

King Jaja posted:
People don't forget their history.

I don't know about Africa in detail, but can give two local illustrations seen at first-hand.

An academic group organises a conference, one of the issues is counter-terrorism; they completely miss the date is close to 9/11.

In November 1974 there were the Birmingham Pub Bombings, which killed 21 people and injured 182. In 2005 very few in the city's emergency services, let alone the general population, even remembered the events and the backlash endured by the Irish community.

Elsewhere on SWC threads others have commented on collective memories. I recall 'Red Rat' posts on how quickly British Army units lost personal knowledge of a campaign. Ken White has posted on war weariness, IIRC even after Pearl Harbour in WW2.

People do forget their history, it is replaced with a void or a very sketchy memory, especially when only oral and activists, who can be state and non-state, insert their own version. The often cited 'Battle of Ideas' could be better called, especially in COIN, the battle of ideas and memories.

[Fuchs]

There's a difference between "to not apply" and "to forget".

We casually call it "to forget" when people don't apply the lessons of the past, but we'd hardly know about it if the lessons were truly lost.

Opportunists warm up stories such as colonization whenever they feel like it.

[KingJaja]

People do forget their history, it is replaced with a void or a very sketchy memory, especially when only oral and activists, who can be state and non-state, insert their own version. The often cited 'Battle of Ideas' could be better called, especially in COIN, the battle of ideas and memories.

People may forget minor events, but the Africa opinion-shapers are not going to forget four hundred years of contact with the West (especially when there is an entire industry built around reminding them).


Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this..

I was more than a decade after 1960, so I shouldn't remember colonialism, but my dad and grandmother did. So those memories are carried on. The slate is not wiped clean with every new generation. Nobody tends to bother about the West in day-to-day life, but what is latent comes bubbling up to the surface when the right buttons are pressed.


With the exception of my Lingala teacher, I don't know many Africans (present company accepted) that knew much about their heritage. Hard to be pissed off about something that you know little about. Kind of like the guy with a flag in his truck and 6th grade education.

Quite possible, but what do the opinion-shapers know? What message do the ethnic "Big Men" pass on to their followers when the right buttons are pressed. I remember when Nigeria had to take an IMF mandated structural adjustment program with all the associated pain, the usual suspects educated the masses on the many evils of the West and Americans.

What triggers strife between ethnic groups? Normally a first event and a recital of long-forgotten grievances by the usual suspects. You should be extremely worried that you were training blank slates - the most dangerous kind of African is the most ignorant. They tend to believe anything - from juju to wild conspiracy theories.

[KingJaja]

I doubt that it's about forgetting and moving on. Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this.

Did you ask them why they speak Portuguese or why some of them are surnamed da Silva or who built the old grand mansions in Luanda?

[Fuchs]

Did you ask them why they speak Portuguese or why some of them are surnamed da Silva or who built the old grand mansions in Luanda?

I meant personal memory.
The Portuguese left over 30 years ago. The median African person is much younger than that.

They may know about colonialism - because they learned about it. They did not experience it (unless we consider apartheid South Africa).

Now as I understand it, that's not remembering, but being informed.


Or do I remember the Punic Wars?

[KingJaja]

There are several members herein that live in the South and can better address that subject than I can. I don't see even the most remote grievance you speak of and don't take much stock in listening to someone with a flag in his pick-up that can't even tell me why, yet alone the fact that the very same individual probably did not study history nor can tell me much about our history.

I'm no expert on America, but where does the antagonism against the Federal Government come from? Isn't it a throwback to the failure of Reconstruction and the overbearing presence of the Federal Government? Isn't the cry for States Rights a throwback to Jefferson Davis?

It is benign, but I think it is still there.

[KingJaja]

I meant personal memory.
The Portuguese left over 30 years ago. The median African person is much younger than that.

They may know about colonialism - because they learned about it. They did not experience it (unless we consider apartheid South Africa).

Now as I understand it, that's not remembering, but being informed.

What's the real difference? Shias and Sunnis still fight over an event that occurred more than a thousand years ago. King Billy invaded Ireland in the 1690's and that event was still being fought over in the 1990's. The Serbs and the Croats seemed to get on well, until they didn't. Most Chinese weren't alive during the rape of Nanking, the Boxer Rebellion or the Opium Wars, but these events have a place in modern Chinese consciousness.

[Fuchs]

The difference is huge.

Personal memory cannot be controlled by outside, thus it's not prone to controlled distortions. A cultural memory based on teaching/propaganda on the other hand is much easier to distort, to shape in order to exploit it.


Your examples all share one characteristic; the events from the distant past were exploited as a kind of rallying cry, but the actual conflict was from recent times - and pretty much manufactured or not really resembling the original conflict.
One must not believe that the ancient events are the cause for current conflicts; they're excuses. The causes are in our time, and unlike history they can sometimes be addressed if there's enough goodwill left.


Just look at my Greece/Germany example. The cause of the street-level political conflict is the current economic/fiscal crisis, Nazis were merely the rallying motive for primitive conflict mongering (and for shaping Germans as scapegoats, something that doesn't work so well in Europe any more).

[KingJaja]

Personal memory cannot be controlled by outside, thus it's not prone to controlled distortions. A cultural memory based on teaching/propaganda on the other hand is much easier to distort, to shape in order to exploit it.

The outcomes are similar, if not the same: distrust and/or conflict.

Sometimes perceptions are more important than reality. AFRICOM's PR handling was a disaster and I am surprised that nobody could see that coming.

Europe has enjoyed an unprecedented sixty year boom since World War II. The levels of peace and prosperity in Europe are a historical anomaly. The Greeks never forgot the brutality of German occupation, prosperity merely attenuated the memory of that ugly episode. If the European economy nosedives further, be in for some rude shocks - the French, Belgians and Dutch will suddenly remember all the bad things the Germans did.

Growing up in Africa, I have developed a more cynical, less optimistic view of human nature. For example, Nigeria was fine when we benefited from the Oil Boom, but immediately the boom went bust, ancient tribal animosities were dusted up - and here we are today.

[Dayuhan]

You don't get it, the West has history stacked against it in a way the Chinese never will. It happened, it is unfortunate and we are trying to get past it, but the effects linger.

Never say never... and don't underestimate the Chinese. It's early days yet, and they might well write a history to rival that of the West... if Africans choose to let them do it, of course. The difference today is not that the Chinese have better intentions or more benign methods, but that this time around Africans have a choice. Whether or not they use it remains to be seen.

It's not really about getting past anything, or about forgetting or forgiving. It's about being a slave to your past and the knee-jerk reactions it provokes, reactions that some choose to encourage to advance their own interests. Latin America and SE Asia share that past, and they haven't forgotten it, but in most cases they've chosen not to be slaves to that past. Instead they make today's decisions based on today's interests and today's conditions.

I actually think I do get it. What you're saying is exactly why I want the US to disengage from Africa to the greatest possible extent, unless engagement is explicitly sought by governments that have a real claim to represent their populace. There's no reason for us to be where we're not wanted, in any form. There's even less reason to plow into a herculean effort to buy our way back into the good graces of Africans. It won't work, we'll spend a pile, and most of the money will go to people who already have plenty. No reason for the US to try to compete with the Chinese for position and influence: that just sets us up for manipulation and encourages a new round of the proxy competition that has never done anyone any good.

I'm sure there are many who would love to play the Chinese against the US and work both for favors. I don't think the US should play along with that game.

[KingJaja]

Never say never... and don't underestimate the Chinese. It's early days yet, and they might well write a history to rival that of the West... if Africans choose to let them do it, of course. The difference today is not that the Chinese have better intentions or more benign methods, but that this time around Africans have a choice. Whether or not they use it remains to be seen.

