And what role does the CIA play in all this? Africa is seething with more than abundant natural resources. As a US fallback, Africa's repository of "default energy" is plagued by terrorists and tyrants. The few democracies on the continent are, if not fledgling (Liberia, for one) and fragile, tenuous and often transient. Training troops in Africa is the equivalent of training the Sadak in Iran and the Columbian "counter insurgency" force. I would suspect that Africom is up to no good. You didn't mention the nations that refused to welcome Africom. I'd like to know.

AFRICOM agenda is trustworthy and coming from circles of well checked background who can be held accountable. And that is what America stands for, ready to take initiative and not ashamed to admit mistakes. AFRICOM cards are all on the table for concerned parties to have a look.

Let other states also follow suit with "clear policies" policies for africa. Africa need democracy, good governance, and development partners; there is no better way to achieve this other than AFRICOM, American brand in africa means hope, courage, accomodation, innovation, success, development, freedom, and adhererance to fundamental human rights. History is the witness.

This AFRICOM will be an eye sore for many who are corrupt, imperialist, greedy and willing to do anything to take everything from africa.

I dont know why there has been so much fuss about wanting the AFRICOM base to be in Africa. CENTCOM is based out of Tampa, FL and SOUTHCOM out of Miami...I think that Germany is as good a place as any for AFRICOM to be hubbed. Also, just because the headquarters is there doesn't mean that all operations will have to start from there. Take CENTCOM for example, the number of troops actually based at CENTCOM in Tampa compared to based at smaller hubs around the CENTCOM AOR is like 1 in 10.

I see that your magazine's "Think Again" feature is charged with "debunking conventional wisdom." I applaud this goal but wish you had contacted us while preparing your article, because you happened to repeat some of this conventional wisdom as fact.

For example, you wrote: " Africom's civilian counterparts in the State Department, for example, felt both confused and threatened. How did they fit in, now that Africom would be running the show?"

In fact, U.S. Africa Command isn't "running the show." On this, our boss, General William Ward, is quite clear. Everything the U.S. military does in Africa is approved by the U.S. ambassador of the country in question, at the request of the host government, and in close coordination with U.S. embassies and local, regional and international partners.

You also wrote that our mission statement is "impenetrable and vague." I don't think that's fair. Our mission statement, approved in May 2008, is a little on the formal side, but it's hardly vague. Rather, it reflects the diplomatic nuances and sensitivities of how the military works in Africa. It reads in full: " United States Africa Command, in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners, conducts sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy."

The key words here are "sustained security engagement." In the past, the U.S. military has been at best episodic in working with African nations and regional organizations. With the creation of Africa Command, we're now developing a sustained long-term partnership on par with how we interact with the nations of other continents.

A few more points: The statement is explicit that the U.S. military plays neither a unilateral nor a leadership role in Africa. Our work is closely coordinated with other U.S. agencies and the international community, in support of our diplomacy. And, a statement just 43 words long, the word military appears four times. The mission statement emphasizes that our role is to work in the military sector. Our focus is on the proper roles for a military, not on trying to do the work of others.

By way of example, here are a few mission statements from our sister commands: U.S. European Command (EUCOM): "The U.S. European Command conducts military operations and builds partner capacity to enhance transatlantic security and defend the homeland forward." That's short and clear. But our focus is not on military operations, nor on forward-deployed forces. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM): " With national and international partners, U.S. Central Command promotes cooperation among nations, responds to crises, and deters or defeats state and nonstate aggression, and supports development and, when necessary, reconstruction in order to establish the conditions for regional security, stability, and prosperity." And U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM ): " U.S. Pacific Command protects and defends, in concert with other U.S. Government agencies, the territory of the United States, its people, and its interests. With allies and partners, U.S. Pacific Command is committed to enhancing stability in the Asia-Pacific region by promoting security cooperation, encouraging peaceful development, responding to contingencies, deterring aggression, and, when necessary, fighting to win."

