[Marxism] Lessons from History: The Case Against AFRICOM

[milongonsinga <milongonsinga@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lessons from History: 
The Case Against AFRICOM
by Stephen Roblin 
Africa has historically been less of a priority to U.S. foreign policy planners 
than other regions, such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Latin 
America.  This was certainly the case when George W. Bush took office in 2001.  
But during the course of his tenure, "Africa's position in the U.S. strategic 
spectrum . . . moved from peripheral to central."1  There is no better evidence 
for this development than the most recent and significant change to the U.S. 
military structure -- the establishment of the U.S. Africa command, commonly 
referred to as AFRICOM.
So what is AFRICOM?  To answer this question, we need to understand one of the 
principal means of organizing the U.S. military's global presence.  The U.S. 
Department of Defense (DOD) has carved the globe into regions, and these 
regions fall under the "area of responsibility" of geographic combatant 
commands, the "prisms through which the Pentagon views the world."2  The 
function of these combatant commands is to coordinate, integrate, and manage 
all U.S. defense assets and operations for their respective regions.3  Until 
recently the globe was covered by five U.S. combatant commands:  European 
(EUCOM), Pacific (PACOM), Northern (NORTHCOM), Southern (SOUTHCOM), and Central 
(CENTOCOM).4  On October 1, 2008 AFRICOM was added as the sixth U.S. combatant 
command, its area of responsibility being the continent of Africa, with the 
exception of Egypt. 
Before AFRICOM was established, Africa fell under the responsibility of three 
different commands -- EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM -- each of which viewed Africa 
as a "secondary or even tertiary concern."5  AFRICOM has effectively taken over 
all U.S. military initiatives and operations conducted on the continent (again, 
with the exception of Egypt).  This administrative change within the DOD has 
been praised as a "positive" step towards the U.S. achieving a "unity of focus 
throughout Africa."6  AFRICOM's proponents, official and intellectual, claim 
increased U.S. "focus" on Africa will be mutually beneficial for African 
countries and the U.S. alike.  They argue that AFRICOM will facilitate security 
and stability on a conflict-ridden continent while enabling the U.S. to better 
pursue its increasing "strategic interests" there.  Such claims have elicited 
abundant criticisms, but proponents insist that AFRICOM is "a different kind of 
command" that
 represents a new "paradigm" in U.S. military engagement.  Hence, "there is 
sufficient reason to be hopeful," as put by one military intellectual.7
In contrast to proponents, I argue that, given the history of U.S. involvement 
in Africa, past and present, there is "sufficient reason" to think that AFRICOM 
will be potentially disastrous for citizens of African countries.
 
mrzine.monthlyreview.org/roblin240409.html 
 
 
 A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very 
discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu