The Truth About Africom

No, the U.S. military is not trying to take over Africa. Here's what we're actually doing.

BY ROBERT MOELLER | JULY 21, 2010

I feel fortunate that I can say that I was present at the inception of U.S. Africa Command (Africom), the U.S. military headquarters that oversees and coordinates U.S. military activities in Africa. Starting with just a handful of people sitting around a table nearly four years ago, we built an organization dedicated to the idea that U.S. security interests in Africa are best served by building long-term partnerships with African nations, regional organizations, and the African Union. At the same time, however, there has been a great deal of speculation and concern about Africom. We believe our work and accomplishments will continue to speak for themselves.

Still, many of these concerns raise important issues, and it is important to continue to address and clarify Africom's position on these issues. There is great work being done by and for Africa nations with Africom's assistance, and the success of the missions between these partner nations inevitably affects the security of the United States and the world as a whole. During our work in designing Africom and helping guide it through the early years of its existence, a number of lessons have helped inform our decisions and ensure we performed our job responsibly and effectively.

Lesson 1: Africom does not create policy.

One of the most serious criticisms leveled at Africom is that the organization represents a U.S. military takeover of the foreign-policy process. This is certainly not true, though I suspect some of our more outspoken critics have been so vocal about this that it is quite challenging for them to change course.

Let there be no mistake. Africom's job is to protect American lives and promote American interests. That is what nations and militaries do. But we also have found that our own national interest in a stable and prosperous Africa is shared strongly by our African partners. By working together, we can pursue our shared interests more effectively.

Africa's security challenges are well known. They include piracy and illegal trafficking, ethnic tensions, irregular militaries and violent extremist groups, undergoverned regions, and pilferage of resources. This last challenge includes oil theft, as well as widespread illegal fishing that robs the African people of an estimated $1 billion a year because their coastal patrols lack the capacity to find and interdict suspicious vessels within their territorial waters and economic exclusion zones.

As a military organization, most of our work consists of supporting security and stability programs in Africa and its island nations. Our focus is on building capacity, both with African national militaries and, increasingly, with Africa's regional organizations. One of our biggest success stories is the Africa Partnership Station, a Navy program that partners Africom with African and international sailors to put together a multinational staff aboard a U.S. or international vessel. This creates what some have called a "floating schoolhouse," where the staff share a host of ideas, ranging from basic search-and-rescue techniques to advanced concepts of maritime domain awareness.

Across the continent, we work closely within the framework of the overall U.S. government effort. As a military organization, we do not create policy. Rather, we support those policy decisions and coordinate our actions closely with the State Department, U.S. embassies in the region, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other U.S. government agencies that have been trusted partners in Africa for decades.

Photo by U.S. Africa Command

 

Vice Adm. Robert Moeller is the former first deputy to the commander for military operations, U.S. Africa Command. He retired from the U.S. Navy this month.

ETHEKYAA

8:20 AM ET

July 22, 2010

Ethekyaa

How about investing in businesses in Africa instead of teaching more war-fighting skills to a war-ravaged continent?

 

XTIANGODLOKI

12:02 PM ET

July 22, 2010

Thats what CHina is doing

Bringing engineers to help build roads and infrastructure, as opposed to bringing soldiers to teach the locals how to kill people.

But then to the foreign press this is just another example of China trying to exploit Africa's resources. While I am sure China wants something out of its investments in Africa (who doesn't?) , at least what China is doing is helping out the locals more than most other types of efforts.

 

AKAMAD

9:46 AM ET

July 22, 2010

Stability ?

There are over 60 countries in Africa. Can you name 5 that aren't run by mass-murdering dictators ? Is it a good idea to promote the 'stability' of keeping them in power ? When you help the oppressors, you become the enermy of the oppressed and one day they will strike back with the only means available to them - Terrorism.

 

AND REW

10:39 AM ET

July 22, 2010

RE

Stability is the first step into building up a nation.
I would go for a blood thirsty dictator rather than governments that won't last a year.

 

BURKETAJ

10:57 PM ET

July 22, 2010

I encourage the author or

I encourage the author or other Foreign Policy authors and experts to take up the thread put forth by Jadensmith. As counterinsurgency, stability operations, and other military-lead means of achieving security in other parts of the world have, as Jadensmith identified, ended largely in disaster, do we really consider it wise to transplant this model to Africa?

Even the most "professional" of militaries need strong civilian oversight, independent judiciaries capable of prosecuting military human rights violations, and a government capable of paying its soldiers' salaries. (Many US-trained Somali soldiers, for example, find the much more reliable al-Shabab salaries appealing, or benefit most from arm&equip through selling those weapons to al-Shabab) When the U.S. is not putting forth nearly the same effort to support such non-military endeavors, and when numerous U.S.-supported leaders and "partners" have themselves commitment human rights violations with impunity or demonstrated a disregard for the importance of rule of law, how is African civil society to trust that this training, capacity-building, and hardware is genuinely in the interest of democracy and economic development, the true building blocks of a secure society?

In a continent (with no in-house arms production) that is still feeling the effects of "partners" having been armed & equipped to fight the Cold War on African soil, and during this day and age when the declared US-led global war on terror has yet to take stock of its devastating impact for the communities on whose soil it is waged, it is important to ask if strengthening militaries of strategic American allies is truly the path toward stability and security for the African people.

 

BCT

1:28 PM ET

July 24, 2010

True Security

What is distressing about articles such as these is that there is a blind acknowledgment that the military will create security. Rebel groups, violent extremism, and war exist in Africa not because countries lack professional militaries or police forces but because of poverty. When a society has a good education system, health care system, infrastructure, good jobs, etc. individuals are far less likely to join the ranks of a rebel group.

Why then is the United States spending so much money and effort training and equipping African militaries without also enacting policies that will generate true security in Africa? A national army is only as effective and as responsible as its government. As has been mentioned, without good governance and strong judicial systems, how will African nations maintain the forces the U.S. has so boldly trained?

I am deeply saddened that my tax dollars contribute to further instability in Africa, particularly when we know the elements of real security. The U.S. would be better off enacting fair trade policies, promoting labor rights, boosting education systems, and training doctors and scientists than spending money on guns and counterinsurgency training. These elements would not only generate more security in Africa but also in the United States.

 

MES

2:27 PM ET

July 26, 2010

Africom's Big Footprint

Despite the authors claims, significant concerns remain regarding the U.S. Africa Command.  Indeed, the Obama administration is continuing the Bush policies by increasing Africom’s budget and expanding foreign military assistance and military training programs to African countries while civilian agencies remain emaciated.  This imbalance of resources not only runs the risk of over-militarizing small and underdeveloped nations, but also becomes the face of U.S. foreign policy for Africa.  Further, a central paradox exists within the integrated 3D approach that Africom reflects: military actions, which result in destruction and trauma, are incompatible with development and diplomacy which seek to build, empower, and connect people.  The fundamental purpose of defense runs counter to the aims and modus operandi of development and diplomacy.
Prioritizing military expansion over investment in sustainable economic development ensures a continuation of the colonial cycle of poverty and insecurity for the people of Africa.  The United States must dramatically change its current policy course for Africa by heavily investing in programs that promote democracy, human rights, and economic well being.  Until this happens, President Obama’s much ballyhooed change will remain elusive.