AFRICOM - Getting brown people to fight each other over there so we can bring their oil over here

Over at Moon of Alabama b real makes a couple of critical points about AFRICOM's purpose, and about Department of Defense talking points: Africom: Talking Points for Screwing Mother Africa:

(Brig. Gen. Michael A.) Snodgrass stressed the same message at a business expo hosted by AFRICOM near the German base on May 1st.:

“We’re going to take this one step at a time, we’re going to listen to the Africans and take their advice,” Snodgrass said. “At an appropriate time, we will be invited by countries to come to Africa to bring our presence, which then means (there) will be an increase in activity and an increase in effectiveness in our programs.”

As we have documented here off and on following the February 2007 public announcement of the creation of AFRICOM, one thing that its spokespersons, planners and transition team have typically not done is listen to Africans or anyone bringing up things they don't want to hear. It's hard to imagine that changing much at this point, other than trotting out those African representatives already on board and "advising" the U.S. on how to best to go about accomplishing their objectives.

Going from the lineups presented at the various thinktank conferences and seminars, a high percentage of these influential Africans are military officers, usually graduates of IMET or other U.S. training programs.

When General Ward testified before the Armed Services Committee in March, he used the phrase:

… "persistent engagement" five times throughout the 22-page text which emphasizes the long-term focus on building the capacity to help Africans help the U.S. take advantage of Africa's wealth in "human capital and mineral resources."

As would be expected, maintaining control of the perception of AFRICOM is very important in the initial stages of the new command. However, since the official public image of AFRICOM ("a new kind of command" combining humanitarian missions with the pentagon's soft power capabilities to help Africans help themselves) hardly matches up with the command's true mission (secure and guarantee U.S. access to vital energy sources and distribution channels while containing China's growing superpower status), AFRICOM, and everyone involved in promoting it, will remain beset by their own contradictions and weaknesses.

Read the whole article, as well as some of his coverage of what is happening in Somalia, which b real continues to document, providing detailed information and insight.

We see these contradictions over and over. The Pentagon and the State Department continue to deny any US interest in oil or China as reasons for the creation of AFRICOM, despite the documentary trail citing oil and China specifically as the reasons for the command.

The denials saying AFRICOM is not about oil and China are no more convincing than denials that the Iraq war is about oil (as has been openly stated by Alan Greenspan, and implied by John McCain in his statements on energy policy last week). The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of oil on the entire globe.

In his book Blood and Oil, Michael Klare describes the Pentagon's seldom acknowledged oil dependence:

The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there. (p.9, ISBN 978-0805079388)

A friend sent me a link for a CBS segment about AFRICOM training Ugandans to fight in Somalia. The piece was entirely DoD talking points. I even wondered if it was one of the advertisements masquerading as news items produced by the Bush administration: U.S. Reaches Out In Africa Al Qaeda Fight.

American soldiers are training the Ugandans to combat terrorism, CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey reports, preparing them to go to Somalia to fight Islamic insurgents so the U.S. doesn't have to.

…

Al Qaeda and other militants have expanded their operations to Africa. Across the top of the entire continent, rebel groups and discontented youth make ideal recruits-a situation made all the more dangerous by growing American dependence on African oil. It's something the U.S. cannot ignore.

…

The hardest job facing Africom is image-making. In the words of a senior American official, "It's open season on U.S. foreign policy. We have to convince people that this is not some diabolical George Bush plot."

…

To make Africom succeed, the general has to spend as much time being a diplomat as a soldier. If he does it well enough, the enemy gathering in Africa won't be America's alone.

People from Uganda and Namibia have been heavily recruited as mercenaries in Iraq. Many have been recruited for Iraq under false pretences. This is quite controversial in some places. There is much concern about how mercenaries will behave once they return home. Namibia recently closed down and evicted the operations of an American company recruiting mercenaries. This training the US is providing is also suitable for creating an ongoing supply of mercenaries and surrogates for US purposes. And the US will need mercenaries and surrogates if it attempts to control the world by force, as it seems inclined. In fact the rebel groups and discontented youth [who] make ideal recruits - a situation made all the more dangerous by growing American dependence on African oil that the CBS piece describes are far more likely to be ideal recruits for American military aims if they have the opportunity. Al Qaeda is not really popular. Nobody likes outsiders coming in and telling them they are inferior practitioners of their religion. And the Somalis have generally been cool to hostile to al Qaeda. The only thing giving al Qaeda any credibility is US behavior.

In Somalia the US is encouraging one country, Ethiopia, to invade another, Somalia, helping overthow the existing government and occupying the country and bombing civilians. That is not counter terrorism. It is imperialism. Much of it is run out the the CJTF-HOA, being held up as a model and template for the rest of AFRICOM.

But all the US news sources are lapping up the al Qaeda terrorist spin and spitting it back out again, letting Americans think they are being protected from a terrible enemy instead of themselves becoming a terrible enemy of peace, and being conned into endless war of imperial aggression. And the only African voices that will be heard are the ones that have been coopted to replay the Pentagon talking points.

The real promise of AFRICOM is foolery, fallacy and failure, for the US, and for Africa.

Gun toting social workers - partnering with AFRICOM

After writing about how partnering with AFRICOM works, and what it means, in this blog, and at African Loft, and that Djibouti is the model, we hear the same thing from a former commander in Djibouti:

"As CJTF-HOA (Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa) transitions to U.S. Africa Command, it will only enhance their ability to be more engaged and more perceptive as all of Africa comes under one command and one focus," said Helland. "They can combine all of the assets and all of the energy and all of the resources that are available to focus on a unified, coordinated effort across Africa to enhance security and stability and to help the partner nations as they think they need to be helped."

AFRICOM, will be structured as an inter-agency command with State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development officers filling positions usually reserved for uniformed personnel. A great deal of AFRICOM's mission and focus will be determined by the countries in their area of responsibility -- those on the African continent.

CJTF-HOA is positioned to serve as a model for AFRICOM

It was the CJTF-HOA that engineered the destruction of the only functioning government Somalia has had in 15 years. I wrote that the model for AFRICOM includes aid to win hearts and minds, and special forces, to enforce the Bush/neocon military agenda. If you look at the bottom of the story quoting the commander in Djibouti, you will see a list of related articles that indicate the aid activities, and some joint military training with Djiboutians. This is the happy face of partnering:

Related Articles:
CJTF-HOA vaccinates herds in civic action program
CJTF-HOA celebrates school dedication in Ali-Adde
Former commander visits CJTF-HOA, gives insight into future
CJTF-HOA partners with USAID to distribute medical supplies
CJTF-HOA personnel, French compete in Slim Cat challenge
Photos : Admiral Fallon visiting CJTF-HOA
Djibouti air force, Camp Lemonier work to build stronger partnership
Interview with 2nd Lt. Park
Marines Conduct Mil to Mil Training With Djiboutians
Djiboutians delight in the sounds of "Hot Brass"

But the good deeds, music, athletic competitions, and training exercises are only part of the story. The invasion and bombing of Somalia earlier this year was organized from Djibouti, the reason given was an attempt to catch al Qaeda members, although al Qaeda is not popular or welcome in Somalia. From my earlier post Proxy war in Somalia - another great leap backward:

Bush killed dozens of Somali civilians in bombing raids on fleeing civilians in an attempt to knock off a couple of the alleged dastards. He failed, of course; but at least the men, women and children who had their guts ripped out and their heads blown off and their limbs torn from their bodies died in a good cause. . .
. . .
It's "worse than Darfur," says the UN's humanitarian chief, John Holmes.

But once again, terrorism had nothing to do with it, oil had everything to do with it:

Actually, there is no more reason to believe the Bush administration promoted this war, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, 'to catch a handful of al-Qaeda men', than that the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. What has unfolded over the past three months flows from much larger strategic calculations in Washington.
. . .
On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the US oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips.
It was recently reported that the US-backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.

Nigeria has a lot more oil than Somalia, at least from what is known to date. Bush must be thrilled to be partnering with Nigeria. And this partnering is already going on, with Nigeria, and a number of other countries. It was going on before Yar'Adua's visit to the White House. You can see the pictures of partnering at work, training, conferring, and assisting, at the photogallery of the African Partnership Station, the USS Fort McHenry, currently deployed along the coast of West Africa, and partnering with a number of countries. You can type the name of a country into the search box on the upper right of the page, and see related pictures where the APS has visited. I don't know if the USS Fort McHenry docked in Nigeria, but it did engage in some training activities with Nigerian military. AFRICOM is already in the neighborhood.


Note: Thanks to the article by Werther at antiwar.com for the title of this post.

US Embassy in Ethiopia - shaped like a ship?

buildings in the shape of ships

Ethiopia is a landlocked country. And yet the US is planning to build a huge new embassy there in the shape of a ship.

The United States (US) government is soon to erect perhaps its largest single structure in Africa, in the compound of its Embassy in Addis Ababa . . . the four-story building is projected to consume a total investment of 140 million dollars.
. . .
The four-story building, depicting a ship, will be erected right in front of his (the ambassador's) residence, on the vast green area. It will serve as offices to the various bureaus the Embassy has inside the compound.

Consider the following:

• US builds a new embassy in Ethiopia in the shape of a ship.
• The US Navy will play a major part in the new US Africa Command.
• As reported in a comment: Ethiopia desperately wants a coastline & the U.S. probably wants them to have it too.
• Ethiopia shares borders with both Somalia, and Eritrea, both of which have coastlines.
• Ethiopia recently invaded Somalia with US assistance, allegedly to root out terrorists.
• The US is talking about designating Eritrea as a state that sponsors terrorism.

Is the US planning interventions and more regime changes in Africa?

Do the US accusations of terrorist activities have anything to do with terrorism, or are they about something else?

Getting it wrong again, the Africa Command and other US Agencies

A quote from Gandhi: “We must be the change that we want to see.”

From a street mural in Esteli Nicaragua.

Once again the US is getting it backwards. The neocons running US foreign policy like to think the end justifies the means. When people say the end justifies the means, they miss the point entirely.

The means you use determine the ends you get. Military means beget military ends, diplomatic means beget diplomatic ends, violent means beget violent ends, democratic means beget democratic ends. There are a few exceptions, but if you base your planning on assuming you will be the exception, it is the same as basing your financial planning on assuming you will win the lottery.

UPI reports that Africom is seeking 25 percent of the billets in the new command to be filled by the departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services and other agencies. Those agencies, who have generally seen their budgets slashed, are not eager to anti up. Why should they turn over scarce resources to the Pentagon whose budget is gargantuan in comparison to theirs? Supposedly:

AFRICOM will be untraditional in that its staff will focus not on preparations for military action in Africa but instead on stabilizing governments, training their militaries, encouraging their economies and helping governments address destabilizing problems like AIDS and famine. AFRICOM's aim is less to be prepared for military conflict than it is to avert the possibility of it.

Recent actions against the government of Somalia and Somali citizens, and the alliance with Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, put the lie to these claims of helpful intentions.

Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, EUCOM commander appears to understand what is needed. As a member of the US armed forces, I am sure he is doing his best to fulfill his mission. Unfortunately, the mission itself is flawed. As he says:

"Very few (of Africa's) challenges can be solved by the department of the military," Craddock told reporters Friday. "It's Health and Human Services, Commerce, Department of Justice, Energy, Agriculture.

Diplomatic and technical problems need to be addressed with diplomacy and technology. If the US wants to address the real challenges in Africa, it needs to do so with skilled diplomacy, working through the State Department, allied with other departments of the US government who can bring their expertise. The US must show by example it believes in what it preaches. Military assitance yields militarized results.

One way to understand Gandhi's words is that in order to effect change, one must assume the nature of the change one wishes to effect. In other words, the word justify is irrelevant, the means determine the ends.

Dick Cheney - author of death for oil - in Iraq & Somalia

Appreciation to Dr. Doom for the image.

Bad judgment is Dick Cheney's trademark.
. . .
What is always overlooked with Dick Cheney is how he performs when he arrives in his various jobs. The answer is, in truth, not very well.
. . .
An examination of Cheney's career reveals that it is marked by upward mobility and downward performance.
. . .
The issue of Dick Cheney's judgment must be raised because he is the catalyst, architect, and chief proponent of Bush's authoritarian policies.
. . .
It was Cheney, and his mentor, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who convinced Bush to go to war in Iraq.
(from: Conservatives Without Conscience, by John Dean, ISBN 0-670-03774-5, p.159-161)


This is the background on Dick Cheney, as Josh Marshall writes in Vice Grip:

Dick Cheney is a man of principles, disastrous principles.

. . . mistakes--on energy policy, homeland security, corporate reform--abound. Indeed, on almost any issue, it's usually a sure bet that if Cheney has lined up on one side, the opposite course will turn out to be the wiser. Yet somehow, in Washington's collective mind, Cheney's numerous stumbles and missteps have not displaced the reputation he enjoys as a sober, reliable, skilled inside player.

Cheney is conservative, of course, but beneath his conservatism is something more important: a mindset rooted in his peculiar corporate-Washington-insider class.

. . . few groups are so accustomed to self-dealing and self-aggrandizement as the cartel-capitalist class. And few are more used to equating their own self-interest with the interests of the country as a whole.

Proxy war in Somalia - another great leap backward

2006 victory in Somalia of the Islamic Courts

I remember reading or hearing that everything that guns can do for a country, they have done for Somalia. Of course the guns don't get there by accident. And the US is throwing its weight behind expanding violence on the Somalis. The satirist Jesus' General calls the Bush/Cheney foreign policy the "Glorious Eternal War to Resubjugate Brown People", and the more one watches, the more this description appears to be literal truth and not a joke.

