U.S. Military Forms Africa Command

[Vlad Plasmius]

As Al Qaeda and other threats continue to grow on the continent, the Pentagon is creating a new command to handle security and military concerns in Africa, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

The Africa Command would take over duties split among three of the military's five geographic commands, the European Command, Central Command and Pacific Command. Establishment of an Africa Command is done under presidential authority but members of Congress have been consulted in recent weeks.

"This command will enable us to have a more effective and integrated approach than the current arrangement of dividing Africa between Central Command and European Command, an outdated arrangement left over from the Cold War," Gates said, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee during a budget hearing. President Bush has already signed off on the move.

The command would "oversee security, cooperation, building partnership capability, defense support to nonmilitary missions, and if directed, military operations on the African continent," Gates said.

Defense officials had been discussing the idea of a new position in the Pentagon because of growing concern about Africa's significance in the War on Terror, especially in the Horn of Africa, which includes Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. The countries lie across the Gulf of Aden from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula and are home to increasing religious and military tensions.

A new command would give the U.S. military a distinct organization to counter potential threats and plan military action on the continent.

Carpenter said the changes likely will not result in any noticeable alterations in troop levels. The bulk of current military forces in Africa now — about 1,700 personnel — are stationed in Djibouti, which borders Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. He said fewer than 3,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Africa overall.

Carpenter said the headquarters will house mainly officers and administrators, from generals to lawyers to accountants. It is not clear how many would be stationed in the yet-to-be-determined headquarters, but it likely would be fewer than 1,000, he said. About $50 million in the current fiscal year budget is earmarked for the plan, but it was not immediately clear how much had been allocated in the fiscal year 2008 budget plan released by the White House on Monday.

Source: Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250538,00.html)

This is a very interesting development. Clearly the U.S. is seeing how important Africa is becoming strategically. Most unexploited resources are going to be there in Africa and it's one of the last largely untapped labor pools in the world.

[bd popeye]

Perhaps the US is expanding the few forces already in Africa. The USN has had forces,SEABEES & Marines, in the Horn of Africa for some time.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=33519

Djibouti, Africa (April 12, 2006) - U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Richard W. Hunt salutes the Ensign during the playing of the National Anthem at the conclusion of the Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa (CJTF HOA) change of command ceremony. Hunt relieved U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Timothy Ghormley as Commander CJTF-HOA at Camp Lemonier. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Roger S. Duncan (RELEASED)

[alwaysfresh]

Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. All I will say is containing China and look at the map.

Afganistan is in US interest so oil through Afganistan to China could only come by the controls of the US. So now if US bases troops on the shores of Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, this seems like another threat to China that the US is in a position to contain China even further.

Afganistan would be oil from Iran.
Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea would be oil from Sudan.

What a joke terrorist? Just call people terrorist and you can do whatever you want. They used to call them witches.

Next question how will China respond to this Action?

[Vlad Plasmius]

I doubt they created an Africa command solely for East Africa. There are other concerns in the region. Nigeria, a few years back there was our involvement in Liberia, and there's also North Africa.

[Jeff Head]

What a joke terrorist? Just call people terrorist and you can do whatever you want. They used to call them witches. Well, if 911, Bali, Madrid, Riyadh, Casablanca, London, Egypt, Delhi, and countless smaller attacks, and the many plots that were uncovered and foiled (like the planned airline bombings between the UK and US) are your idea of a joke...no one is laughing.

[FreezyAaron]

Well, if 911, Bali, Madrid, Riyadh, Casablanca, London, Egypt, Delhi, and countless smaller attacks, and the many plots that were uncovered and foiled (like the planned airline bombings between the UK and US) are your idea of a joke...no one is laughing.

Why would some one risk their life to kill someone else?

[Jeff Head]

Why would some one risk their life to kill someone else?There are many reasons...some of them good, most of them bad.

For example, the Imperial Japanese in World War II would fight to the death and take as many people with them because they had been indoctrinated and taught that it was honorable to die in that fashion for their emperor, whom they considered to be a God, and for his wishes or directives...or those whom they believe spoke for him...and they believed it.

Today, there are brands of Islamic radicals who believe they will go to Heaven and receive 72 pure virgins for eternity if they die as Martyrs in Jihad war against infidels...which are people who do not subscribe to their brand of religious fervor and whom they feel must either convert, be subjected, or be killed. At the same time, there are plenty of people of good will, reason and compassion in all faiths who do not act in this way.

