Sunday, February 17, 2013

What's AFRICOM to do?

If you weren't paying attention to Africa during the Bush administration you might have missed the creation of United States Africa Command, or AFRICOM. Basically, the Bush administration took three separate 'Africa' military departments (EUCOM for West Africa, CENTCOM for East Africa, PACOM for Indian Ocean waters and islands off the east coast of Africa) and combined them into one. Why? Well, originally, AFRICOM was branded as a new partnership between African states and the US as a force for 'good'. You know, we'll train the rag tag armies of African countries and make them in to real forces, and we'll dig some wells, and build some clinics, and be sure to take lots of pictures so that everyone across Africa and around the world sees what 'good' the US is doing with its military.

Lately, though, with the rise of Islamic terrorism on the continent, congressmen and senators have been looking to AFRICOM for answers and action. On Thursday, while most wonks and policy addicts were watching the debacle that was the Hagel hearing, Army Gen. David Rodriguez was also undergoing a hearing. Rodriguez was nominated last year to lead AFRICOM. Just a few months ago no one, outside of those who follow Africa, really cared. Now, since Mali, Libya, and the influence of al-Qaeda, Congress seems to have decided to start to pay attention. Even senators that would fail a map quiz locating African countries (looking at you, Inhofe) want MORE troops for AFRICOM, MORE money, and MORE results.  See, according to Rodriguez, there are four major threats on the African continent at the moment:al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; al Shabaab in Somalia; Boko Haram in Nigeria; and Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army.  Congress feels that's bad for the US. Bad for the world. Because of terrorism. So we should do something.

Yet, Obama doesn't want the US to expand its military engagements in Africa. But now Congress does.

It will be interesting to see what use AFRICOM can be in combating the spread of terrorism throughout North Africa and in the Sahel. The point of the organization was to strengthen military ties between the US and African states, as well as the whole 'force of good'. For AFRICOM to function properly, it can't be seen as the US attempting to gain a military foothold on the continent. It has to be a willing, mutually beneficial relationship. That's hard to accomplish, due to the long history of western domination of Africa. Obama has almost a 'hands off' approach to Africa and its myriad issues; he let France deal with Mali, has allowed the UNSC to handle the tragedy of the continuing war in the DRC, and, in truth, has barely mentioned the continent at all (except Mali in the State of the Union, and that was only in the context of the larger 'war on terror'.)

All bets are that this will be another area of tension between the White House and Congress. And that is not good for anyone.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

On Mali and France.

First, if you haven't read Laura Seay's piece in Foreign Policy on Mali, you should. She gives a brilliant critique of the media coverage on Mali, and also some background on what is going on. So, what is happening in Mali? In short, it has a lot to do with a weak state and a tense domestic situation that spiraled out of control, now involving a France and ECOWAS, with several other African states promising and sending military support.

For almost a year, Mali was of no real concern to the international community- the coup and then takeover of half the country by rebels and militants was on the back burner of international issues. The United Nations Security Council passed a vague, open ended resolution back in December, but outside of that there was little haste to act.

Then France stepped in, and began what has amounted to a successful campaign against the militants in Mali. With over 3,000 troops on the ground, France is waging a real war, and winning. Yet, you can't have European intervention in a former colony without the conspiracy theories abounding, and almost as soon as the bombs began to fall, the op-ed pieces about 'France attempting to recolonize Mali' began to appear. This however, is far from the reason why France got involved. Hollande said it was due to 'one sovereign state asking for the help of another.' Hollande has made it clear that France will withdraw once the battles are done (March at the earliest). There is no reason to think otherwise. The bulk of the military engagement and peacekeeping will be done by an UN-backed African military force (AFISMA), not France. France is not after resources, not after colonies. It is simply waging its own fight against Islamic militants and doing a bang up job. While France mops up the al-Qaeda backed groups, the government of Mali attempts to set up peace talks with the MNLA to bring long term stability to the north.

So where does Mali fit in the 'War on Terror?' As Seay so brilliantly points out, Mali is not going to be a long, protracted engagement by France. It will not be an occupation. What Mali will be, and currently is, is an attempt by states working together to turn the tide of extremism, and roll back the influx of al-Qaeda backed movements in Mali.