It is highly unlikely that the Chinese will repeat what the West did in Africa. The World has moved on from that and the Chinese are not that stupid.

We also still have very favourable ratings of the US, as the BBC World Service poll shows:


The most favourable views are found in the Philippines (90%, up 8 points), Ghana (84%, up 12 points), and Nigeria (76%, up 12 points). South Korean views on US influence markedly improved as positive ratings rose to 74 per cent (up 17 points), while negative ratings dropped from 38 per cent to 19 per cent.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/680.php

(George Bush recently went on a very well received trip to a couple of African nations. Sub Saharan Africa is the only part of the World where George Bush would receive such a warm reception)

However, the US Military does not have and is not likely to have favourable ratings among Africans. That is the difference.

[Dayuhan]

It is highly unlikely that the Chinese will repeat what the West did in Africa. The World has moved on from that and the Chinese are not that stupid.

Of course the Chinese won't repeat what the west did in the colonial age... they can't. That doesn't mean they won't come up with their own unique way of making a mess.

What the Chinese are doing falls neatly in the bracket of neocolonialism, loosely defined as the pursuit of colonial objectives by means not requiring physical control of the state. Chinese neocolonialism doesn't look exactly like the post-independence Western neocolonialism, mainly because Western neocolonialism was concurrent with and largely shaped by the Cold War, which the Chinese don't have to deal with. Ultimately the objectives are not much differen. and I suspect the outcome won't be much different either.

[KingJaja]

Looking at the various successive US administrations’ record in Africa, it is one long script of betrayal, destabilisation, political blackmail and even worse. Is it then therefore such a surprise that Africa is concerned about its formation? Of course, the bigger African powers also see AFRICOM as an attempt to overshadow their hegemony and undermine them and their interests in Africa. African governments are willing to accept the US Dollar in times of financial crisis but, at the moment, that is as far as it goes. They remain extremely reluctant and wary to allow the wolf to guard their sheep.

As for the few whites that remain in Africa, they too have seen and experienced US betrayals first-hand. AFRICOM is therefore not seen as their saviour either in any shape or form. Instead, they know that their advice and knowledge of the continent will be turned down and thus they view it as another disaster in the making.

US foreign policy has in many ways been shaped by the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) (mis)adventures in Africa, both covert and overt. Whereas there have no doubt been some successes, the failures have been spectacular. Casting a look at the continent, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, South Africa, Rwanda and many others immediately spring to mind. Indeed, the US Special Forces are still active in Africa – training the Rwandan Armed Forces (amongst others) – nothing wrong with that - but who in turn are accused of providing support to the rebels in the DRC. “Are they part of AFRICOM?” asked an African minister.

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/africom-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-or-what.html

[Stan]

First and foremost, you really should check out some of these blogs you go to for source data.

I mean c'mon - the stuff is dated 2008 when AFRICOM was barely manned and operating. Secondly, the "about me" para is pure ego and Bravo Sierra - he's looking for a merc job for crying out loud.

It is evident he never served a day in the US Military. Had he, he would know first hand that the SF teams teaching in Rwanda are most definitely not AFRICOM's. They are however part of AFRICOM's programs and the funding for such a team comes from AFRICOM's pot.

This is the lamest Sierra I have ever read !!!

[davidbfpo]

In the last few days there have been posts on AFRICOM on the live thread 'Nigeria: the (wide) context for violence':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7914 and it maybe worth checking in there. Perception remains an issue.;)

[KingJaja]

News story from BBC. Will only add to the common perception that the USG is up to no good in Africa. Does not help AFRICOM's perception.

Liberians are now openly saying that the reason why the US was reluctant to intervene in Liberia "was because their man was in power". Liberians feel betrayed by the US. (Liberians still regard the Nigerian Military as their (flawed) saviours).


US authorities say former Liberian leader Charles Taylor worked for its intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the Boston Globe reports.

The revelation comes in response to a Freedom of Information request by the newspaper.

A Globe reporter told the BBC this is the first official confirmation of long-held reports of a relationship between US intelligence and Mr Taylor.

Mr Taylor is awaiting a verdict on his trial for alleged war crimes.

Rumours of CIA ties were fuelled in July 2009 when Mr Taylor himself told his trial, at the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Hague, that US agents had helped him escape from a maximum security prison in Boston in 1985.

The CIA at the time denied such claims as "completely absurd".

But now the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's spy arm, has disclosed that its agents - and those of the CIA - did later use Mr Taylor as an informant, the Globe reports.

Globe reporter Bryan Bender told the BBC's Network Africa programme that Pentagon officials refused to give details on exactly what role Mr Taylor played, citing national security.

But they did confirm that Mr Taylor first started working with US intelligence in the 1980s, the period when he rose to become one of the world's most notorious warlords, Mr Bender says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16627628

[KingJaja]

Expect the "Pan-Africanist" brigade, the "Anti-Imperialist" legion and the likes of Al Jazeera to milk this story for all it's worth.

Americans assume that they have a favourability advantage over the Chinese in SS Africa - just wait until this story grows wings, and flies.

[Dayuhan]

Americans assume that they have a favourability advantage over the Chinese in SS Africa - just wait until this story grows wings, and flies.

What Americans assume that? Most seem to assume the opposite, and they're probably right, for now at least. Eventually Africans will figure out that just as the US was in bed with yesterday's African despots, China is in bed with today's. We'll see. I trust the Chinese to push a little too hard and a little too far, and to keep right on pushing. They're new at this yet, give them time...

[KingJaja]

What Americans assume that? Most seem to assume the opposite, and they're probably right, for now at least. Eventually Africans will figure out that just as the US was in bed with yesterday's African despots, China is in bed with today's. We'll see. I trust the Chinese to push a little too hard and a little too far, and to keep right on pushing. They're new at this yet, give them time...

I guess we've been talking to different sets of Americans...

Have you been to Tanzania, seen the TanZam railway line? The Chinese have been around for quite some time. We don't know what the future holds, but the Chinese seem to have managed the transition in South Sudan and Zambia quite well.

Another thing you are missing are the growing number of inter-personal / business relationships between Chinese and Africans. The worst the Chinese can do is to be considered modern-day Indians and Lebanese (not exactly liked nor hated).

Africans are beginning to make a distinction between the Chinese people and the Chinese government - and the Chinese government does its best not to attract headlines. Cannot say the same thing for the USG

[Stan]

I'm having dinner in 30 minutes with officers from AFRICOM :eek:

I can hardly contain myself thinking about when and how I tell them they are the boogieman :D

More serious discussion to follow !

[davidbfpo]

Stan,

Even if AFRICOM is based in Stuggart (35F currently) and you're 23F the visitors have hardly come to go skiing!

[Stan]

Stan,

Even if AFRICOM is based in Stuggart (35F currently) and you're 23F the visitors have hardly come to go skiing!

Hey David,
Before we discuss why members of AFRICOM were here, I should warn you about the BBCs weather information service.

It was minus 18 C. last night and this morning, not minus 5 C. I love it when people get paid to guesstimate weather forecasts :rolleyes:

Our meetings were typical 5-year budget conferences between the Baltic States and EUCOM. Participating members were from both EUCOM and AFRICOM. As far as I can tell there are manpower shortages as well as EUCOM gearing their (bastard) sister command to assume duties (again) under EUCOM once AFRICOM mobilizes elsewhere.

The AFRICOM guru was not at all surprised at being considered the boogieman -in fact he liked it !

What I had not realized was just how much had been budgeted to plant AFRICOM on African soil. The amount staggers the total sum for all of Africa and then some. Some of these folks estimated hiring over 2,500 locals in addition to construction, maintenance and transportation contracts.

I asked if any of this information was provided to the potential host countries and the answer was NO.

