By Request: AFRICOM

Peter asks "Matt, what do you think about AFRICOM?"

Well in a banal sense, putting responsibility for the U.S. military's involvement in Africa under the umbrella of a new Africa Command makes a lot more sense than splitting responsibility between EURCOM and CENTCOM. So in that sense it's a good idea. But in the real world, it seems the impetus for the reorganization is the Defense Department's intention to start getting more involved in Africa issues. I'm, shall we say, skeptical of the merits of this idea. Some people seem to think that security-ifying humanitarian problems by overstating the extent to which poverty and state failure in Africa are a national security problem for the United States is a good idea because when you shift a situation from the "charity" box to the "national security" box you get more resources. Which is true, but you also get the wrong kind of resources. The last thing Africa needs is to become the venue for a continent wide struggle for "influence" and a re-injection of great power conflicts, weapons, funding for armed groups, etc.

But the literal question of AFRICOM is a done deal at this point, so there's no real reason to fret about it instead of specific policy issues. There are a lot of folks with a background in Africa issues in Obama's inner circle, so I an Obama administration will probably be able to avoid blundering into fiascos by accident.

Comments

This is an area where I have high hopes that Obama might be skeptical enough about the region to stay out. After all, he knows one country in Africa better than most Americans do. On the other hand, he keeps taking advice from Darfur fanatics like Susan Rice, so that looks bad.

Somebody really ought to ask him some in-depth questions about his Africa policy. One obvious one is what exactly is his relationship with Luo warlord Raila Odinga, who claims to be his first cousin (which I find unlikely).

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 20, 2008 3:33 PM

The US has these Unified Combatant Commands covering the entire populated area of the globe. (Not sure about Antarctica.)

Doesn't this fact express a breathtaking sort of casual, imperial arrogance?

Basically what it says is, 'We reserve the right to pursue military operations in these places. To prepare for that day, we're setting up the command structure in advance.'

Does any other country in the world do this? Does China have a 'North America Command'? Does Russia? Does Iran? What would we think if they did? If they came out and declared the creation of such a thing, we'd treat it as a hostile gesture, wouldn't we?

Am I nuts? (About this, I mean.)

Posted by Ryan | June 20, 2008 3:34 PM

Unified Combatant Command structures (a la AFRICOM, STRATCOM, PACCOM) worked when Truman first proposed organizing military operations by geographical areas of operation because, well, we were gearing up to a fight a world war with the Soviet Union. The current system doesn't solve the problem of a military trained to win battles (or, I guess, fight insurgents) and increasingly expected to serve many purposes. CENTCOM works well for fighting a war in the Middle East, but an Army trained for fighting the Taliban is poorly equipped to stabilize Darfur. Same goes for an Air Force trained to fly fighters and charged with nuclear weapons. Organizational musical chairs isn't going to solve the problem of a military that lacks a coherent vision for its role and function.

Posted by brian | June 20, 2008 3:41 PM

In view of the vital importance of Africom's mission, we need to choose its headquarters location carefully.

I vote for Thule. It could be for the Army what Butte, Montana is to the FBI.

By the way, Africom has a _great_ logo.

Posted by gcochran | June 20, 2008 3:42 PM

You probably should address the fact that, at least as of today, no country in Africa has shown any desire to host the AFRICOM command HQ ... which would be a pretty sizable economic windfall.

Posted by Sebastian | June 20, 2008 3:43 PM

In view of the vital importance of Africom's mission, we need to choose its headquarters location carefully.

I vote for Thule. It could be for the Army what Butte, Montana is to the FBI.

By the way, Africom has a _great_ logo.

Posted by gcochran | June 20, 2008 3:49 PM

You probably should address the fact that, at least as of today, no country in Africa has shown any desire to host the AFRICOM command HQ ... which would be a pretty sizable economic windfall.

Posted by Sebastian | June 20, 2008 3:52 PM

Ryan-

IIRC, France has combatant commands that cover the globe. (They also have a large presence in Africa-Ivory Coast and Chad being notable.)

Posted by Nemo Ignotus | June 20, 2008 3:58 PM

IIRC, France has combatant commands that cover the globe.

Huh. Didn't know that. That's fucked up.

Posted by Ryan | June 20, 2008 5:24 PM

Basically what it says is, 'We reserve the right to pursue military operations in these places. To prepare for that day, we're setting up the command structure in advance.'

When the boxing day tsunami occured, it was damn useful to have a command structure in place.

But in the real world, it seems the impetus for the reorganization is the Defense Department's intention to start getting more involved in Africa issues.

The impetus is that it is the *United States Government* intention to get more involved in Africa issues. This is unlikely to be reversed by an Obama administration, and probably will be embraced. This may or may not be a good idea (i think it's a good idea), but it's not the DoD going on independent ops.

The unified commanders in times of peace serve to complement the state department representation to the various countries in the region, and (mostly) coordinate directly with their state dept counterparts to present a single unified coherent view of US Govt policy wrt other nations. The is the case with PACOM and especially when Fallon was in charge, but Keating is continuing this.

Posted by Kolohe | June 20, 2008 6:54 PM

"By the way, Africom has a _great_ logo. "

Woah. I saw the first pamphlet from the AFRICOM launch meeting/convention at USC, and it was one of the most offensive pieces of graphic I'd ever seen.

A bunch of old white dudes in military fatigues, standing around a bunch of black poor kids.

Posted by Ohmmade | June 20, 2008 8:04 PM

EUCOM, not EURCOM. Speaks to credibility when pontificating on such issues.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | June 20, 2008 9:36 PM

As mentioned previously, the French have a significant presence in Africa - the former French colonies. They use them as a base of operations, and provide significant humanitarian support to those nations. Unlike they Chinese and the US, they have significant historical precedent, however misplaced, in the African continent. Because of our dependence on African oil and other resources, we have a significant interest as well. While the Chinese appear to be moving in in a significant way, the Africans typically do not trust them (either). What has not been mentioned, but is common knowledge, is the African nations have been less than enthusiastic about hosting AFRICOM - to date, only Liberia has evidenced interest. Hard to find points in African history where interaction with (white) non-Africans has been to their advantage.

Posted by davemaz | June 20, 2008 9:48 PM

Ryan -

Whatever you may think, the fact of the matter is that US forces actually are operating in pretty much every area of the globe. Operating in != invading, so the fact that we have command structures set up to handle the presence of these folks does not mean that we think we own the places they're operating. And given that we are operating in these places, we pretty much have to have some kind of command structure in place to a) tell our guys what they're supposed to be doing, and b) support them with supplies, transportation, etc.

Basically what it says is, 'We reserve the right to pursue military operations in these places. To prepare for that day, we're setting up the command structure in advance.'

Yeah, that's pretty much what we're saying. So? What's the alternative? Forswear military operations everywhere but the US? Fail to get ready for military operations anywhere except on US territory?

Look, I'm not any more in favor of imperialism than anyone else. But having military forces operating overseas is not the same thing as imperialism. And if our forces are operating overseas, there has to be some kind of command structure to support them. Because the areas involved are so huge, the only kind of organization that makes sense is by geographic area. The Unified Command structures is not, in and of itself, some nefarious plan to conquer the world.

Posted by Sean Peters | June 20, 2008 9:55 PM

The Somalia problem came from the White House, not Centcom. Having a military structure that knows what its doing in different regions would help to avoid similar incidents, not facilitate them.

Sebastian hits on the real problem which is that African gov'ts don't want us there (even with a big injection of money). Maintaining a small footprint will be the big problem, and so will not overshadowing the nascent AU.

Even McCain would be served better by improved knowledge of the goings on in Africa.

Posted by Owen | June 20, 2008 10:31 PM

"CENTCOM works well for fighting a war in the Middle East, but an Army trained for fighting the Taliban..."

CENTCOM is a joke. They're losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have screwed up in Pakistan with their latest air strike. Putting Petraeus in charge was a major screwup, but of course Bush needed him there instead of Fallon so he can get on with the Iran war.

And the Army is NOT "trained for fighting the Taliban". They haven't got a clue how to fight the Taliban. The Taliban are running rings around NATO and the US (and the Pakistani government).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 11:08 PM

You probably should address the fact that, at least as of today, no country in Africa has shown any desire to host the AFRICOM command HQ

Neither SOUTHCOM nor CENTCOM HQ are currently in their AOR. For that matter the only one of the 8 current COCOMs with HQ outside the US is EUCOM.

Posted by Fwiw | June 21, 2008 12:00 AM

Why are your request-posts always worse than your originals?

Did you institute the feature because of the post-primary traffic downturn?

Posted by burning flock | June 21, 2008 12:37 AM

First, unless you buy into the whole "humanitarian intervention" idea, there is really no reason for an increased US military presence in Africa. We simply don't have many historical ties to the continent, nor does it contain any "near peer" competitors to the US or major trading partners, and it doesn't even have much in the way of strategic resources that you can't find elsewhere, except for maybe Tungsten.

Second, I'm not sure what is so bad about putting the Horn of Africa under CENTCOM and the rest fo the continent under EUCOM. If you haven't noticed, since the fall of the Berlin Wall EUCOM doesn't have much of a mission. Alternately, sub-Saharan Africa could be folded into the Southern Command. Its hard to imagine the circumstances wehre we would be fighting a war in Africa and Latin America at the same time, and logistically it makes more sense to put subsaharan Africa with Latin America.

So on these grounds, its a bad idea. You don't really want a proliferation of major commands without a major mission. One of the commentators makes a good point that the whole idea of world spanning theater commands is questionable. They were originally set up to fight World War II, but the US is very unlikely for the next few decades to be fighting a global struggle with a coalition of major powers. At the moment CENTCOM is handling two small wars and the other commands are quiet. During the Cold War there was always the possibility of war breaking out in Europe at the same time US forces were engaged elsewhere, but the likelihood of something like that happening now is close to nil.

Posted by Ed | June 21, 2008 4:37 AM

The Unified Command structures is not, in and of itself, some nefarious plan to conquer the world.

Never said or thought it was. I was merely ruminating on how it must look and feel to the people residing in those places.

What's the alternative? Forswear military operations everywhere but the US? Fail to get ready for military operations anywhere except on US territory?

Once again: How would you feel if some other country announced it was "getting ready for military operations" where you live?

Posted by Ryan | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM