NOTE:  I've posted quite a few articles about Africa lately, but this has to be 
one of the most perceptive and "deep" analyses I've read so far.  If you have 
trouble reading the article as forwarded because of all the codes indicating 
links, please do yourself a favor and go to the original at
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/01/neo-imperialism-and-the-arrogance-of-ignorance/

Best,
Romi/"Blue"



Africa and AFRICOM
Neo-Imperialism and the Arrogance of Ignorance
by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
Most Americans do not realize the extent to which the U.S. is 
becoming involved militarily in the welter of conflicts throughout 
Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa (check out the chaos as mapped here).
Although recent reports have tended to focus on the French effort to 
kick Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) out of Mali — an effort that may now be 
devolving into a far more complex guerrilla war, that French operation is just 
one operation in what may be shaping up to be a 21st Century version of the 
19th Century Scramble for the resources of Africa. It’s a policy that, from the 
U.S. point of view, may not be unrelated to the pivot to China,  given China‘s 
growing market and aid presence in Africa.  Together, the scramble and 
the pivot will be sufficient to offset the near term effect of an 
sequester in the Pentagon with a torrent of money flows in the future.
Last year, Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post provided a mosaic of glimpses 
into the widespread U.S. involvement in Africa.  He authored a series of 
excellent reports, including here, here and here.  The map below is my 
rendering of the basing information in Whitlock’s 
report (and others), as well as the relationship between that basing 
information to distribution of Muslim populations in central Africa. 
Consider the distances involved in this swath of bases loosely portrayed by the 
red dots: the distance between these bases along the axis from 
northwest to southwest on the African continent alone is greater that 
the distance from New York to Los Angeles.  Think of the ethnic and 
tribal differences between Burkina Faso and Kenya, not to mention the 
differences within those countries!  And remember, virtually all of 
North Africa, from Morocco to Egypt is over 90% Muslim.
While the correlation between Muslim populations and our intervention 
activities in this variety of cultural mosaics will suggest a welter of 
differing messages to different audiences, one generalization is 
certain, given our recent history of intervention: Africom’s continuing 
presence and involvement will further inflame our relationship with 
militant Islam and perhaps the far larger number of moderate Muslims.
But think of the other possibilities for one’s imagination to run 
wild.  For example: In view of the recent Libyan adventure, 
conspiratorially-minded North African Islamic radicals (and moderates?) 
with a penchant for seeing visions in cloud formations may well 
interpret the swath of Africom’s bases structure in Sub-Saharan Africa 
as early bricks in the construction an anvil, against which, they will 
be smashed by a new generation of European neocolonialists, attacking 
from the north in obedience with the new “leading from behind” doctrine 
of President Obama.  Of course, given the distances involved and the 
porosity those distances imply, such divagations of the paranoid mind 
are silly from a military point of view.  But given the US’s murderous 
track record of lies in Iraq, incompetence in Afghanistan, and our 
blatant disregard for the Palestinians by constructing a peace processes that 
facilitated the growth of settlements in a forty-year land grab by Israel, that 
kind of characterization nevertheless will be grist for 
the propaganda mill as well as the fulminations of a paranoid mind.  And 
remember, just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out 
to get you.
Another sense of the metastasizing nature of our involvement in 
Africa can be teased out of the leaden, terrorist-centric, 
albeit carefully-constructed verbiage in the prepared answers submitted by Army 
General David M. Rodriguez  to Senate Armed Services Committee 
in support of his 13 February 2013 confirmation to be the new commander 
of the  U. S. Africa Command or Africom. I urge readers to at least skim this 
very revealing document.
The terrorist “threats” in sub-Saharan Africa that are evidently so 
tempting to the neo-imperialists at Africom do not exist in isolation. 
They are intimately connected to the ethnic/tribal discontent in Africa, a 
subject alluded to but not really analyzed by Rodriquez or his 
senatorial questioners in their carefully choreographed Q&A.
