Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[TROUFION]

DOD and DOS cannot change policy as they do not make policy, they only execute policy. That said a dedicated organization executing policy SHOULD give the policy makers -POTUS and Congress a better leveradge point and better insight into the inner workings of Africa, thus it SHOULD lead to better policy.

[Tom Odom]

DOD and DOS cannot change policy as they do not make policy, they only execute policy. That said a dedicated organization executing policy SHOULD give the policy makers -POTUS and Congress a better leveradge point and better insight into the inner workings of Africa, thus it SHOULD lead to better policy.

Not true, mate. They do set policy as guided by the White House via the NSC, and by Congress. There is an Undersecretary of Defense for Policy for that reason alone.

What Africom should do is better streamline policy execution especially when it comes to monies.

Best

Tom

[TROUFION]

The deputy undersecretary for Policy is an advisor, they can generate the policy but it still takes effect only when the POTUS gives the nod. of course he is not truly involved in every little thing the advisors do the work.

The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council.

The undersecretary for policy--The mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is to consistently provide responsive, forward-thinking, and insightful policy advice and support to the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of Defense, in alignment with national security objectives.

[Tom Odom]

The deputy undersecretary for Policy is an advisor, they can generate the policy but it still takes effect only when the POTUS gives the nod. of course he is not truly involved in every little thing the advisors do the work.

The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council.

And having done it for real on the ground, the DoD, State, and the Unified Commands set the policies for all intents and purposes through the inter-agency process. The Nat Sec Advisor's ultimate role is the monitor that process and advise the President when more direct intervention is required. The good Nat Sec Advisors know when things are off track and use the weight of the President to get the process going. Tony Lake did that after the genocide; I wished he had done more before and during. In recent times, that is to me where Condi Rice failed. She did not keep the interagency process in balance.

Best

Tom

[Ken White]

I also know how our Guvmint really works. The Departments do effectively set de facto policy in many areas. Sometimes it's followed up with a de jure Presidential nod, sometimes not. Frequently it just fills a vacuum and stays around. It also is sometimes set not by a Department but by one of their minions on the ground and the Department involved embeds it.

That latter construct has gotten even more deeply entrenched since Goldwater Nichols gave the geo Cincs so much clout...

Also agree with Tom on the NSA but in defense of some would point out that a firm and more bureaucratically aware (is that a nice way to put it?) SecState or SecDef can hobble even the best NSA. That's happened to others aside from Rice.

[Stan]

I'll echo what Tom and Ken said.

The arduous process falls far from the top of the food chain. Even hamstrung EUCOM held the purse strings and called many shots, far from the flag pole. There were of course those ammusing instances when CENTCOM would wage war from Florida

Contrary to the belief that Sierra always rolls down hill, Policy was drafted in the field (I watched it many, many times), and shoved up the pipe to DC.

With a purported 800 employees from DOD and DOS, AFRICOM will have far more influence over its 5 regional teams and should preclude what soldiers in the past endured as policy makers pondered over upheaval, civil war and genocide from the folks at ground zero.

[Ken White]

in my observation...

[TROUFION]

They do set policy as guided by the White House via the NSC, and by Congress.

Hi gents, I think we like to argue..er discuss.. just for the hell of it sometimes. We get wrapped on words. In this case the difference beteween the intial question and the response: the question was can it CHANGE policy. My answer was that AFRICOM in and of itself cannot change a policy it will execute the policy that is already set. Tom's answer is that DOD or in this case AFRICOM can SET Policy de facto by virtue of being on the ground in direct contact and de jure by authority of the Under SECDEF for Policy. That does not mean they can change a policy. Setting means establishing new policy, changing means taking an existing policy and altering it.

I believe the answer is somewhere in between.

The scope of the policy inquestion is important. For instance lets talk hypothetically about the policy for DOD assistance to the Presidents AIDS eradication program. If the POTUS has the program up and running and it requires that abstinance be the principle method of birth control and that no money could be spent on other methods that would be a policy. A DOD person on the ground could say hey that is dumb why not give them condoms and then de facto purchases and delivers condoms. That would be a violation of the pre-exisiting policy. That would get the well meaning hardcharger on deck in a good deal of trouble. He would not be authorized to CHANGE the policy. Now if there was no policy SET regarding the purchase and distribution of condoms as a secondary method for the prevention and treatment of AIDS then the local command could purchase and distribute condoms therby setting a new policy.

