Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[AdamG]

FORT RILEY, Kan. — Here on the Kansas plains, thousands of soldiers once bound for Iraq or Afghanistan are now gearing up for missions in Africa as part of a new Pentagon strategy to train and advise indigenous forces to tackle emerging terrorist threats and other security risks so that American forces do not have to.

The first-of-its-kind program is drawing on troops from a 3,500-member brigade in the Army’s storied First Infantry Division, known as the Big Red One, to conduct more than 100 missions in Africa over the next year. The missions range from a two-man sniper team in Burundi to 350 soldiers conducting airborne and humanitarian exercises in South Africa.

The brigade has also sent a 150-member rapid-response force to Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to protect embassies in emergencies, a direct reply to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, which killed four Americans.

“Our goal is to help Africans solve African problems, without having a big American presence,” said Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee Magee, a West Point graduate and third-generation Army officer whose battalion has sent troops to Burundi, Niger and South Africa in the past several months, and whose unit will deploy to Djibouti in December.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/19...r.html?from=us

[Stan]

Seems this thread has once again gained some much needed momentum.
Some great posts and equally great responses ! I’ll begin with David’s 09.2013 post.

Let’s first discuss the “almost always normal” process that takes place with training:

We offer or the host country requests - Both parties have to agree to training in or outside of the host country. It’s simply cheaper to send four instructors to Mali that a platoon of Mali to South Carolina. So, it happens in country.
The Country Team (as many or as few of the embassy members deemed necessary which varies from post to post) assesses the situation and the Host Country provides their concurrence and trainees. Once this has happened and the CT finds it a good idea, a Pre-Deployment Site Survey is organized (which often includes instructors that will eventually come back and perform the training). The PDSS determines that the CT is on the right path and that this training is tailored to the caliber of trainees in question and the problem is adequately addressed through training. It could and has worked out that we cannot provide the required assistance and training.

The CT then begins the vetting process both in country and then at home to DOS. Let’s keep in mind that vetting does not determine nor discriminate against one’s race, religion, or sexual orientation. It is designed to vet out human rights violators/violations.

The Pentagon is only as blind as the Country Team will allow !

DoD does not pull the hamstrings. The Ambassador (State Dept) does. If the CT fails to inform and address cultural issues prior to vetting, that’s their bad. If the CT’s agenda is politically driven, then all of the above mentioned info is just Bravo Sierra at this stage (that’s pretty much norm in Africa).

Kingjaja: I stress that it is the Host Country that determines and accepts training, and, provides the candidates. They can and have refused. But that rarely happens with free training, free conference trips to Europe and free equipment. Your military commander or President can tell the CT that the training being offered is below our candidates’ educational levels. At that point the PDSS will tune or turn off the training. In most cases, the PDSS will figure that out during the visit and take into consideration what the Host Country needs (this assumes the Host Country was requesting assistance and not the CT offering assistance). If the Host Country is not transparent, the system won’t work and will be a detriment to both parties. Having said that the US needs to be transparent too; not only with the host country but also her own public.

The US gets played because the CT is weak and lacks what most former colonial powers have learned over the decades. We also get played because the offered assistance is politically driven. Something neither you nor I can control. We just get to run with it and try and fix it along the way. See Bill’s excellent post !

“The Nigerian Army is very prickly about the condescending tone of "US training"

If that was the case, their voices are not being heard at the CT and AFRICOM. All they need do is refuse. That however will more than likely be the last time they are offered assistance. Not something your administration is willing to risk (apparently).

General Ham is little more than a victim of his own command. He doesn’t make up his own speeches and is dependent on both his team and the CT in the host country. He is however on the blame line !

Hei Mikka ! It is up to each and every one of us to ensure we are not the culturally challenged ugly American. Some things do happen outside of the Diplo Circle at embassies. That depends on just how much the Ambassador values your opinion and trusts your judgment. That also means you need to have some big cojones at the CT, and, as John W opined, you could end up with a very short career path !

JohnT, Great post ! There are some great FSOs and FAOs. Some of the mistakes that keep FSOs from excelling are their 2 or 3-year cycles. If something new crosses their desk and there is little time to make the grade, the project dies. Can’t get the award in, then Foxtrot it ! Too much dependency on the end result being credited to a single person for an end of tour award. Had that happened here in 98 we would have never succeeded. Some great FAOs kept that from happening and the momentum and money never stopped.

Regards, Stan

[davidbfpo]

Stan,

Thank you for your wise words as an experienced African "old hand".

It does appear from this latest "puff" NYT article on the Kansas-based brigade that little has been learnt - from Mali - and sadly it appears the USA's only helping hand for Africa comes in a uniform with a gun and just maybe a drone.

The same article appears on SWJ Blog and has one comment by hitman483 (who I don't think is a SWC contributor) :

This has to be a joke. The military, specifically, the US Army is coming up with a Foreign Internal Defense (FID) strategy for the African continent. So we are going to mentor, train, and advise different countries National Security Forces in Africa on how to defeat insurgencies and terrorists attacks. OK, we couldn't beat the insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Army is putting plans together for FID in Africa. LOL, I can't wait to see this. US Army conventional forces conducting Irregular Warfare training. This is a lose, lose all day long.