I do not want this to be a history lesson, but there have been fanatical adherants to all brands of totalitarian ideologies and belief systems...and amongst almost all peoples at one time or another...who would willing kill and die for those ideologies against whatever they deemed to be enemies to those ideologies for a long, long time. The die hard Nazis were like this...just to name one example. There have also always been people willing to risk their life in fighting against them.

As a simple example of any people who would willingly die in the defense of their homes, families, and freedoms...if someone one were attacking my home intent on raping my daughters and wife, or killing them and my sons, then I would willingly risk or lose my life in an attempt to kill such individuals and prevent those terrible things from happening to my wife and children. I believe most people feel the same.

Anyhow...hope that helps. Unfortunately, there is bad in the world who will kill to get their way...so there must also be good willing to risk all to stop them.

Having said that, that is not what this thread is about so I hope we can leave off further discussion in that direction.

[Scratch]

I somehow can find no real logic in thinking a US Africa command is created for the main purpose of controlling ship lanes to China. The USPACCOM could have done that without the restructuring. So I don't expect any reaction from China, since I currently can see no reason to give any.
It's more of an internal restructering. The US sees Africa becomming more importand in strategic terms. Therefore it might be a reason to look at it with some interest and find out what the US intetantions are. But first and in the short term it's just a new "unit". Oversight will be performed by a command that's sole mission is to coordinate Africa missions, wich might improve abilites since they have to solely cover "only" one continent.

US "involvement" seems to increase for some time now. I remember reports form Janes for example of the military, especially the USN, to increase maritime security and awareness around the middle west coast. The govt seemed to be engaged with local authorities for improving patrols and policing in the region.

The Somalia spot might get highlighted in the near future, too. US intel saw increasing As Quaida activity in the lawless region for the past years. They probably seek to solve the situation there. Hopefully with "nationbuilding" to add stability to that region.

[lcortez]

Looks more like its intended to be dual use ie 1;to gain a head start on a potential failed state creating a new terrorist base,as in the Islamic attempt to take over Ethiopia recently,and also to create a base to use against Iran in case its deemed neccessary to take military action against that country.

PS;Does anyone know if such a base would be out of range of a potential missile strike from Iran?

pps; Can't see how you could surround China from Africa,maybe try to gain influence away fro China,but would of though that could be better achieved thru development aid etc.:)

lcortez, Multipile posting is not permitted. Use your edit button to add to your post if no one has responded.

bd popeye super moderator

[Jeff Head]

Looks more like its intended to be dual use ie 1;to gain a head start on a potential failed state creating a new terrorist base,as in the Islamic attempt to take over Ethiopia recently,and also to create a base to use against Iran in case its deemed neccessary to take military action against that country.I believe the primary reason in the current environment is straight forward. The US is concerned about Africa and does not want a safe haven to develop for Al Quida or other terrorist organizations.

Counter balancing China's growing influence and presence in the region could be a secondary issue...but it would, at this point, be a fairly distant second given the ongoing WOT.

As to Iran, the US has plenty of places to strike directly at Iran already (Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, various bases in and around the more moderate Gulf States, the Arabian Sea). I do not believe it is happenstance or a coincidence that Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom put large US forces bordering both sides of Iran which the US has for years viewed as one of, if not the primary supporter and funder of terroist activities.

[lcortez]

Exactly!,agree 100% with the first point, its what I was trying to say,but perhaps didnt express myself very well:)
The second point about counterbalancing China is well made particularly in the light of the post about 4000 Chinese troops in Africa to protect their interests on another thread,perhaps the enormous untapped natural resources
(Pteroleum,Gold,Uranium etc) of Africa also come into play as well.
Again, Im not a military man, but looking at the map on the initial post,I would have to say that the Horn of Africa is very strategically placed to control the sea lanes between Europe and Asia via the Suez Canal.
I just hope for the sake of the Africans e are not witnessing the beginnings of another Scramble for Africa!

[Vlad Plasmius]

I think there are quite a few concerns in Africa. Aside from the obvious dangers of East Africa, there are still some issues with regards to West Africa, North Africa, South Africa and Central Africa.

Everyone should remember our little involvement in Liberia a few years ago and over two decades ago under Reagan the situation with Libya. While Libya has some on to our side for now, there's no guarantee that'll remain. Plus, with the possibility of new violence in the Congo and the potential for instability in Southern Africa, it is understandable.

Should such conflicts erupt all at once it would be dangerous for Africa and some of it would have the potential to spill out of Africa, particularly the violence in East Africa.

[Scratch]

That new AFRICOM is not about building a new base/presence in the first place (is a location already determined? a short note in german TV news said it would be Stuttgart with 500+ personall??).
But more like improving oversight and effectivness of (potential) missions on the african continent.
I currently don't really believe US forces will move to Africa on short notice just because of that AFRICOM.

