Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[SWJED]

Focus on U.S. Africa Command - SWJ Blog. Kudos to many who posted here (on this thread) for pointers to reference material - much appreciated!

As a lead-in – to this much longer than usual SWJ Blog entry – I thought I’d post some recent news as well as recent and not-so-recent background / reference material on the establishment of our newest Combatant Command – U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and issues that will impact on AFRICOM’s mission.

Regardless of where you might stand on the value of establishing this new command, it is happening and we need to get it right. Getting it right includes ensuring that AFRICOM receives the necessary resources (people and funding) and is enabled to pursue operations utilizing all instruments of national power – read interagency…

Please post to comments below (or on this thread at Small Wars Council) any additional relevant material (articles, studies, presentations…) for addition to the SWJ Reference Library – Thanks!...

[Beelzebubalicious]

"...In the end, I know of no other factor which may have as much influence on how AFRICOM is initially received as the decision concerning its basing. The selection of the site will have both positive and negative impacts on the new command’s strategic effect and will, in turn, dictate AFRICOM’s ability to influence and support the various elements of American national power in helping build a secure, stable, and prosperous African continent."

I read somewhere that the base will be in Germany or somewhere outside Africa b/c of the political issues. It would probably be best to be more decentralized and low profile anyway. Centralize command and control, but decentralize functions.

[Stan]

AllAfrica regarding AFRICOM - "South Africa's defence minister says not only the Southern African Development Community but most of the African Union rejects the United States' new Africa Command (Africom), reports a South African newspaper."

Any country that allowed itself to be a base for the US strategic command in Africa (Africom) would have to live with the consequences, Lekota said.

Africom's recent creation has been interpreted as the US suddenly recognising the strategic importance of Africa to the US.

Last month it was reported that Lekota was not responding to US requests for him to meet the first Africom commander, Gen Kip Ward.

Briefing the media yesterday, Lekota said the Southern African Development Community (SADC) defence ministers had, at the summit in Lusaka this month, decided that no member states would host Africom and more armed US soldiers.

He said this was also the "continental position" of the African Union.

However, Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has evidently already offered her country as a base for Africom.

Simon Tisdale wrote in the London-based Guardian: "Africom marks the official arrival of America's 'global war on terror' on the African continent."

[TROUFION]

It needs some heavy Public Relations work. This has to be a sell situation, the US and Gen Ward in particular need to go on an all out media blitz, selling the benefits, the needs, the new softer approach, the low profile HQ, no battalions will be based there etc. Can't just stand it up and expect them to all love the idea. Hell the Al Qeada types and maybe even china are probably stoking the counter-media, starting rumors of colonization, invasion and permamnent basing of armor divisions etc.

[Old Eagle]

The Grunt (troufion) is dead on.

The SADC made grand pronouncements based on our enemies' ability to sell the "counterstory" to what's really going on. This is KILLING me!!!

AFRICOM is a good news story for the US, UN, Africa, ALCON. While we have dithered, our enemies (with some healthy skeptism by the MSM) have twisted the story line. AFRICOM is now being portayed as a boogie man and those of you w/African experience understand that a combination of RUMINT and the supernatural have a huge effect on the audience.

Get on message. Get the message to the people. Put a face on this story.

[Ken White]

it. Our egos are too big. "We're from America and we're here to help" is supposed to be all it takes. Never is -- then we get our feelings hurt, act stupidly and start kicking shins.

State and DoD are equally bad at it.

Killing USAID and USIA were not the smartest moves we've made lately.

[Tom Odom]

it. Our egos are too big. "We're from America and we're here to help" is supposed to be all it takes. Never is -- then we get our feelings hurt, act stupidly and start kicking shins.

State and DoD are equally bad at it.

Killing USAID and USIA were not the smartest moves we've made lately.

I have it! We will put them on the supports terrorism list! Yeah, that's the ticket! Surely they will love us, now!

We have, truly, porked this one.

Tom

Self: Stop calling me, Shirly
Self2: But you're soooo cute!

[Stan]

I have it! We will put them on the supports terrorism list! Yeah, that's the ticket! Surely they will love us, now!

We have, truly, porked this one.

Tom

Self: Stop calling me, Shirly
Self2: But you're soooo cute!

Now that's the ticket ! Then, once on the 'list' we can get the DOJ to send the FBI in and dump their funds. Following the subsequent SNAFU, DOD will again dump massive amounts of money into the very same hole we started with in 84

[TROUFION]

I'm sensing some negativity here....

[Stan]

I'm sensing some negativity here....

Hello Foot Slogger !

