AFRICOM and the perception mess

[Stan]

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic

The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here

It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.

Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).

[JMA]

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic

Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.

It all fell apart in the old Brit colonies with the indigenous regiments when the (expat) officers packed up and went home (to mother Britain). It worked for the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) as for their officers Rhodesia was their home.

How long would it take to take 700 odd people and knock a battalion into shape (with some degree of sustainability)? Minimum ten years.

Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.

The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.

[Stan]

Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.

Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.

Strange that, the African Americans in Zaire felt that it was harder for them to get along. We don't actually employ any Americans and our support and training is governed by Geneva (UN) and what we call IMAS - International Mine Action Standards. AFRICOM should be looking at our program so we can expand (hope we don't have to wear those funky patches with our baby blue helmets )

The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.

That's a tough one. The vetting process is straight forward but is dependent on the current host country government to provide information to initiate vetting.

[JMA]

Strange that, the African Americans in Zaire felt that it was harder for them to get along. We don't actually employ any Americans and our support and training is governed by Geneva (UN) and what we call IMAS - International Mine Action Standards. AFRICOM should be looking at our program so we can expand (hope we don't have to wear those funky patches with our baby blue helmets )

Stan, are we not perhaps at cross purposes? I believe you are talking about demining teams? I was talking about training battalions as per the Stars and Stripes articles.

My thoughts were of staffing over a 10 year period involving permanent postings preceded by extensive language training etc etc. The issue of staffing would relate to officers on the Gurkha model or the RAR model, perhaps starting on a earlier colonial model (which included key NCO posts as well) and depending on the local ethnic/tribal military history (I'll come select them ). Perhaps for a different discussion sometime?

[KingJaja]

Stan, are we not perhaps at cross purposes? I believe you are talking about demining teams? I was talking about training battalions as per the Stars and Stripes articles.

My thoughts were of staffing over a 10 year period involving permanent postings preceded by extensive language training etc etc. The issue of staffing would relate to officers on the Gurkha model or the RAR model, perhaps starting on a earlier colonial model (which included key NCO posts as well) and depending on the local ethnic/tribal military history (I'll come select them ). Perhaps for a different discussion sometime?

Does your concept have political support both in the US and Africa?

I haven't read the Stars and Stripe article, but if you are pushing for a model like Glover's Hausas or the Nubian dominated King's African Rifles, I have three words for you: don't try it.

We've been there, done that. Works very well for a colony, doesn't work well in an independent nation.

[JMA]

Does your concept have political support both in the US and Africa?

I haven't read the Stars and Stripe article, but if you are pushing for a model like Glover's Hausas or the Nubian dominated King's African Rifles, I have three words for you: don't try it.

We've been there, done that. Works very well for a colony, doesn't work well in an independent nation.

OK, well read the Stars and Stripes article for context then comment.

A lot of what is discussed here is merely theoretical or from some based their own limited experience, thats why its called a discussion forum.

Feel free to make a concrete contribution on how best to staff military support missions to Africa (frrom the US or other countries) and how that would differ in approach between say Nigeria and the DRC, Egypt and Somalia. etc etc.

[KingJaja]

I've read the article.

1. Clearly Joseph Kabila doesn't depend on these guys for his personal security. He seems to be applying a popular model in the developing World - i.e. lavishly fund an elite unit largely composed of members of your tribe / mercenaries and treat the rest of the army like crap. (I might be wrong here). I find it hard to be believe that while Rwanda can field a modestly competent army, Congo DRC cannot.

He doesn't trust these guys, so he'll pay lip service to anything you tell him to secure his next tranche of aid funding.

2. The problem with Congo DRC is political, not military and Joseph Kabila clearly isn't the man you should be dealing with.

3. No amount of exposure to the US army is going to change the nature of military-civilian relations in the Congo DRC (to put it mildly), unless the underlying, socio-economic and political problems are dealt with. All armies reflect the values and the education levels of their lowest recruits and the leadership qualities of their commanders. The Nigerian army for example, has a well earned reputation for brutality, but it is less likely to sink to the level of the Congolese army because its leadership and rank and file are better educated and better orientated.

4. A nation the size of Western Europe cannot be effectively administered from Kinshasa. It's time to break up the Congo and deal with the constituent parts. The US military intervention merely continues the false notion that Congo DRC is a united, contiguous entity and should be treated as such.

5. On the balance, what the US army is doing is better than doing nothing, but it is not sustainable.