The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion

[M-A Lagrange]

Why should the US have an African policy? They can concentrate of the offshore oilfields and leave the rest to China. The mere expectation that the US has or should have an Africa policy is the first mistake.

Africa remembers the US (Clinton) failure to act on Rwanda, and the US humiliation in Mogadishu, The CIA cock-up in Angola, the failure to act on Zimbabwe and really no serious African is expecting anything from the US. So the best advice is to do the same. Don't expect any coherent policy or action from the US on Africa.

Well, USA does have an African policy. And oil is not the only natural resource of Africa, far from it.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...

[JMA]

Well, USA does have an African policy. And oil is not the only natural resource of Africa, far from it.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...

It would be face saving to believe that the US has no Africa policy and does not need one. If the US needs one or actually has one then it is a sad illustration of foreign policy incompetence at a level the world has never yet seen. After Mogadishu it is unlikely US forces will be committed anywhere in Africa again. Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.

[Ken White]

...Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.

Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest.

As for no commitment in Africa, I presume you mean large scale combat troop commitment as opposed to the number of US force commitments in Africa today and over the past 17 years. Your logic on the issue was also shared before late 2001 by a number of people who said the US would not commit troops but would merely do what you suggest, lob a missile or two, therefor they could attack the US with impunity -- or close to it...

Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.

[JMA]

Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest.

You took the bait there Ken.

I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq? Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn? But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country? Consistency, Ken, consistency.

[Ken White]

I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq?

Possibly true for many places, less true for any former British colony. You apparently didn't notice that we tend to defer to the British on those. As for other places, you may be correct -- but that only shows how out of touch 'western values' are with reality.

Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn?

I say western because the ME predictably did object to our invasion of Iraq but only on a pro forma basis to get the 'rest of the world' roused in a futile attempt to stop it. You may have noted that once it went, they basically quited down -- because they fully understood why we had done it even if most westerners did not.

Many have never figured out that Afghanistan was about attacking the US on its own soil and that Iraq was a message to the Middle East that a long series of probes and action emanating from there against US interests worldwide need to stop. WMD, oil and all that foolishness had virtually nothing to do with it.

The folks in the ME understood that and you may have noticed that the Asians made almost no noise about it because they understood that it was all about reversing the damage four previous Presidents had done by accepting probes from the ME since 1979. All the noise was European hearth yammering. They and South America. Who rightfully object from experience to our meddling and interventions.

Some people here also yammered; about a third. That's typical here for any military effort, 1/3 objects, 1/3 thinks it's a great idea and those two swap depending on which political party is in power. The remaining third will support as long as progress is being made. Been true for all our wars and incursions.

But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country?

Nah, I'm suggesting that we do not meddle with former British colonies unless they agree (and that includes Pakistan...) and, far, far more importantly, that Zimbabawe (unlike Pakistan) has little to no effect on US interests therefor the cost isn't worth the effort.

Consistency, Ken, consistency.

Oh, we're as consistent as we can be with an electoral system that changes the political complexion of the nation every two years to at least some degree -- that makes for a great lack of continuity and a total inability to have a grand strategy or even a fairly consistent foreign policy.

Not a problem, we get by...

We are remarkably consistent on two things, defense and foreign policy wise, and only two things:

We do not tolerate potential physical threats, we will disrupt them or take them out by fair means or foul and regardless of the opinions of others.

We will react adversely to any thing that appears to be a significant constriction of our trading ability in international commerce and movement.

That's been true for that 220 years. I'd say that was pretty consistent.

[JMA]

JMA, Ken, it's a Sudan threat here! And oriented on stabilization and State building! , Go to the Zimbabwe one to discuss Bob eradication
I may support the missile option by the way.

There are parallels here which (IMHO) should not be ignored.

In Ken's view the Sudan is a former British colony or whatever so therefore we should be asking the Brits what to do. But then again so were Iraq and Afghanistan...

Confusing yes I know.

But the similarities are that when the Brits were there they ran the North (Muslim) and the South (Christian) as separate entities, later at independence the North and the South were forced together into one state, later there was an act of genocide by a brutal dictatorship and rigged elections. Now what exactly are the differences between Sudan and Zimbabwe?

Sudan has oil. So this brings the Chinese into play.

What did the Brits and the US do about Zimbabwe?

NOTHING... so don't expect any action on Sudan... especially with the Chinese daddy standing there and wagging his finger at uncle Sam and the Brits hanging onto uncle Sam's coat tails.

[Ken White]

...the Sudan is a former British colony or whatever so therefore we should be asking the Brits what to do. But then again so were Iraq and Afghanistan...