Only fitting to provide you with some Belgian French

Welcome to Africa...err WAWA...
Beinvenue !
Bien avant le début de la guerre dans l'est du Zaïre !

Ask Tom what a tour in Zaire or Rwanda really means, besides being extremely unhealthy

[kwtusn]

First timer, so bear with me.

Will admit most of my experience over the past decade is living and working in the Middle East, especially with GCC and HOA navies/Coasts Guard. Was fortunate enough though to spend some time this summer traveling around Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Senegal, Tunis) and of course the elephant in the room during all discussions was the establishment of AFRICOM. Was surprised that fairly consistently negative reactions came from our Country Team members, while Host Nations were generally positive. Believe the embassies may be down on the idea because any efforts to approach problems from a regional perspective automatically marginalizes the work of the country teams. They get graded on how well they work the needs/issues of their individual countries, and the center of gravity within State resides at the embassies, not the Regional Bureaus in DC. While most of the Africans we spoke with were military (either uniformed or MOD civilians), they were reasonably supportive of the concept.

That said, seems to me the best approach for us will be to work to enable the solution set developed by the Africans -- working with, by, and through the African Union. HN interlocultors were adament that the AU was not your grandmother's OAU, that they were serious about making it work. And while they've thus far shied away from tackling the really big problems (Zimbabwe for instance), they have committed to working the smaller (?) issues in Darfur and Somalia. May not be as big, fast, or well organized as we would want to see, but it's a start.

Working to empower the effectiveness of the AU security institutions also offers a possible solution to how we structure AFRICOM. If we really want to partner with this supranational organization, we have a reasonable explanation for where and why we establish a limited footprint on the continent. The flag and a truly small command element goes to Addis (seat of the AU HQ), working hand in glove with the US Mission to the AU. The AU Military planners are establishing five regional rapid reaction multinational Brigades (North, South, East, West, and Central); we distribute our presence by colocating five small JTFs comprising mostly planners and logisticians at each of those five Brigade HQs as partners and strategic enablers. That way we work hand in glove with the AU solution set, create the long-term relationships required to plan exercises, build trust, and better understand how our capabilities can best help them resolve their issues. By colocating with AU elements, we provide adequate reason (domestic political topcover?) for HN governments to accept this small footprint -- rather than them establishing a purely bilateral relationship with the US, they are merely accepting US support for their already agreed African solution.

As others have already pointed out, it may be possible to sea-base one or more of these regional JTFs -- an afloat JTF operating in the Mediterranean, and/or the Gulf of Guinea provides ready opportunity to work with the North, West, or Central Brigade HQs. They are still sorting out exactly where each of those Brigades will be based, but we have opportunities to partner from the beginning in ways that can be acceptable to Africans, and useful for our own security concerns. If we establish a HQ in any other location than the AU has already selected, no matter how supportive the HN government may be, we will be simply imposing a US solution that marginalizes and trivializes planning they have already done.

Again, my sense is that in candid (i.e., not when engaged in public political posturing) conversations African leaders welcome a US involvement that respects their needs and desires (one comment often expressed: "we may be poor, but we aren't stupid"). They are particularly interested in seeing us take a regional perspective -- something our current embassy-centric posture inhibits. A regional command facilitates that, but only if we are willing to craft something fundamentally different from what we have done in the past. A small-footprint, distributed command structure that mirrors the African's chosen AU organization, that empowers and enables its success, may have the best chance of succeeding.

Interested in hearing the thoughts, reactions, flamesprays of the more experienced Africa hands out there.

-- Kurt

[Ken White]

of other regions; you have just caused me to smack my head in utter chagrin.

The reluctance of Country Teams to support regional or command wide programs is an issue I grumbled about on many occasions and had to devote some effort to countering. Mostly because, dummy me, I missed the Center of Gravity. I think a lot of us did. I put it down to egos but I should have realized -- known -- there was a bureaucratic focus that was as or more important.

Excellent post. Thanks.

[Stan]

Hey Kurt, welcome to the forum !

First and foremost, please take a moment and introduce yourself here.

I have six tours as a military member in embassy environments (five in Sub-Sahara), so I get where you're coming from. The CT is and always should be led by its boss, the Ambo. If we're talking about a political appointee driven by his/her own agendas that's one thing and relatively short lived. If, however we're talking about a career SFS member, it's now a question of leadership. I've had the pleasure of both.

Tasking a regional embassy CT to do anything is beyond a doubt a painful process. If the Ambassador is on board you’ll have a fighting chance; but more than likely the most junior and inexperience officer in the embassy will be point man.