The current line of defense budget cuts will now make that proposal impossible :rolleyes:

[M-A Lagrange]

What I had not realized was just how much had been budgeted to plant AFRICOM on African soil. The amount staggers the total sum for all of Africa and then some. Some of these folks estimated hiring over 2,500 locals in addition to construction, maintenance and transportation contracts.

I asked if any of this information was provided to the potential host countries and the answer was NO.

The current line of defense budget cuts will now make that proposal impossible :rolleyes:

Hey Stan,

US are building new embassies all over Central Africa. Is there some plans to set AFRICOM in that part of Africa?
By the way a unique central command center for all africa is not what I would qualify as a extremely smart decision. France, UK... had several bases and that was for a good reason: you can't deploy troops all over Africa only from Djibouti. ;) (It's too hot anyway there)

[KingJaja]

The AFRICOM guru was not at all surprised at being considered the boogieman -in fact he liked it !

I'd be very interested to know why he likes it.

The AFRICOM HQ construction (if it was approved) would not have been the largest construction project in SSA. There are many other non-controversial construction projects in going on right now (Nairobi-Thika Road, Bui Dam etc).

[KingJaja]

This is off topic, but I thought it needs a mention. What many people don't realise is how much South Africans (Blacks) and Nigerians loathe each other. This isn't on a governmental/diplomatic level, but on a personal level.


ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — A series of airport deportations by South African and Nigerian authorities has sparked a growing diplomatic row between the two African nations.
Last week, South Africa deported 125 Nigerians arriving to Johannesburg's O.R. Tambo International Airport on an Arik Air Ltd. flight from Nigeria. Health authorities there said those passengers carried fraudulent yellow fever cards, Nigeria's government has said.
Since those deportations, authorities at Lagos' Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Nigeria have deported at least 84 South Africans over similar claims about their vaccination cards, two government officials who requested anonymity said Wednesday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to speak about the issue.
Yellow fever vaccination cards, though required throughout much of Africa, often serve as a means for officials to extort bribes from travelers who forget their cards. In Nigeria, health authorities often target foreigners coming in for work at foreign oil firms in the nation's crude-rich southern delta. Yellow fever cards also remain easy to purchase, with hawkers selling properly stamped cards outside of Lagos' international airport for the equivalent of $5.
Nigeria Foreign Minister Olugbenga Ashiru, speaking at the National Assembly on Tuesday, said the deportations represented something more than a vaccination concern. Ashiru said it represented the ongoing "xenophobia" faced by Nigerian immigrants living in South Africa who face rampaging police who arrest them without cause.
In South Africa, many there blame Nigerian immigrants for contributing to the nation's high crime rate.
"When you deport two Nigerians from your country on flimsy excuses, there will be appropriate reaction. It will not be retaliation but you will know that we are reciprocating one way or the other," Ashiru said. "South African immigration authorities or officials do not have a monopoly of deporting travelers."
Clayson Monyela, a spokesman for South Africa's Foreign Ministry, said his country planned to issue a statement Wednesday.
Visa requirements remain strict between the two countries. Diplomatically, the two nations also hold differing views, including Nigeria supporting Libya's rebels during the nation's recent civil war. Nigeria also joined international forces calling for the ouster of Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo in 2010, while South Africa largely remained quiet.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWbrUDXWKIVuhmpl36e0bMzgd7Dg?docId=102e064c7 8ec42d8878ced0c83fa2636

Nigerians, understandably, have a tough time with immigration authorities all over the World. While we might be willing to accept rude behaviour from US immigration authorities (I was sexually assaulted in Chicago in 2005), but we will not accept the same behaviour from African nations (especially from an African nation with one of the highest HIV infection rates and public health challenges of its own).

Nigeria and South Africa also tend to find themselves on different sides of major diplomatic issues like Ivory Coast and Libya.

[KingJaja]

As of today.

Nigerians deported from South Africa: 133
South Africans deported from Nigeria: 121

Nigeria needs to deport 12 more South Africans to make up the numbers!

[Stan]

I'd be very interested to know why he likes it.

The AFRICOM HQ construction (if it was approved) would not have been the largest construction project in SSA. There are many other non-controversial construction projects in going on right now (Nairobi-Thika Road, Bui Dam etc).

They departed today but I did manage to speak with him again RE The Boogieman. In a word they are considered red-headed step children by their EUCOM counterparts, and being the boogieman just sounds better.

The point about the HQs being built has little to do with the initial amount of money - the point is the base would be a constant source of money (rent) and employment opportunities (paid under US laws, not Nigerian). Anyone can build a road and leave.

Building a base and maintaining it, providing family housing and maintaining those, building an international school and maintaining that, building shops and fast food restaurants and maintaining those, creating a vehicle fleet from local purchases and maintaining that, etc, etc.

Surely you can see the potential over even a 5-year period.

[Stan]

Hey Stan,

US are building new embassies all over Central Africa. Is there some plans to set AFRICOM in that part of Africa?
By the way a unique central command center for all africa is not what I would qualify as a extremely smart decision. France, UK... had several bases and that was for a good reason: you can't deploy troops all over Africa only from Djibouti. ;) (It's too hot anyway there)

Hey M-A,
The original plan was to set up on African soil, but the defense budget cuts may mean moving AFRICOM to the US. Being based in Germany is expensive and room is at a premium.

AFRICOM's HQs would not mean stationing war time assets there. Only the HQs and staff elements. Deployments would still have to come from abroad for training teams, etc.

If Uncle Mo was still alive, you could be certain that AFRICOM would be right in the Middle of Kinshasa :D

[Stan]

Nigerians, understandably, have a tough time with immigration authorities all over the World. While we might be willing to accept rude behaviour from US immigration authorities (I was sexually assaulted in Chicago in 2005), but we will not accept the same behaviour from African nations (especially from an African nation with one of the highest HIV infection rates and public health challenges of its own).


It's like a step back in time with those yellow vaccination cards :) I can't remember how many I had to buy !

I have not been to the US since 97 when I retired and even then the NYC INS were having a good time with my luggage (coming from what they thought was the USSR :wry: )

A long time ago deportations usually meant someone wanted money, but this doesn't sound the same for SA and Nigeria. Diplomats always ended up deported, but not the common tourist or traveler. What's with this new wave ?

[Fuchs]

Hey M-A,
The original plan was to set up on African soil, but the defense budget cuts may mean moving AFRICOM to the US. Being based in Germany is expensive and room is at a premium.

Did they ever look into setting up in Melilla/Ceuta? It's the only formally allied territory in Africa (being part of Spain). :D

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

Nice idea, but I expect the Spanish would not "play ball" with that idea. Neither enclave is that large and we know the US military like a large basing footprint. Not sure what the Moroccan reaction would be either.

Since Stan, as AFRICOM's accommodation officer designate:eek:, has downplayed the African island of Ascension Island, perhaps in the spirit of the 'Special Relationship' we can offer Gibraltar! It is near Africa, with some water between, it is British (OK the Spanish disagree:wry:) and it has several empty barracks, in a rather grand, if bleak setting. The weather is a better African mix than Stuttgart.:)

[Stan]

Did they ever look into setting up in Melilla/Ceuta? It's the only formally allied territory in Africa (being part of Spain).

Sven, that's barely 12 square kilometers ! Where would we put all the locals :D

If the Governor of Virginia still has a say and Secretary Gates doesn't go back on his word, AFRICOM will be in the US shortly. Too tempting perhaps - all the fast food joints and schools are already built !

I responded to your blog post. Probably not the most conventional idea, but, Estonians don't fight fair !


Fuchs,

Since Stan, as AFRICOM's accommodation officer designate, has downplayed the African island of Ascension Island, perhaps in the spirit of the 'Special Relationship' we can offer Gibraltar! It is near Africa, with some water between, it is British (OK the Spanish disagree:wry:) and it has several empty barracks, in a rather grand, if bleak setting. The weather is a better African mix than Stuttgart.:)

David, I already pitched Ascension two nights ago. The whole table, all 15 officers, laughed themselves sober. Even the Lithuanian Colonel had tears in his eyes.

Having been to Gibraltar, we're going to have to remove all the primates and all those Brits (that charge you 100 Euros for a brisk 30-minute ride up and back) are going to be against this move :D

[davidbfpo]

Stan,

Oh, I forgot to mention Gibraltar has huge empty underground space, so we could place AFRICOM inside 'The Rock' and thereby lower the profile. There's even some natural air conditioning, those holes made for earlier times artillery.

Off-duty the staff can gaze across the straits to Africa from the barracks, which is a real gain IMHO.

As for the primates are atop 'The Rock' and are really the guards on the 9.2" guns - just in case someone thinks they can invade!

Anyway I am gratified that my proposal caused laughter and sobriety!

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,

Nice idea, but I expect the Spanish would not "play ball" with that idea. Neither enclave is that large and we know the US military like a large basing footprint. Not sure what the Moroccan reaction would be either.

Since Stan, as AFRICOM's accommodation officer designate:eek:, has downplayed the African island of Ascension Island, perhaps in the spirit of the 'Special Relationship' we can offer Gibraltar! It is near Africa, with some water between, it is British (OK the Spanish disagree:wry:) and it has several empty barracks, in a rather grand, if bleak setting. The weather is a better African mix than Stuttgart.:)

Djibouti would really be an obvious solution, or Monrovia.

Liberia has a special history with the U.S. and Djibouti is used to be a French/European military base. Djibouti could also serve as backup plan for CENTCOM if they ever get expelled from Qatar.

Canary Islands would probably be more comfortable than those, though.

[KingJaja]

Is AFRICOM still thinking of basing in Africa?

One of the problems with US bases is the need to create a medium sized US city in the remotest parts of the World (together with the obligatory McDonalds and Crispy Creme Doughnuts (please note my spelling of the word Doughnut!)).

Neither Djibouti nor Liberia can support a medium sized US style city, and the nations that can (Kenya, South Africa, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria, Ethiopia) are most definitely opposed to that sort of US presence.

All this talk is theoretical, ten years of defense budget cuts in the States will put paid to wet dreams about a "global military empire".

[Fuchs]

Why support? All they need is a harbour to ship in the necessary million tons of supply per year, an airbase of 4 km length as well as a cement factory for all the paranoid blast-proof architecture and complete immunity against local jurisdiction. ;)
It's not as if such a U.S. mil base would actually draw on civilian food, electricity...



Seriously, I dislike the whole concept of regional commands. It's a self-inflicted wound in my eyes, but maybe I've just learned too much about bureaucratic self-interests already. :eek:

[KingJaja]

Why support? All they need is a harbour to ship in the necessary million tons of supply per year, an airbase of 4 km length as well as a cement factory for all the paranoid blast-proof architecture and complete immunity against local jurisdiction.
It's not as if such a U.S. mil base would actually draw on civilian food, electricity...

One remembers they are importing chicken wings into Iraq (and sugar!).

[Stan]

Is AFRICOM still thinking of basing in Africa?


Jaja,
No, they are not. Looks like their new home is Virginia. This thread just warmed up with my visitors this week. Otherwise, once they do move there will be little to discuss here :)

You know what we used to say about "the fastest animal on earth" in Africa ? The skinny and underfed chicken. If the whole body barely weighs what a Cornish hen weighs, imagine how small the wings are. One thing is generally clear, we are a spoiled bunch and things like snow-white sugar and real chicken wings are a must.

[carl]

One thing is generally clear, we are a spoiled bunch and things like snow-white sugar and real chicken wings are a must.

Well if chicken wings are the only thing standing in the way, then Kinshasa it should be. Tyson chicken direct from Arkansas is already available, or at least it was.