Somalia has been a failed state for well over a decade. That is why northern, mostly European countries can dump nuclear and toxic waste off Somali shores, waste that was washed up and strewn about by the tsunami, left to be cleaned up by people with no protective gear.

I remember a couple of years ago I was talking about doing business back home with a Somali cab driver. He said he would really like to go back home and set up a business. But with the endless cycle of war, anytime you establish a business, some group comes along and seizes or destroys what you have built. To try and do business in these circumstances is pointless.

And now the US is compounding the problem, allegedly in the name of fighting Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda has not found a welcome or a haven in Somalia. Somalia is hostile to Al Qaeda. And the US is sponsoring its Ethiopian proxies, an army of Ethiopian Christians fighting Somali Muslims (does the word crusade ring a bell?) trying to reinstall a hated and non-functioning warlord government.

Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda has failed for more than a decade to establish an operational base in Somalia due to the country’s austere environment and inhospitable clans, a new U.S. military report says.
. . .
“Al Qaeda found more adversity than success in Somalia,” states the report by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. “In order to project power, al Qaeda needed to be able to promote its ideology, gain an operational safe haven, manipulate underlying conditions to secure popular support and have adequate financing for continued operations. It achieved none of these objectives.”
. . .
“Al Qaeda is predominately an Arab organization, and Arabs tend to stick out in Somalia, so it’s difficult for them to establish large covert bases. The only thing they (Somalis) hate more than their own homegrown radical Islamists casting themselves as holier-than-thou are foreign terrorists coming in and telling them they are not good Muslims and acting holier-than-thou.”

But this does not stop Bush/Cheney from killing wounding and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. At present the number of refugees that have fled Mogadishu in the last few weeks is around 400,000. The US bombed civilians allegedly to kill or capture the bombers of the embassy in Kenya. As Chris Floyd writes:

Bush killed dozens of Somali civilians in bombing raids on fleeing civilians in an attempt to knock off a couple of the alleged dastards. He failed, of course; but at least the men, women and children who had their guts ripped out and their heads blown off and their limbs torn from their bodies died in a good cause. . .

The Somali "regime change" op intensified last month when Bush's Ethiopian proteges launched a ferocious attack on resistance forces in the capital of Mogadishu. Tanks and artillery rained shells on residential areas, killing hundreds of people and driving hundreds of thousands more from the city. Many fled toward Kenya, where most were turned away, and others were captured by Kenyan security forces and American agents, then "rendered" to torture chambers in Ethiopia. The victims included a pregnant Swedish woman and a New Jersey man.

But don't worry, neither of them were white, so it's OK. If they had been of paler hue, of course, perhaps the Bush-backed bloodbath would have attracted more than a modicum of carefully massaged notice in the American media.

The US bombed civilians, and has monitored the conflict from its base in Djibouti. The Guardian tells us:

The Islamic Courts government was popular in Mogadishu after bringing relative order and driving out clan warlords responsible for 16 years of death and mayhem.
. . .
Washington encouraged the Ethiopian military - at the "invitation" of Somalia's interim national government which was so unpopular it was unable to remain in Mogadishu - to invade and oust the Islamic Courts administration. The new Somali government includes some of the warlords who previously caused so much destruction.

Bush/Cheney will only allow a Somali government if it is composed of these warlords. The Islamic Courts are not a government I would want to live with, but some rule of law, and some order, is far better than none. The Guardian continues:

A report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs said that US and Ethiopian strategic interests in supporting a weak and factionalised government that is far less popular than the Islamic Courts administration are an obstacle, not a contribution, to rebuilding Somalia.

"In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actors - especially Ethiopia and the United States." (emphasis mine)

(added May 17) Its about the oil, the same reason as the destruction and occupation of Iraq. Remember the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law? As Carl Bloice says in US Sponsored Bombing of Somalia: The Hidden War for Oil:

Actually, there is no more reason to believe the Bush administration promoted this war, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, 'to catch a handful of al-Qaeda men', than that the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. What has unfolded over the past three months flows from much larger strategic calculations in Washington.
The invasion and occupation of Somalia coincided with the Pentagon's now operational plan to build a new 'Africa Command' to deal with what the Christian Science Monitor dubbed 'strife, oil, and Al Qaeda'. . . .

Last week came the news that the US now imports more oil from Africa than from the Middle East; with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it - more than from Saudi Arabia. . . .

On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the US oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips.
It was recently reported that the US-backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.