I have some doubts about AFRICOM being welcomed by the Africans. There will be some that see the immediate cash and benefits, but others will see nothing but troops and further political maneuvers on the Dark Continent.

Regards, Stan

[Tom Odom]

Hey Kurt, welcome to the forum !

First and foremost, please take a moment and introduce yourself here.

I have six tours as a military member in embassy environments (five in Sub-Sahara), so I get where you're coming from. The CT is and always should be led by its boss, the Ambo. If we're talking about a political appointee driven by his/her own agendas that's one thing and relatively short lived. If, however we're talking about a career SFS member, it's now a question of leadership. I've had the pleasure of both.

Tasking a regional embassy CT to do anything is beyond a doubt a painful process. If the Ambassador is on board you’ll have a fighting chance; but more than likely the most junior and inexperience officer in the embassy will be point man.

I have some doubts about AFRICOM being welcomed by the Africans. There will be some that see the immediate cash and benefits, but others will see nothing but troops and further political maneuvers on the Dark Continent.

Regards, Stan

Like Stan I have multiple tours with embassies or around embassies. Two of those tours were as the DATT, one of which I was lucky enough to have Stan as my NCO Operations Coordinator in Zaire for the 1994 Goma/Bukavu Refugee festival. The players brought machetes versus guitars...

I would say that personalities are everything, whether you are talking the Africa Bureau or the Embassies. In the case of the Africa Bureau in 1994-1996 that was George Moose and he was relatively effective depending on which DAS worked your country. In the case of Zaire, our DAS was NOT high speed low drag and neither was our Charge--we did not have an ambassador. Our Charge was anti-military and bureacratic in the extreme. he was not even going to go on the initial reaction team to Goma until the Bureau called and ordered him to be there when the USAID Administrator hit the ground. Our Charge insisted that this was all going to blow over in 2 weeks and continued to do so long after 2 weeks had passed. Given such a personality, it should not surprise you that the same guy wanted a by name list of crew and PAX on any and all US A/C flying in Op Support Hope. He threatened to refuse country clearances until I called his bluff.

On the other hand my experience in Rwanda was 180 degrees the other direction, both the Ambassador and the DAS were activists. The Ambassador asked for my help and he asked for help from USEUCOM. More importantly he ran a CT that was a team and yes we were definitely a COG when it came to power broking. But we used it in a positive sense; if you wanted something from Rwanda you had to bring something besides platitudes to the table. Visits were welcomed as long as they were visits to help. We had had our fill of genocide tourists--and in one case a gorilla tourist--so the Ambassador did winnow the list of wannabe visitors.

In some ways, a destributed AFICOM will do better than a single HQs if the elements work to make themselves part of the country teams. That should help overcome much of the BS from both sides.

Good discussion

Tom

[wm]

Get on message. Get the message to the people. Put a face on this story.

This latest on line account definitely is not what you were calling for, now is it?

Sept. 17, 2007 issue - America is quietly expanding its fight against terror on the African front. Two years ago the United States set up the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership with nine countries in central and western Africa. There is no permanent presence, but the hope is to generate support and suppress radicalism by both sharing U.S. weapons and tactics with friendly regimes and winning friends through a vast humanitarian program assembled by USAID, including well building and vocational training. In places like Chad, American Special Forces train and arm police or border guards using what it calls a "holistic approach to counterterrorism." Sgt. Chris Rourke, a U.S. Army reservist in a 12-man American Civil Affairs unit living in Dire Dawa, in eastern Ethiopia, says it comes down to this: "It's the Peace Corps with a weapon."

Sometime in the coming months, after a vetting process to find a good partner country, the United States plans to establish a new headquarters in Africa to spearhead this armed battle for hearts, minds and the capture of terror suspects. The Pentagon says Africom—the first new U.S. strategic command established since 2002—will integrate existing diplomatic, economic and humanitarian programs into a single strategic vision for Africa, bring more attention to long-ignored American intelligence-gathering and energy concerns on the continent, and elevate African interests to the same level of importance as those of Asia and the Middle East. Africom joins 10 other commands, including CENTCOM in Florida, the now famous nerve center for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not surprisingly, the establishment of a major American base in Africa is inspiring new criticism from European and African critics of U.S. imperial overreach.

[kwtusn]

Very much appreciate the on-the-ground observations from you guys who've spent significant time inside country teams. When you point out that it almost always comes down to personalities, all I can say is "amen, brother!" Like most seemingly intractable bureaucratic tangles, when you get a few people who are focused on the mission and not interested in who gets credit, problems are easy. But when the pissantry takes center stage, even the simplest tasks become insurmountable.

