Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[davidbfpo]

SWJ Blog has had a couple of links to articles etc this month on the slow expansion of AFRICOM's on the ground commitments in Africa:

1) Starting with a training team in Tunisia:http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/...#axzz2vMIAB8IH

Within I noted the USMC ground & air mission to protect diplomats in South Sudan had a problem, which leads me to speculate whether a similar future mission would have CAS:

..the operation also highlighted the risks the Pentagon faces when it seeks to intervene with light forces in remote places. Three Ospreys were hit by gunfire and had to abort their mission.

2) AFRICOM's commander giving a threat briefing:http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/afr...-across-africa

Open Democracy today has a long article by a new name to me, Nick Turse the managing editor of TomDispatch.com. It covers the French too and refers to the various other European commitments - to training. It is critical, asking whether the missions are desirable, I'll leave it at that.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensec...ionary-warfare

[ganulv]

SWJ Open Democracy today has a long article by a new name to me, Nick Turse the managing editor of TomDispatch.com. It covers the French too and refers to the various other European commitments - to training. It is critical, asking whether the missions are desirable, I'll leave it at that.

My impression of Turse is that he is quite good at running down big sets of raw data, but that his analysis of it can be less than nuanced. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076...he-vietnam-war

[KingJaja]

What does AFRICOM hope to achieve in Africa?

Unlike France that "gets their hands dirty", what is the US end game? Sit on the sidelines until it gradually gets sucked into some African crisis?

What is the strategy behind US engagement in Africa?

[jmm99]

I've briefly mentioned Turse - without going into his veracity. Here's Nick -



Nick Turse (born in 1975, 7 years after My Lai; Wiki), who has made himself a career in "war crimes" from the time of his 2005 Columbia University Ph.D dissertation, "Kill Anything That Moves: United States War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965-1973", to the present - his 2013 Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

The Amazon readers' reviews of KATM are interesting; especially this one and the comments to it (the review tried to be middle of the road and gave the book 3 stars):

This book is polarizing and graphic; read at your own risk
...
This book seems to bring out the worst in a lot of reviewers. Either they give it 5 stars because it finally "reveals the truth" about the evil U.S. involvement in Vietnam, or they give it 1-star because it ignores the evil North Vietnamese involvement in Vietnam and slams U.S. soldiers. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, I give it 3 stars.

Mr. Turse documents the abuses of SOME units and the emphasis on body counts that encouraged such abuses. It appears to me that his documentation is MOSTLY limited to areas near the DMZ and parts of the Delta, where a lot of the population did in fact support the North. (Please note the limitations mostly and some; I don't want a lot of comment posts telling me I said something more or less than I actually said). Other units in other places and times faced different challenges, and when soldiers say Mr. Turse doesn't reflect their experience, I accept their statements. ...

Whether Turse's agitprop about Vietnam is black, white or gray is not going to be an issue for me here.

Of some infamy is Turse's 2000 article, New Morning, Changing Weather: Radical Youth of the Millennial Age:

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold engaged in a shooting and bombing spree in Columbine High School that left fifteen students, including the alleged gunmen, dead. ...
...
When a youngster decides to make war on his school and classmates, the media leaps to vilify him, his alleged influences, his weaponry, and his parents. Politicians are keen to do the same, and capitalize on the shootings by pushing for new firearm regulations and stiff penalties. And why not? Don’t we punish psychotics bent on threatening life and property, set upon destroying the "American" way of life? Shouldn’t we condemn those who take the lives of others through "senseless" violence? Or should we try to make sense of it? Preferring the latter option, I propose that kids killing kids may be the radical protest of our age, and that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today.
...
While these young boys may have no Port Huron statement, no manifesto, and no coordinated actions (that we know of), they are a legitimate radical faction that may have one-upped the violent Weather Underground and the revolutionary Abbie Hoffman. These boys have truly embraced "revolution for the hell of it," maybe better than Abbie ever did. The randomness of their "non-campaign" may be the ultimate expression of "rage against the machine," ripping into the system, as it were, at its most vulnerable and fundamental level, perhaps more so than Weatherman’s bombing of the U.S. Capitol.
...
The violence unleashed by these juveniles also acts as a call to action for like-minded individuals. Their ability to gain recognition and exert power grows with each like incident, forcing us to look for connections and search for scapegoats. Maybe they have no pithy slogans, no unifying symbol, maybe Marilyn Manson is no Bob Dylan, and maybe their Woodstock ’99 is a poor rip-off of the original (which "ripped off" Monterey), but no one can deny the radicalism of their murderous behavior. Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution.

His March 2014 article Back to the future: America's new model for expeditionary warfare seems relatively restrained stylistically. The reader's basic problem is how much of it to believe without checking each and every source - not a bad idea with any article, but especially where the author typically has an agenda. That includes my work - gentle reader.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Here you go - from the horse's mouth:

Cornerstones

Deter and Defeat Transnational Threats
... by engaging with partners to deter the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and other extremist organizations, deny them safe haven, and disrupt their destabilizing activities.

Protect U.S. Security Interests
...by ensuring the safety of Americans and American interests from transnational threats, and by strengthening the defense capabilities of African states and regional organizations.

Prevent Future Conflicts
...by working with African militaries and regional partners to address security concerns and increase stability on the continent.

Support Humanitarian and Disaster Relief
... by providing military assistance, when directed, in response to human and natural crises.

and its political bosses are:



That should cheer you up.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Well it will not be in Africa, instead a quiet corner of an English county; RAF Croughton is the official name for a USAF support facility, in south-west Northamptonshire close to Oxfordshire:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Croughton

The Independent reports the DIA's hub for AFRICOM will be built there:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9391406.html

[davidbfpo]

A 35 page report from the Oxford Research Group and the New Remote Control Report: 'The new frontier of counter-terrorism in the Sahel':http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/si...hel-Sahara.pdf

It is based on open sources, so much is familiar, except for the logistic aspects e.g. deliveries of jet fuel to selected African airports. Non-US contributions are covered, notably France.