[Ken White]

DOD and DOS cannot change policy as they do not make policy, they only execute policy. That said a dedicated organization executing policy SHOULD give the policy makers -POTUS and Congress a better leveradge point and better insight into the inner workings of Africa, thus it SHOULD lead to better policy.

(emphasis added /kw)

Think the words highlighted may be what what folks cued upon.

As for the changing, it can happen. Your example is unlikely to be changed because, as you note; it's a pet rock of the Prez. A possible current example of change would be the deals with the Sunnis in Iraq, a pet rock of somewhat lesser lights that got changed on the ground and wandered upstream. Been a lot of others over the years.

I can remember a young Colonel telling me in 1976 that there was no such thing as an implied mission below Battalion. I just laughed. There's always an implied mission; the result of execution may be medal or a court martial; sometimes in a race . Always interesting to see which one gets there first.

[Tom Odom]

As for the changing, it can happen. Your example is unlikely to be changed because, as you note; it's a pet rock of the Prez. A possible current example of change would be the deals with the Sunnis in Iraq, a pet rock of somewhat lesser lights that got changed on the ground and wandered upstream. Been a lot of others over the years.

Ken

Agreed and great example. We are generally led to believe that campaign plans are not something that embassies and ambassadors and DATTs conceive and write. In our case in Rwanda in post genocide 84-95, White House poilicy was essentially "don't embarrass us or let us embarrass ourselves, again." That meant do what needed to be done but it was not a policy with a goal. We rock souped EUCOM, DoD, and the NSC by simply writing out what we were doing in a coherent campaign plan which EUCOM adopted pretty much as we put it, DoD echoed, and the NSC said to State, "THere ya go: there is our policy and its sub goals. Srate didn't like it (at least State in some quarters) but a fait accompli was hard to refute, when the Nat Sec Advisor said, "do it." the campaign plan was the rock; we then got money to make the soup.

Trufion,

As Ken stated with the highlighting, I posted because your response to Beez while correct in legal sense did not capture the reality of interagency squabbling and horse trading. Good discussion.

Best

Tom

[Beelzebubalicious]

Interesting discussion, but I was really aiming at something a bit different. I should have phrased my question better. I should have said "Will the creation of AFRICOM actually change US Policy in Africa, or will it only change the interagency coordination structure?" So, not so much AFRICOM's role in creating and implementing policy, but how it's existence will impact policy directions.

Reason I ask is b/c officially, I see statements saying that AFRICOM will only help support USG policy in Africa. However, others see the creation and development of AFRICOM as a signal of a militarization of USG policy. Take for example, the following quote:

“There is strong fear and apprehension within Africa, within the United States, in Europe and elsewhere that AFRICOM signals the militarization of U.S. engagement in Africa at the expense of developmental and diplomatic interests,” added Stephen Morrison, an Africa expert from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

http://www.uspolicy.be/Article.asp?I...A-61EAEE7181E9

Personally, I don't see it as a militarization, but I am interested to hear opinions on how having an African Command may impact or change policy.

[Tom Odom]

Personally, I don't see it as a militarization, but I am interested to hear opinions on how having an African Command may impact or change policy.

Your view is correct. It is not. It is as stated above a way of focusing efforts, especially when it comes to budgets.

best

Tom

[Stan]

I should have said "Will the creation of AFRICOM actually change US Policy in Africa, or will it only change the interagency coordination structure?"

The short answer, it will change both...but that's a good thing.
Overall, it will affect policy decisions because the new, improved 800-man system will do a much better job at coordinating.

Don't get me wrong, EUCOM did a damn good job coordinating interagency ops (EUCOM is and was interagency) with a very short-handed staff, and our immediate needs on the ground had to be transmitted via DC.

There's a glimmer of hope that AFRICOM will also employ some foreign language speakers

[Beelzebubalicious]

VOA has just started a 5-part series on AFRICOM. Check out first installment at http://www.voanews.com/english/Afric...fit-Africa.cfm

[Jedburgh]

....the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative, was created in 2005 as a five-year, $500 million endeavor with nine nations in Western Africa: Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Nigeria, and Chad. Touted as a program that is as much a non-military development assistance initiative as it is a military-to-military training initiative, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative seems to complement the diplomatic, economic, law enforcement and informational programs concurrently being administered by the U.S. in Africa, but is the balance of (national) power right?