Wish you could organizationally kill off the pissants, but since that will never happen, seems to me putting in place structures that have broad, regional perspectives have the best shot at looking across the stovepipes and providing opportunities for people to develop the relationships upon which organizational trust can develop. While there are many good, broad-minded Chiefs of Mission (both FS and political), just as their are many broad-minded military officers who truly believe in the strengths of joint and interagency partnerships, simply assuming that everyone has bought into the ethos may not be planning for success. Working the interagency, especially in an immature theater like AFRICOM, may require the same degree of UW savvy displayed by our SOF brethren; you have to know who the local sheiks are, figure out what motivates them, figure out how to match needs and objectives, learn the local tribes, clans, and families, study the nuances of the local dialects, and chip away at the problems with patience.

Don't know who wrote that press release quoted previously, but it lumps together too many missions in ways that promise to scare off potential supporters -- whether African or US State Department. It's the lack of nuance that causes trouble, not what it actually describes. Just not terribly well written for a broader international audience.

Bottom line, seems to me we need to get AFRICOM up and running, with a healthy buy-in from the right broad-minded leaders within State. If we concentrate on working by, with, and through the mechanisms designed by Africans themselves, and stay focused on enabling them to maintain their region-wide perspectives with regional solutions, we'll run into fewer brick walls, at least initially. But this one's going to take some patience.

-- Kurt

[kwtusn]

Reuters.com
September 10, 2007

U.S. Mounts Charm Offensive For New Africa Command

By Mark Trevelyan, Reuters

LONDON - The launch of a new U.S. military command for Africa is aimed at helping the continent to boost its own security and not at projecting American power or countering Chinese influence, a U.S. official said on Monday.

Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, rejected what he called a series of "myths" surrounding October's launch, also including the idea that it was linked to growing U.S. appetite for West African oil exports.

"The command is focused on African solutions that are led by Africans. ... We do not see this command getting involved in operations. There will be no new troops assigned to Africa as a result of this and there will be no new bases associated with it," Henry told reporters in London.

"We think the solutions to Africa's security problems need to be indigenously developed in Africa. Some outsiders can help, but they can't do the heavy lifting."

The comments were part of a U.S. charm campaign to counter critics' charges that its strategy in Africa is driven by greed, imperialism or competition with China, which has mounted its own strong diplomatic and economic offensive on the continent.

Responsibility for Africa, until now split between three U.S. regional military commands, will be transferred on October 1 to the new Africa Command (AFRICOM). Its head, General William Ward, will eventually be based on the continent and detailed talks are expected in coming months to decide where, Henry said.

The United States currently has around 1,500 troops based in Djibouti in east Africa, and provides training and support to nine north and west African countries through its Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership.

Henry said the evolution of the militant Islamist threat in Africa would depend partly on the pressure the United States was able to bring on al Qaeda elsewhere.

"Al Qaeda has a tendency to 'squirt'. You close in on them, get your hands around them and different parts squirt out to different areas, and where it squirts is into ungoverned territories," he said.

He cited Somalia, where Islamists routed earlier this year are waging an insurgency against a weak interim government, as a "poster child for how bad things can get" when countries lack strong governance and security.

"It's a fully ungoverned area and so the (terrorist) threat always exists. And so it is an area of significant interest to us to make sure that it does not get worse and no formalized training camps start to develop there," Henry said.

He said "our concern continues to be heightened" about al Qaeda's north African arm, which claimed responsibility for two suicide attacks in Algeria last week that killed at least 57 people.

Despite the emphasis on developing indigenous African security, Henry did not rule out the possibility that Washington would intervene with its own forces if it had intelligence pinpointing a top al Qaeda figure in an African country.

"It would depend on a myriad of circumstances. If we thought that someone was going to unleash an attack somewhere in the world that was on the scale of 9/11 or greater, we're obviously going to do something about it," he said.

But "it's obviously best to work with the host country", Henry added.

[kwtusn]

This latest on line account definitely is not what you were calling for, now is it?

No one ever said it was going to be easy!

See the below from African press:

Country Moves To Halt U.S. Military

(THIS DAY (LAGOS) 14 SEP 07) ... Juliana Taiwo


GULF OF GUINEA -- The Federal Government has begun moves to frustrate the plan by the United States to establish a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.

The oil-rich gulf is bordered by Nigeria, Angola, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Sao Tome and Principe US has been desperately wooing some countries in the West Africa sub-region to allow her establish a military base to protect the strategic gulf for sometime now.

The move, according to US, is to protect the area from alleged external aggressions but with America now looking in the direction of Africa for her energy needs given the instability in the Middle-east, many analysts say the move is to protect her oil interests.

Defence sources, however, told THISDAY last night in Abuja that the Federal Government was already discussing with heads of government of the African Union and leaders of the sub-regional body, the Economic Community of West African State, on how to block any move by US to establish a base in the gulf.

"Nigeria is not taking the issue lightly at all and the government is not going to allow the US establish any military base anywhere in the ECOWAS region. The interest of the US government in the Gulf of Guinea has reinforced the commitment of the government to intensify its efforts at providing the needed security in the sub-region," the source said.

It was learnt that the Federal Government was worried by the terror alert raised by the US authorities last week and saw it as a ploy to label Nigeria and countries in the sub region as unsafe in order to get the opportunity to create a military base in the region.

As a first step to checkmate that plan, the FG has vowed to frustrate the campaign by the US to establish a base in the gulf.

"The government of this country is not ready for any blackmail. What they cannot get through the back doors they want to get through blackmail. We are not going to succumb to that game," the source said.

THISDAY also learnt that the Defence Headquarters has concluded plans to visit Pentagon, in Washington, to further discuss the issue with the US government.

"In a few weeks from now, some top military personnel will be in the US to present papers on the plans by the African Union to establish an African Command, which will be charged with the responsibility of providing the needed security in the continent.

"We really want to let the US and other countries of the world know that we are capable of protecting the resources within our continent. Nigeria is one country that will continue to move against any plans by the US government to establish a military base in our sub-region. We cannot afford to allow them do that, otherwise we will be finished as military," he said.

Last month, a delegation of the Government of Equatorial Guinea had visited Nigeria and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nigerian Navy in the area of security, training and equipment.

Currently, US has some presence in the Gulf of Guinea and its forces have been engaging in frequent patrol of the gulf.

However, US interest in the gulf has been increasing amid rising oil exploration in the region.
It was being alleged that West African Navy fleet lacks the capacity to protect oil platforms in the gulf.
As far back as June last year, US explained that its presence in the Gulf of Guinea was aimed at protecting an area regarded as one of the richest sources of hydrocarbons in the world from international criminals.

"We hear a series of stories for our presence in the Gulf of Guinea, but I want to say that we are concerned for Nigeria and we want to help her protect the region from the hands of maritime criminals," said the Commander of US Naval Forces in Europe and Commander of the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, Admiral Henry Ulrich.

"In all parts of the world, the US and any good nation want a safe coast for those countries who are supplying energy, and that is why we are often there. So there is nothing to fear for Nigeria," Ulrich said during a Seapower Africa Symposium in Abuja in June last year.

Ulrich had also disclosed that the US planned to increase its naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea in order to ensure maritime safety in the region.

US Naval official said it was necessary to secure the area from international criminals, including terrorists, sea pirates and smugglers.

The gulf's oil and gas deposit is put in the region of 10 billion barrels.
Statistics show that as of 2004, Africa as a whole produced nearly nine million barrels of oil per day, with approximately 4.7 million barrels per day coming from West Africa.

Also, African oil production accounted for approximately 11 percent of the world's oil supply, while the continent supplied approximately 18 per cent of the US net oil imports.

Both Nigeria and Angola were among the top 10 suppliers of oil to the US.

[kwtusn]

Tom -- I have to agree with you and Stan. It always comes down to leadership and personalities. It's no different in the interagency. Everyone who complains about how screwed up the interagency is, and how "someone needs to fix the interagency" -- as though it were some kind of hermetically sealed black box -- need to look in the mirror. WE are the interagency -- all of us who work in various parts of it. For it to work right, we need to make it work right.

I'm with you though that a few "difficult" personalities in key positions can make that job a lot harder than it needs to be. But it generally seems that the dysfunctionality of the interagency is inversely proportional to the distance outside the Beltway... a few mission-focused people out in the field have been able to work wonders with the right leadership.
-- Kurt

[Stan]

No one ever said it was going to be easy!

See the below from African press:

Country Moves To Halt U.S. Military

(THIS DAY (LAGOS) 14 SEP 07) ... Juliana Taiwo


GULF OF GUINEA -- The Federal Government has begun moves to frustrate the plan by the United States to establish a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.

Hey Kurt !
SIERRA...It's Friday

Thanks, great post, but I also want to read the remainder of the story and see where it originated from.

Do us a favor and attach the hyper link so we can read the whole thing

Toolbar, second row, looks like a globe with a chain link below.

Thanks, Stan