I can see a lot of broad language in those mission statements that, if transferred to Africa, would cause considerable concern. So our mission statement is tailored to the work we do with African partners, in a region where our focus is not on preparing for potential war but on long-term conflict prevention by enabling the capacity of African security institutions while promoting the American ideal that military forces under civilian control are servants of their people.

Your article is correct in discussing the valid concerns about the implications of providing training and expertise to militaries that might take control of their governments. That's where the diplomatic oversight of our Department of State and U.S. Congress is crucial. We only engage with a country in ways approved by the U.S. Ambassador. If you look through the hundreds and articles and thousands of photos on our Website, www.africom.mil, you'll see that our level of engagement is strongest with those partners who most closely share U.S. and worldwide values. Statistically, military coups have been on a steady downward trend across Africa. You cited a "what if" scenario for Guinea. But in Mauritania, a 2008 coup led to the relocation to another country of a major portion of a planned multinational Flintlock exercise, part of a concerted U.S. diplomatic effort aimed at encouraging follow-on elections in Mauritania. Or take the example of Kenya in late 2007 when, amid the civic violence of a disputed election, the Kenyan armed forces set the example that all professional forces should follow -- they stayed in the barracks and let the civilian leadership sort itself out.

With regard to the fear that Africa Command would "militarize foreign aid," you wrote, " The fear stems from the very real dominance of Africom, and the Defense Department in general, over the State Department when it comes to manpower, funding, and agility."

I have to admit, I've heard this conventional wisdom so often that I also thought it was true, that Africa Command has significantly higher resources than the Department of State's Africa Bureau. That's why I was intrigued by Page 36 of the Department of State's August 2009 Inspector General Report on the Africa Bureau. The bureau in 2009 has total funding of $225.9 million to support a U.S. staff of 1,240 employees plus approximately 8,000 locally employed staff. The Bureau administers approximately $6.1 billion in foreign assistance. By comparison, the administration is requesting $278 million in Fiscal Year 2010 for U.S. Africa Command, to support a U.S. staff of 1,300 employees and oversight of programs valued at about 5 percent of the total U.S. foreign assistance funding in Africa . I realize the Department of State has the challenge of staffing dozens of posts across the continent, so that its resources are widely dispersed. But the resources are hardly lopsided in Africa Command's favor. For example, the single biggest expense in our budget is salaries for our more than 600 civilian employees (half the staff), whereas compensation is not included in the Africa Bureau budget.
Finally, you compare Africa Command to the international effort in Afghanistan when you write, "Africom has quite a similar job to, say, forces in Afghanistan who are hoping to rebuild broken militaries, foster economic growth, and all the while boost daily security." The analogy really isn’t accurate. The U.S. military is not in charge anywhere in Africa. Africans are in charge of Africa. U.S. Africa Command's focus is on partnerships and small-scale capacity-building programs with a long-term, even multigenerational goal of African militaries to provide for the security of all their people.

My boss, General Ward, said it best when he recently wrote, "I believe that the U.S. military can be an effective long-term partner in Africa, because we share the same goal of an Africa that is secure, stable and developed in ways meaningful to its people and our global society. Our men and women in uniform bring capabilities to help the Africans achieve their security goals while demonstrating how pride in ones service can make a difference in how the people of a nation feel towards their military, their government, and each other."

For more about the work of Africa Command, I invite you to visit our Website at www.africom.mil

Respectfully,

Vince Crawley
U.S. Africa Command Public Affairs

call it what ever you like,,,,Eastcom, Africom, Centcom, southcom,,,etc
This is modern colonialism and a new version of slavery,,,,,,
Africa need to develop by it self, even if it can take decennier,,,,,
Why can a humanbeing not accept >>

why can't a humanbeing not accept the rule of partnership,,,
may be it is time for U:S and western to learn from Africa,,,
they should slow down their damaging development or back off
from destroying our mother earth,,,,,Africa are in critical wormth