[Finn McCool]

I would say that we can expect American involvement in Nigeria is things continue the way they are there. MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) is fighting to kick oil companies out of Nigeria, and to gain autonomy for the Delta region so it can be improved by oil money rather than destroyed by it (and actually see some of that money rather than have it be stolen by corrupt government officials.) The group seems to be small from what I've read about (one camp in the jungle) but it is growing fast and has executed many attacks through out the area, and kidnapped lots of foreign oil workers. The Nigerian Army has fought MEND only a few times, either defending oil instillations or on jungle patrols. Their record is not good. They have lost almost every time and recieved no clear-cut victories. MEND can even strike out to sea. They took over an oil platform 40 miles out to see last year from their speed boats. The fighters climbed up the superstructure and took hostages.

Sounds like just the case for an American "military training assistance" program.

[BLUEJACKET]

The new Africa command is a sure sign of how serious the situation has become. I forsee more conflicts there with the Western powers and perhaps China in the middle of them. All of the continent is a huge strategic asset situated between the Med.Sea, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, besides it's rich in resources such as gold, uranium, oil, and diamonds.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Africa is likely going to become a sort of battleground for the major world powers. It had been in the Cold War, but it's going to be even more now as it's not just one side against the other. This means that countries will develop better military capabilities as their foreign supporters arm and train them. It' going to create the potential for a lot of wars so it is nice to see us recognizing that danger.

[The_Zergling]

Nice to see us recognizing the danger

"Nice"?

I've stayed relatively quiet on this issue mostly because I've been banging my head against the wall at how history just continuously repeat itself. But enough, time to get on the soapbox. This probably isn't new to some of you, as related points have been addressed in this thread already.

“This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa. African Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”

In all likelihood, Bush knows jack squat about the continent of Africa. At best, he knows where it is. The Middle East is the Garden of Eden compared to the quagmire in Africa. Why do I have confidence in this?

The administration can't even tell apart a handful of Islamic sects. Africa is composed of 61 countries and territories. That in itself isn't saying much. However, they are countries unlike any other. The national identity is not what we are accustomed to: a typical resident of Canada seeing himself as Canadian. Instead, a tribal view is dominant, and without knowing understanding tribal politics it is simply impossible to understand what's going on.

For example, Zimbabwe is dominated by the Shona tribe of dictator Rober Mugabe. The other tribe, the Matabele have been continuous victims of Mugabe's genocidal attacks. Even South Africa which is pretty much a Western country by African standards has eleven official languages reflecting dominant tribes in that country alone.

Africa's linguistics are complicated, riddled with hundreds of languages and dialects. Consider this. (My stats may be a little outdated, but the point still stands regardless.)

Algeria: 18 languages/dialects
Angola: 31
Zimbabwe: 19
Zambia: 43
Kenya: 61
Chad: 132
Congo: 218

Hell, there are so many languages in Africa that no one is sure how many there actually are. With these languages there are thousands of tribes who don't happen to conveniently live in the same countries. As the more knowledgeable members of the board will know, Nation states in Africa were drawn up by colonizers, who didn't particularly care if the borders made sense. Oftentimes groups that identified with each other were divided into different nations, while on the flip side groups who hated each other were merged into the same nation. Of course conflict was guaranteed for decades, if not centuries.

Burundi: 85% Hutu, 14% Tutsi. Rwanda has similar numbers. The Tutsi were minorities in both nations, and were systematically slaughtered by the Hutu especially in the Rwandan genocide.

Our (US) foreign policy is dictated by a president who didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite when he first invaded Iraq. Do we honestly expect him to understand that one reason Zimbabwe is a dictatorship is so the Shona can suppress the Matabele and to realize that the minority status of Tutsi in both Rwanda and Burundi is a reason for the genocide? Is the Congo a center of civil conflict and war because it is a nation with 218 languages and about 200 tribes? Some four million people have died in the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) alone.

We honestly should be scared shitless now that the neocons are casting their nets over Africa. "Foster stability", like they did in Iraq. Or like we helped bring about everlasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

American expansion into Africa will in all likelihood only push more and more Muslims towards the teachings of radical Islamist doctrine. Currently there are *only* 400 million Muslims in Africa - Islam hasn't taken a strong foothold there yet. US intervention in Iraq unleashed the Pandora's Box of theocratic Islam over there, what gives us the confidence to think that it won't do so in Africa?

Call me crazy, but maybe that's the entire point. After all, something has to feed the military-industrial complex at home. Somebody's going to make a killing out of this, both literally and figuratively. Yes this was a rant, and it's meant to be my prediction for what will come out of this matter. There are certainly military aspects of this worth picking apart but I don't expect it to overcome fundamental aspects of planning.

That's all I have to say about bases in Africa...

[alwaysfresh]

No african command. Looks like it is actually going to be a Germany Command, since none of the Afrian countries have accepted US Military in the region.


http://english.people.com.cn/200703/15/eng20070315_357931.html

US embarrassment in Africa

The US plan to set up its African Command has been unpleasant and out of sorts from the very beginning. An ediorial carried by the Gabonese newspaper "Reporter" has appealed to African countries to say "no" to the US African Command and not to partake in any activities for the construction of any US military facility on the African continent. Meanwhile, the Algerian government also announced its refusal to allow the US Africa Command to locate within its territories.

....

[Vlad Plasmius]

Temporarily in Germany. I'm not sure, but I'd go for South Africa as a possibly location, maybe Kenya or Niger.

[BLUEJACKET]

Here is a good asessment-
Everyone wants to become a General. Since there are very few positions available, military institutions strive to create more large commands to increase career opportunities. The Army has long sought recognition of a major unified command for the Korean peninsula while the Navy has suggested an Indian Ocean command. However, the "war on terror" increased operations in Africa, so the bureaucracy recently secured permission to create a new four-star unified command for Africa, spinning it off from the European Command and adding a small part from the Central Command. This may seem harmless, yet huge headquarters absorb manpower and resources from operational forces.

This has started a debate of where to establish the Africa Command headquarters. The US military has no significant bases in Africa, and no permanent troops, yet a four-star General along with a squad of Generals and a platoon of Colonels will soon take charge of the region. They will require hundreds of support personnel, a squadron of executive aircraft, and a billion dollar a year budget as they establish themselves as African viceroys. American regional military commanders have shoved aside diplomats in recent years, often meeting heads of state while wearing field uniforms. Sometimes they alienate foreign leaders due to their lack of experience in the region and limited patience for diplomacy.

Whenever military force must be used, these huge unified headquarters are far from the action, so a task force headquarters must be formed anyway to command forces. For example, the Central Command that covers the Middle East is based in Tampa, Florida, but mostly operates from a forward base in Qatar. Yet even Qatar is too far from Iraq and Afghanistan, so a huge task force headquarters exists in each nation. Since modern worldwide communications allow the Pentagon to easily communicate with forward headquarters, the huge regional headquarters have become unneeded middlemen. Worst of all, these massive immobile headquarters are ideal targets for commandos, terrorists, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, so they require hundreds of troops for self-defense.

Another big problem with regional headquarters is that conflicts overlap their boundaries. For example, Pakistan is within the Central Command yet its rival India falls within the Pacific Command. Turkey is within the European Command although operations from American airbases there support the Central Command. This problem was highlighted a few years ago when an American F-15 fighter from the Central Command shot down an American helicopter in northern Iraq operated by the European Command because there was no direct coordination. The European Command covers all of Russia, even their distant Pacific ports of key interest to the Pacific Command. And what about the U.S. naval task force operating in the Red Sea with one leg in Africa and the other in the Central Command's turf of Yemen? Then there is the Southern Command with no real combat power that is focused on the pointless effort to stop the flow of drugs from Latin America.

The US military does not need an Africa Command. The only significant US military forces in Africa are part of a task force operating around the Horn of Africa. They don't need a four-star General and his huge staff looking over their shoulder. In addition, the US military does not need a Central Command, Pacific Command, or a Southern Command and all their "component command" appendages. The Joint Forces Command in Norfolk VA can assemble joint task force commands for specific missions and allocate forces and resources among them. Some task forces may exist for just a few weeks for missions like disaster relief, while others last for decades for a mission like helping defend South Korea. This is essentially how the US Navy operates.

The Central Command can disappear while the task force commands in Iraq and Afghanistan report directly to the Pentagon. Other US military forces in the region may be formed into small task forces for specific missions. Individual bases will operate under the control of their military component service, just as they do today. As a result of mission oriented task force operations, the US military will discover that the rationale for keeping some units overseas has passed, like the 48 F-15 fighter-bombers based in England to fend off the Soviet threat.

Eliminating regional commands will save billions of dollars a year and free thousands of personnel for operational units. It will improve the flow of information by slicing out a layer of command while eliminating vulnerable fixed headquarter targets and symbols of imperialism. Moreover, continual reviews of task force missions and required resources will ensure a military operational focus, rather than the political focus that has become common among America's military viceroys. http://www.g2mil.com/Spring2007.htm