Department of State (DOS) should handle this. Because, it's the police that will be out in front. Once again, insurgencies and terrorists are criminals, not combatants. Organized narcotics gangs, and organized crime have the same makeup of terrorist and insurgent cells. The behavior is the same. It's a shame the military doesn't understand this.

The author is a former Embedded Police Mentor and former Law Enforcement Professional. Assigned to Special Operations Task Force South (SOTF South)from 2010-2012.

[Stan]

David,
I have not a clue what advance preparations have been accomplished to adequately prepare the brigade for Africa.

My first thought would be nothing (which is not as bad as it sounds). If I pump you up with all my experience and you get there and discover I'm but an old Africa hand beyond his time, then we have accomplished nothing. If however, I give you little to nothing other than some language and cultural advanced training (that's all I received in 84), we stand the chance that you (the individual soldier burned out 5 times on some desert missions) will hopefully think outside the box and figure out what's best. Hence the need for a PDSS.

The uniform and a gun is typical of non-Africa corps personnel that have in fact had too many tours in a combat zone. The PDSS will cover that high hurdle and preclude yet another SNAFU in Africa. A firearm in Africa is a joke and Africans are less likely to comprehend our goal and intent.

Seems hitman does not understand nor has he worked with embassies abroad.

A shame, because that is exactly where most of the US Military reside (blind to what really happens at an embassy and/or DOS).

Break - off to comment on hitman's post at the blog !

Stan,

Thank you for your wise words as an experienced African "old hand".

It does appear from this latest "puff" NYT article on the Kansas-based brigade that little has been learnt - from Mali - and sadly it appears the USA's only helping hand for Africa comes in a uniform with a gun and just maybe a drone.

The same article appears on SWJ Blog and has one comment by hitman483 (who I don't think is a SWC contributor) :

[KingJaja]

Stan,

The US gets played because the CT is weak and lacks what most former colonial powers have learned over the decades. We also get played because the offered assistance is politically driven. Something neither you nor I can control. We just get to run with it and try and fix it along the way. See Bill’s excellent post !

So what can the US do to avoid getting played? I look at Mali and I doubt the French would have been played like the US was played.

I cannot emphasise how important it is not to get played - Africa is now quasi-democratic; what this means is that virtually every government in Sub-Saharan Africa represents some sectional/ethnic interest, while the opposition to government represents entirely different sectional/ethnic interests.

The British & French know who is bull####ting & who isn't, because they created the mess in the first place. They have deep, first hand knowledge of each African nation and they (especially the French) are unlikely to tell the US everything they know.

In an increasingly connected, better-educated Africa (for example: 48 million Nigerians have access to the Internet), the US cannot afford to engage Africa as she did during the Cold War. It is a lot different and a lot more complicated.

[KingJaja]

The US Military should be used very sparingly in Africa. Given our history, the terms "US Military" and "CIA" ring alarm bells.

If a combination of police/FBI can do the job, why not use them? Why are you telling us "you are preparing a brigade for operations in Africa"? You want all the "Pan-Africanist intellectuals & journalists" (and they are quite a few of them) to blow off steam?

[Stan]

Exactly !

The Country Team also has a Legal Attache (FBI). In fact, the CT should be reviewing whether the Department of Justice is not the better choice as a training provider. Considering the problems with counterinsurgency, the FBI would be the better trainer.

The US Military should be used very sparingly in Africa. Given our history, the terms "US Military" and "CIA" ring alarm bells.

If a combination of police/FBI can do the job, why not use them? Why are you telling us "you are preparing a brigade for operations in Africa"? You want all the "Pan-Africanist intellectuals & journalists" (and they are quite a few of them) to blow off steam?

[Stan]

Hey Kingjaja !

We are working with the French in Mali, but that is mostly international and humanitarian organizations. The US got played due in part to the Country Team and the input provided by the Host Country. I had very good relations with the French in Zaire, but I also spoke French and Lingala, so that bridged the gap in understanding. I also realized just how much the Zairois hated the French. That combination made for some interesting times !

Our current administration does little to make the French feel welcome. That makes for some bad cocktail parties in Africa Our diplomatic corps -- some or all of the CT really need a course in diplomacy when working in Africa. I work with the foot soldiers and meet with Generals only when required. The US gets played thinking they are smarter than the Africans.... Bad mistake.

Regards, Stan

Stan,

So what can the US do to avoid getting played? I look at Mali and I doubt the French would have been played like the US was played.

I cannot emphasise how important it is not to get played - Africa is now quasi-democratic; what this means is that virtually every government in Sub-Saharan Africa represents some sectional/ethnic interest, while the opposition to government represents entirely different sectional/ethnic interests.

The British & French know who is bull####ting & who isn't, because they created the mess in the first place. They have deep, first hand knowledge of each African nation and they (especially the French) are unlikely to tell the US everything they know.

In an increasingly connected, better-educated Africa (for example: 48 million Nigerians have access to the Internet), the US cannot afford to engage Africa as she did during the Cold War. It is a lot different and a lot more complicated.