[M-A Lagrange]

Should put AFRICOM in Cabinda, the small piece of Angola stuck between Congo Brazza and Congo Kinshasa. There you have: access to at least 2 huge ports, an oil pipeline, an armed group for training, stupid soldier who blow cities because of bad ammunition storage, shopping centers within less than 40 min flight, the most expensive city of Africa within less than 1h flight...
And US investors even said they would build a deep sea port in Banana, less than 3 days by road (approxiamately 50 Km).
And if you are nice and work hard, you even can get a continental war at your door!

[KingJaja]

The spat has ended. The South Africans blinked first, they have formally apologised. This has been very popular in Nigeria, but not so in South Africa (perfectly understandable).

South Africa has problems with the rest of Africa and the wave of xenophobic attacks that occurred in 2009 did not help matters.


The Federal Government has accepted the apology tendered by the South African government over the deportation of 125 Nigerians last Friday.

This was disclosed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, yesterday in Abuja.

Addressing the media, Ashiru said that the diplomatic row between the two countries is over and they have promised to erect a lasting framework that will forestall such incident from happening again.

He said, "With this formal apology from the South African government, I would now finally say that we are going to move forward and consolidate on our relations.

"We took immediate steps to protect the interest of Nigerians as what the South Africans did is unAfrican. We have never seen that kind of treatment meted out to any other nationals; deporting 125 persons in two days."

A total of 131 South Africans were deported in retaliation by Nigerian authorities for issues bordering on poor documentation.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201203090353.html

Stan,

I've actually traveled around Africa (South Africa inclusive) with fake yellow cards. The Togolese were not in the bit interested in yellow cards (they had other interests). Kenyans couldn't be bothered and the South Africans just glanced at it and gave it back to me.

[Stan]

Stan,

I've actually traveled around Africa (South Africa inclusive) with fake yellow cards. The Togolese were not in the bit interested in yellow cards (they had other interests). Kenyans couldn't be bothered and the South Africans just glanced at it and gave it back to me.

Jaja,
I think back then everybody had a fake yellow vaccination card. Half of us would dare to take that many yellow fever and cholera injections !
The Zairois loved the yellow card system - lots of money to be made. It only takes a single look inside the medical office at the airport to realize you do not want a shot.

[Stan]

Well if chicken wings are the only thing standing in the way, then Kinshasa it should be. Tyson chicken direct from Arkansas is already available, or at least it was.

Carl,
I think Tyson is long out of the picture. Even before that I'm not 100% certain that all the poultry was of US origin.

There were a ton of issues regarding conflict minerals and concerns over the methods of food growth and harvest, and treatment of animals :wry:

We won't go into labor conditions :D

[ganulv]

Should put AFRICOM in Cabinda
NYC–to–Dakar is an eight hour direct, the food is good, the infrastructure is decent, and Americans might learn that not all Muslims are Arabs. Of course, the fact that there would be honest concerns about setting up shop in a country as relatively stable and modern as Senegal underscores why it looks like the move will be Stateside.

[KingJaja]

NYC–to–Dakar is an eight hour direct, the food is good, the infrastructure is decent, and Americans might learn that not all Muslims are Arabs. Of course, the fact that there would be honest concerns about setting up shop in a country as relatively stable and modern as Senegal underscores why it looks like the move will be Stateside.

There's no point having an AFRICOM if you are going to base it in the States (different time zones, distance etc.). Give it up. AFRICOM could have made sense thirty years ago, not today.

It just doesn't make sense.

[ganulv]

There's no point having an AFRICOM if you are going to base it in the States (different time zones, distance etc.). Give it up. AFRICOM could have made sense thirty years ago, not today.

It just doesn't make sense.
iirc more than one (American) contributor (with actual military experience) to this thread has said some version of the same.

[Fuchs]

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/09/everything-from-strike-eagles-to-drones-at-u-s-african-hub/

Moderator's Note

Thread closed as the main AFRICOM thread also has posts on perceptions.