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

Lesson 5: Don't expect instant results.

Our partners in Africa warn us that we must adopt an "African time" perspective. We should not expect quick results or approach the continent with a "make it happen now" mindset. At the same time, we do see slow, steady progress. Coups are decreasingly tolerated as a means of acceptable regime change, and in some cases, such as Mauritania, we have seen militaries take stock of the international community and make steady progress in restoring civil authority. Much of our work is aimed at reinforcing African success stories so that we can work together as capable partners to address regional and global concerns. Tensions in Sudan as next year's referendum on southern independence approaches can be reduced if regional neighbors build cooperative relationships with all parties in Sudan.

Somalia remains a country in daily conflict, with a people so fiercely proud of their independence that any lasting security solution must be African-led. As I write this, the Ugandan People's Defense Force is operating deep inside neighboring nations, with an unprecedented level of intergovernmental cooperation, to end the decades-long reign of terror by the Lord's Resistance Army, an extremist group that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the U.S. military is one small player in a much larger international effort to help that nation reform its security sector. We have provided some funding to renovate medical facilities that provide support to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, and we are currently conducting a six-month pilot project to train a model military unit in the Congolese Army. Although this program includes basic military skills training, it also emphasizes respect for human rights, the rule of law, and an understanding of the military's role in a civil society.

As we conduct our daily and weekly activities across Africa we believe we share a long-term vision with our African partners: Sustained security programs can, over time, help support the conditions for economic development, social development, and improvements in health -- so that people will continue to see progress in their lives and growing prosperity in their communities.

That is how we support U.S. foreign policy in Africa, while also promoting the long-term aspirations of the African people. It has indeed been a personal honor and a privilege to be a part of the creation of Africom.

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.