ISN Security Watch, 7 Nov 07: Africa's Unfolding Desert War

....Under the US military program, started in 2005, US$500 million will be spent over seven years to train thousands of African troops drawn from the trans-Saharan area including Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Morocco and Tunisia. US military strategy for West Africa, within the framework of the global war on terror, appears to be to work with the regional militaries to keep out suspected terrorist groups while securing oil interests in the Gulf of Guinea.

In doing this, the US appears to be labeling "virtually all Islamist reform movements as terrorist or, at least, highly suspect [...] regardless of local histories, national injustices or facts on the ground," argue researchers Paul M Lubeck, Michael J Watts and Ronnie Lipschutz in a February report for the independent Washington-based Centre for International Policy. It was the same mistake Western military interventionists made during the Cold War, they say.....

[Jedburgh]

SSI, 21 Nov 07: AFRICOM's Dilemma: The "Global War on Terrorism" "Capacity Building," Humanitarianism, and the Future of U.S. Security Policy in Africa

The February 2007 decision to launch a new Department of Defense Unified Combatant Command for Africa (AFRICOM) has already been met with significant controversy both in the United States and abroad. AFRICOM’s proponents claim that the new command accurately reflects Africa’s growing strategic importance and an enlightened U.S. foreign policy focused on supporting “African solutions to African problems.” Its critics allege that the command demonstrates a self-serving American policy focused on fighting terrorism, securing the Africa’s burgeoning energy stocks, and countering Chinese influence.

To overcome such misgivings, AFRICOM must demonstrate a commitment to programs mutually beneficial to both African and American national interests. Yet a shrewd strategic communication campaign will not be enough to convince a skeptical African public that AFRICOM’s priorities mirror their own. Indeed, much African distrust is justified. Since September 11, 2001 (9/11), the Department of Defense’s (DoD) most significant endeavors in Africa have been undertaken in pursuit of narrowly conceived goals related to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Operations in North and East Africa, though couched in a larger framework of development, long-term counterinsurgency, and a campaign to win “hearts and minds,” have nonetheless relied on offensive military operations focused on short-term objectives.....

[Global Scout]

AFRICOM’s proponents claim that the new command accurately reflects Africa’s growing strategic importance and an enlightened U.S. foreign policy focused on supporting “African solutions to African problems.” Its critics allege that the command demonstrates a self-serving American policy focused on fighting terrorism, securing the Africa’s burgeoning energy stocks, and countering Chinese influence.

I think both the proponents and critics are correct. Very few nations act purely on altruistic motives (except in extreme cases of humanitarian suffering), but in this situation if the strategy is well thought out it should be a win-win situation for the U.S. and many nations in Africa.

[Stan]

Africa Command Pledges to Partner with Other U.S. Agencies

Not a bad start, General. Now if we could just get those 'other agencies' to agree with you.

The military's unified command responsible for engagement activities across Africa will work in tandem with other U.S. government agencies to assist partner nations there to confront poverty, disease, terrorism and other challenges, a senior U.S. officer said today.

"We are not looking to take the lead for any other government-agency work that they are doing today across the continent or our international partners," Navy Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, U.S. Africa Command's deputy to the commander for military operations, told "bloggers" and Internet reporters during a conference call.

AFRICOM will team with the U.S. State Department and other U.S. agencies and organizations to assist African partners to combat AIDS, malaria and other challenges that affect regional stability and security, Moeller explained.

"The establishment of AFRICOM is not about the deployment of [sizeable U.S.] forces to the continent or the establishment of bases," Moeller emphasized.

A key point is that African nations are taking the lead in their relations with AFRICOM, which will assist those countries in developing the capacities they need to help themselves, Moeller said. Source: DefenseLink

Nice links at the site !

[SWJED]

Conversation with General William Ward, U.S. Africa Command - 27 minute interview.

[Beelzebubalicious]

I recently stumbled across this article written by by Jean Damu and published on Friday, December 282007 in the San Francisco Bay View, National Black Newspaper.

I was interested to note, to the extent that this article is representative, how black politicians and the Congressional Black Caucus view the establishment of AFRICOM.