Many of these tensions, for example, are in part a legacy of 
artificial borders created by the European interventionists of the 19th 
century. These interventionists deliberately designed borders to mix up 
tribal, ethnic, and religious groups to facilitate “divide and rule” 
colonial policies. The 19th Century colonialists often deliberately 
exacerbated local animosities by placing minorities in politically and 
economically advantageous positions, thereby creating incentives for 
seething discontent and payback in the future. Stalin, incidentally, 
used the same strategy in the 1920s and 1930s to control the Muslim 
soviet republics in what was formerly known as the Turkestan region of 
Central Asia. In the USSR, the positioning of the artificial borders 
among these new “Stans” were widely known as Stalin’s “poison pills.”
The hostage crisis at the gas plant in eastern Algeria last January 
illustrates some of the deeply-rooted cultural complexities at the heart of 
many of these conflicts. Akbar Ahmed recently argued this point in 
one of his fascinating series of essays published by Aljazeera.  This series, 
which I believe is very important, is based on his forthcoming book, The 
Thistle and the Drone: How America’s War on Terror Became a War on Tribal 
Islam, to be published in March by Brookings Institution Press.
Ambassador Akbar Ahmed is the former Pakistani high commissioner to 
the UK, and he now holds the the appropriately named Ibn Khaldun Chair 
of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington, D.C.  
Considered to be one of fathers of modern historiography and the social 
sciences, Ibn Khaldun is also one of history’s most influential scholars of  
spontaneous 
nature of tribalism and its role in establishing social cohesion.  The 
central thrust of Professor Ahmed’s work is in that spirit.  He aims to 
explain why discontent is so widespread throughout the former colonial 
world and how it is partially rooted in a complex history of oppressions of 
ethnic groups and in tribal rivalries throughout the region. This 
has created a welter of tensions between the weak central governments of the 
ex-colonial countries and their peripheral minority groups and 
tribes. Ahmed argues that these tensions have been exacerbated by our 
militaristic response to 9/11. He explains why military interventions by the 
U.S. and former European colonial powers will worsen the growing 
tension between central governments and these oppressed groups.
Among other things, Ahmed, perhaps inadvertently, has laid out a devastating 
critique of US failure to abide by the criteria of a sensible grand strategy in 
its reaction to 9/11. By confusing a horrendous crime with an act of war, 
declaring an open ended global war on terror, and then conducting that war 
according to a classically flawed 
grand strategy that assumed “You are either with us or against us,” the 
US has not only created enemies faster than it can kill them, but in so 
doing, it has mindlessly exacerbated highly-volatile, 
incredibly-complex, deeply-rooted local conflicts and thereby helped to 
destabilize huge swathes of Asia and Africa.
Mindless? Consider please the following: Most readers of this essay 
will have heard of AQIM and probably the the Tuaregs as well. But how 
many of you have heard of the Kabyle Berbers and their history in 
Algeria? (I had not.)  Yet according to Professor Ahmed, a Kabyle Berber 
founded AQIM, and that founding is deeply-rooted in their historical 
grievances. So, there is more to AQIM than that of simply being an al 
Qaeda copycat. You will not learn about any of this from Rodriquez’s 
answers, notwithstanding his repeated references to AQIM and Algeria; 
nor will you learn anything about this issue from the senators’ 
questions.
You can prove this to yourself.
Do a word search of General Rodriquez’s Q&A package for any hint of an 
appreciation of the kind of complex history described by Ahmed in his Aljazeera 
essay, The Kabyle Berbers, AQIM, and the search for peace in Algeria. (You 
could try using search words like these, for example: AQIM, 
Kabyle, Berber, history, Tuareg, tribe, tribal conflict, culture, etc — 
or use your imagination). In addition to noting what is not discussed, 
note also how Rodriquez’s threat-centric context surrounding the words 
always pops up. Compare the sterility his construction to the richness 
of Ahmed’s analysis, and draw your own conclusions.  Bear in mind AQIM 
is just one entry in Africom’s threat portfolio. What do we not know about the 
other entries?
As Robert Asprey showed in his classic 2000 year history of guerrilla wars, War 
in the Shadows, the most common error made by outside interveners in a 
guerrilla war is succumbing to the temptation to allow their “arrogance of 
ignorance” to shape their military and political efforts.
Notwithstanding the arrogance of ignorance being reaffirmed in 
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, it is beginning to look like 
Asprey’s timeless conclusion will be reaffirmed Africa.
Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon and a 
contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published 
by AK Press. He be reached at [email protected]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to