AFRICOM and the perception mess

[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.