Could you explain to us what that means?Originally Posted by Stan
Thanks.
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 HarleyUs retarded senile non-sufficient ossifers are NOT grumpy -- WE are normal; others are just inadequately aroused.
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.
My admin boss, another real black beret wearer, swiftly took me to a local bar concerned over his retirement potential.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Could you explain to us what that means?
Thanks.
Jeez, don't you take the weekends off
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)
I had a lump in my throat and never felt prouder that daythe 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.
Some things simply cannot be explained.
Scouts Out !
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Huh?...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
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 meJeez, don't you take the weekends off
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 ?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
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
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.
Last edited by Stan; 11-19-2011 at 04:23 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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."...real black beret wearer...
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.
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.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.
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.
I'm not divulging my age herein and you like old jargon more than I
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.
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
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 ?
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.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
How 'bout deception mess
Just stumbled across this link known as Pambazuka. 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
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.
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 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.
Last edited by Stan; 12-01-2011 at 07:35 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.
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!
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
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).
Parallels between Victorian Britain and 21st Century US
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)
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.
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
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks