http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67844/jonathan-stevenson/africoms-libya
n-expedition

AFRICOM's Libyan Expedition

How War Will Change the Command's Role on the Continent 

Jonathan Stevenson 

May 9, 2011 

Operation Odyssey Dawn will make life even harder for the U.S. Africa
Command.

Until Operation Odyssey Dawn began in Libya on March 19, U.S. Africa Command
-- the United States' newest combatant command, established in October 2008
-- was largely untested. There was reason to worry that AFRICOM, which would
lead the operation, was too green, and its mandate too soft, for it to
perform up to U.S. standards. 

Email

Share

Comment

Yet in launching the U.S. intervention in Libya, AFRICOM, led by its
commander, General Carter Ham, acquitted itself well. On the first day of
the operation, it coordinated the combat operations of 11 American warships
and dozens of aircraft, fired 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and delivered 45
Joint Direct Attack Munitions to ground targets. By March 23, AFRICOM-led
coalition forces had steadily expanded the no-fly zone from northwest Libya
and parts of central Libya to the entire coastline. And on March 26, AFRICOM
began coordinating operations to destroy armored vehicles, effectively (if
not with specific intent) providing close air support to rebel forces.
AFRICOM lost only one aircraft -- an F-15 fighter that crashed on March 22
due to a mechanical malfunction -- and suffered no fatalities. 

There was, however, political backlash to AFRICOM's active fighting role in
the conflict. Although the three African non-permanent members of the UN
Security Council -- Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda -- had acquiesced to
UN Resolution 1973, the bill that green-lighted the intervention, the
African Union unequivocally opposed it. After the campaign began, the AU
even tried to arrange a cease-fire, under which Libyan leader Muammar al
Qaddafi would have opened channels for humanitarian aid and undertaken
negotiations with the rebels but would also have been allowed to stay in
power. 

Qaddafi, of course, had been the driving force behind the creation of the
AU, in 2002 (an effort he hoped would revitalize his geopolitical
relevance). Many African leaders, from relatively enlightened ones such as
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni to incorrigible rogues like Zimbabwean
President Robert Mugabe, could well view Operation Odyssey Dawn as a
harbinger of new liberal interventionism in Africa, and AFRICOM as its
principal instrument and a potential threat to regime security. Now,
especially if NATO and the Obama administration eventually use ground troops
to ensure Qaddafi's ouster, as retired U.S. Army General James M. Dubik
suggested it should in an April 25 New York Times op-ed, AFRICOM will have a
hard time reestablishing its bona fides with African governments, which were
fairly tenuous even before the Libyan intervention.

Although regaining African countries' trust will be difficult, it is not
impossible. 

AFRICOM was created for relatively banal bureaucratic and planning reasons
-- to bring U.S. military activities in Africa, which had been inefficiently
divided among three existing commands (European Command, Central Command,
and Pacific Command), under a single one. But an awkward Pentagon rollout
seemed to suggest that it would entail increasing the number of U.S. bases
in the region and an intensification of military activity there. In
particular, in 2007, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for
policy, Ryan Henry, noted that the Command "would involve one small
headquarters plus five 'regional integration teams' scattered around the
continent," and that "AFRICOM would work closely with the European Union and
NATO." These remarks planted suspicions among African officials of the
United States' "militarization" and "recolonization" of the continent. 

That perception seemed to jibe with the United States' unabashed interests:
ensuring physical and diplomatic access to African oil and gas, containing
growing Islamic radicalization, and forestalling terrorist attacks on the
United States -- the threat of which loomed larger as al Qaeda established a
franchise in North Africa (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and Somalia's al
Qaeda-linked al Shabab became increasingly aggressive.

Until Operation Odyssey Dawn, however, AFRICOM had managed to ease Africa's
fears. The Pentagon located the command's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany
-- electing to end increasingly fraught efforts to find a continental
headquarters -- and AFRICOM's biggest sustained military effort had been the
benign Africa Partnership Station, a group of U.S. Navy ships dispatched for
six months of the year to train African maritime forces. Its kinetic actions
were limited to scattered counterterrorism efforts in Somalia. Even U.S.
naval measures to thwart proliferation and Somali piracy, Africa's most
conspicuous international security problem in recent years, were assigned to
the battle-tested Central Command (CENTCOM). 

The command's sole ground presence in Africa was the 2,000 troop-strong
Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) in Djibouti, which
operated in permissive countries and through multilateral channels, and
therefore constituted more of a diplomatic asset than a military one. And
much of AFRICOM's time was spent providing technical and financial support
to cooperative governments and helping to coordinate training for the AU's
five regional Africa Standby Brigades -- which are intended eventually to
become the continent's peacekeeping and intervention forces. Though fitful,
these efforts have borne fruit. They culminated in a two-week peacekeeping
simulation held in October 2010 in Addis Ababa, which involved African
security forces, AFRICOM, and European military forces. Retired Nigerian
Major General Samaila Iliya, co-director of the exercise, acknowledged the
urgent need for the Africa Standby Force and deemed the exercise a success.

Although regaining African countries' trust will be difficult, it is not
impossible. In Africa as in Washington, the intervention in Libya is
increasingly interpreted as signifying the Obama administration's shift from
a realist foreign policy to a more idealist and interventionist one. And
France's significant military involvement in Cote D'Ivoire in April, after
Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo's refusal to step down from power when he
lost re-election triggered a bloody civil war, would tend to bolster African
fears of neocolonialism. But influential members of Obama's foreign-policy
team -- including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (and his likely
successor, current CIA Director Leon Panetta), national security adviser
Thomas Donilon, and deputy national security adviser John Brennan -- still
favor a realist approach. The administration should signal through White
House and State Department policy statements that future humanitarian
intervention is highly contingent on particular diplomatic, military, and
humanitarian circumstances, and that the Libyan intervention constitutes
neither the beginning of a trend nor a firm precedent. Secretary Gates
struck the right tone during an April 8 visit to Iraq, when he said,
referring to the broad political support for the Libya intervention, that
"it's hard for me to imagine those kinds of circumstances being replicated
anyplace else." 

Together with its post-Somalia reluctance to intervene in sub-Saharan
Africa, the United States' firm resistance to any impulse to deploy even
military advisers on the ground in Libya may also provide at least partial
reassurance to African governments. More broadly, AFRICOM can minimize
turbulence in its relationships with them by reverting after the Libya
operation to its training and support function -- and executing that better
than ever. A larger budget would be required. Ramped up AFRICOM-assisted
military exercises and planning programs would communicate a commitment to
steady operational partnership. So would funding a long-term self-assessment
of AFRICOM's programs -- something that a recent Government Accountability
Office study found that AFRICOM especially needed in order to serve the
needs of its African partners. Moving AFRICOM's headquarters from Germany to
Georgia or South Carolina, as the Pentagon has planned, might also reinforce
a healthy sense of distance among Africans. In word as well as in deed, the
idea should be to cast the Libyan operation not as a mistake but as an
exception.



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

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/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