Not what I said, I said the US -- not "we" -- defers to the British on their former colonies (and to a slightly lesser extent, to the French on theirs). That means we are unlikely to do anything IF they ask us not to or that we are generally liable to take action in concert with them -- sometimes playing the good cop / bad cop game. As in Iraq where they and we went together...

That is due, I think, to the fact that we know we forced the British out of the Colony business while allied with them in WW II for international commercial advantage. It, BTW, would go by the wayside IF further advantage were deemed needed or a significant threat were discerned.

Do the British or Afghans know that Afghanistan is a former British colony?

Confusing yes I know.

Should not be if one pays attention to what is written and thinks for a second.

Sudan has oil. So this brings the Chinese into play.

What a difference a deposit makes...

What did the Brits and the US do about Zimbabwe?

NOTHING... so don't expect any action on Sudan... especially with the Chinese daddy standing there and wagging his finger at uncle Sam and the Brits hanging onto uncle Sam's coat tails.

Can't speak for the Brits, I can say that the US' lack of involvement in Zimbabwe cued on the British example and was guided by a distinct lack of any significant affect on US interests. Sudan, oil not withstanding, falls in almost the same category. The slight -- perhaps inconsequential, perhaps not, dependent upon how it plays out -- difference with Sudan is the proximity to the Gulf of Aden. We like the choke points to be open (that commercial interest I cited...).

We will accord China the respect due a nation of over a billion people, just as we accord India the same respect. Respect and fear are two different things and in our childish way, we tend to react negatively to wagging fingers. Thine, Chine or other...

You do the British a disservice with the coat tail remark. One could almost sense that you were upset over British and US refusal to help in Rhodesia. If so, understandable and certainly your prerogative. Many probably agree with you.

Been my observation that one is not advised to let emotions or old wrongs affect affect the application of basic logic to current actions and events. Not being a psychologist, I know little or nothing about that, certainly can't apply such thoughts to this or any other discussion. I cite it only because our daughter is one of the Psych types and she contends that happens occasionally...

""Originally Posted by Ken White View Post:
"Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." ...""

So what you are saying is that had you (the US) made its position clear right up front then all those wars could have been avoided?

No that's not what I was saying -- or said. However, that is a fair catch and a logical inference. It is reasonably accurate. We seem gauche, blase and more concerned with beer and barbecue than with the broader world -- and we are. Most Americans really wish the rest of the world would tend to itself and leave us alone to ponder the Kardashians. So others tend to think we can be pushed about; sadly true -- to a point...

Unfortunately, those two political parties start jockeying for power and tend to get over involved in one thing or another and the next thing you know, somebody decides we are so frivolous that we won't fight over a minor point. Not a good plan; we can be irrational about that, one never knows what's going to punch into our comfort zone or when that might happen. IOW, the point at which we get excited is difficult to predict.

You can rely on the fact that impinging on our commercial ability or a firm physical threat will bring action -- but a lot of people seem to miss that.

Good example is Iraq. We got pinged and probed by a number of folks from all over the ME for years and really sort of took it and just yapped about it instead of really deterring it. Bad mistake on our part, it only encouraged escalation of the probes and minor attacks. So we inadvertently, trying to be nice guys and not escalate did little and thereby did not make our position clear.

In the event, Bush decided we needed to send the ME a message to back off. He realized that the lack of adequate response by his four predecessors from 1979 until 2001 were a significant factor in causation and he feared that his successor might not take the action he believed (as do I) was needed. The fact that France, Germany and Russia had supplanted us and the UK in local commercial dominance there was considered but the US Congress likely wouldn't buy that as an adequate reason (regardless, that folded into the actual as opposed to publicly stated rationale for the attack). A Threat -- even one that was insignificant -- OTOH would if used arouse enough (not all; that politically dissenting 1/3 again...) of Congress to allow a strike. So away we went...

Wasn't about oil other than in the sense that we wanted minimum disruption to the world oil supply (we really want China and India to have all the oil they need...). Afghanistan and Pakistan are in South Asia, not the ME -- so no message to the ME would be received from anything done to them. An attack on Iran or Saudi Arabia would have meant a major oil disruption, so they were not options. Iraq, OTOH, was a minor supplier, had a pariah government and was strategically located in the heart of the ME...

Yeah, had the US made its position clear right up front then most of its wars could have been avoided. The War of 1812 was a commercial dominance and potential threat thing, the War with Mexico and the Spanish American War were land grabs that only only partly occurred due to lack of clarity, all the others including Afghanistan and Iraq were due to misconceptions on the part of opponents. Even our Civil War fits that.

Regardless, our seeming cultural introspection and our electoral process are a big factor in causing that recurring problem. Those are unlikely to change...

[JMA]

Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.

So what you are saying is that had you (the US) made its position clear right up front then all those wars could have been avoided?