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?