The new US mission in Africa

[jd in .hu]

Define what the new US mission in Africa is all about
By David Ignatius

Daily Star staff
Saturday, January 05, 2008
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=87819#

Last week's tribal violence in Kenya reminds us of the severe social
and political problems facing Africa. But is greater involvement by
the US military the answer to these African challenges? The growing US
military role in Africa isn't a hypothetical issue. In one of the
sleeper events of 2007, the Pentagon established a new command for the
continent, known as AFRICOM. The organization has a commander, General
William "Kip" Ward, but it doesn't yet have a plan for where it will
be based, or even a clear statement of its role. Right now, it's a
headquarters in search of a mission.

Pentagon officials have offered idealistic but vague explanations of
what the new command is supposed to do. "We want to prevent problems
from becoming crises, and crises from becoming catastrophes," said
Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African
affairs. Ward said in an interview two months ago with Charlie Rose of
PBS, "We have in our national interest that Africa is a stable
continent. That's what's in it for us."

Nobody would argue the need for assisting Africa, especially after the
gruesome ethnic killings that left more than 300 Kenyans dead. But how
should that assistance be provided? Is the US military the right
instrument for the nation-building effort that AFRICOM apparently
envisions? Should American soldiers coordinate the digging of wells,
the vaccination of animals and other development projects that will
come under AFRICOM's umbrella? Will a larger US military presence
check terrorism and instability on the continent, or will it instead
become a new magnet for anti-Americanism?

The chaos in Kenya should prompt a serious discussion, better late
than never, of these issues. AFRICOM's mission isn't well understood,
either in America or Africa. Indeed, two of the leading African
nations - Nigeria and South Africa - have expressed strong
reservations about the greater US military role on the continent. And
surely, the American experience in Iraq should prompt closer scrutiny
of military projects with bold ideals but fuzzy details.

The African command began as a project of former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, who believed the military wasn't well prepared for
the kind of stabilization operations it would face in the post-
September 11 world. The command was formally established last October
1, with a temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany - and the goal
of establishing a forward base in Africa by October 1, 2008.

But problems surfaced immediately. The first was the $5 billion cost
of setting up the forward headquarters, a steep price for a military
strapped by Iraq and Afghanistan. A second problem was where to put
the headquarters. Liberia was eager to play host, but Pentagon
officials believed its location in West Africa would be too far from
the continent's big security challenges. For now, the Pentagon will
probably finesse the headquarters issue by starting with several
smaller regional centers - perhaps in Botswana, Liberia and Rwanda -
that combine military and civilian operations.

The new command has had bipartisan political backing - who could
question the idea of taking Africa more seriously? But behind the
scenes, some senior Pentagon officials have been skeptical. "The depth
of support is pretty shallow, frankly, and that's a real hazard.
There's a danger that everything will be done on the cheap," says
Stephen Morrison, the director of Africa studies at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.

The real puzzle with AFRICOM is understanding its purpose. Some
advocates propose pragmatic strategic goals, from containing China's
influence in Africa to countering terrorism to protecting African oil
supplies. But the official rationale is much less specific - in Ward's
formulation, "bringing stability to the continent." Some Africans
worry that these generalities mask a deeper goal of establishing what
amounts to American neocolonialism.

What would AFRICOM be doing now in Kenya, say, if it were up and
running? Would it intervene to halt the violence between Kikuyus and
Luos that exploded last week? Would it work with NGOs and relief
organizations? Would it operate jointly with the Kenyan military to
restore order? Ward says he doesn't "envision kinetic operations for
United States forces," but what happens if Kenya spirals toward
another Rwanda genocide?

The US military is so powerful - so blessed with money and logistical
skill and leadership - that it's easy to make it the default answer to
problems that are otherwise in the "too hard" category. That's my
worry about AFRICOM. Its nation-building goal sounds noble, but so did
European imperialism of 150 years ago to its proponents. Before
America sends its soldiers marching off to save Africa, we need more
discussion about what this mission is all about.

Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE
DAILY STAR.