US Africa command battles sceptics

[heart]

Interesting development:

US Africa command battles sceptics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7644994.stm)

By Adam Mynott
BBC News

"The new command is headed by a four-star General, William Ward

A new unified United States military command for Africa is coming into full operation amid scepticism about US intentions.

The creation of Africom is recognition by the US that Africa and security issues on the continent are now a priority.

It reflects concerns about tackling Islamist extremism, securing oil supplies, and countering Chinese influence in Africa...(more at link) "

[IlyaK1986]

If we want their resources, we should go and take them. Not protect those ugly people. And if we want to blow a region up, we have much better weapons for that than assault rifles.

[lowtech redneck]

I'm not inclined to view this as some sort of nefarious US imperialism, but I don't think its appropriate to combine separate strategic objectives in this way. Arab/Berber North Africa, West Africa, the Sahel, the Horn, Southern Africa, etc all involve different issues and priorities requiring diverse courses of action. The problems and solutions of Zimbabwe are not the same as those in Somalia, and the Islamic traditions of sub-Saharan Africa (with the notable exception of Northern Nigeria) are quite different from the broadly Middle-eastern culture and institutions of North Africa.

[lowtech redneck]

If we want their resources, we should go and take them. Not protect those ugly people. And if we want to blow a region up, we have much better weapons for that than assault rifles.

Jesus Christ, man...

[Cimarron]

"The new command is headed by a four-star General, William Ward

A new unified United States military command for Africa is coming into full operation..." But...the United States aren't in Africa. :sad:

[Eileen]

If we want their resources, we should go and take them. Not protect those ugly people. And if we want to blow a region up, we have much better weapons for that than assault rifles.

Wow.

[Cimarron]

Come on, people. He's talking objectively (I suppose). A nation could build a policy like he did, but with a million nuances in between, and people would never realize the purpose of the policy.

[Athenian200]

I think it appears to other nations (and it may well be true) that the U.S. is doing this reorganization and escalation of military operations in Africa in order to protect their own interests, at the expense of those of other countries. The main issues motivating it appear to be energy and political influence. I wonder if this could trigger a backlash from other countries? That is my main fear.

[IlyaK1986]

Come on, people. He's talking objectively (I suppose). A nation could build a policy like he did, but with a million nuances in between, and people would never realize the purpose of the policy.

Of course I'm talking objectively. The lives of Africans aren't worth the lives of Americans. If we want to take something over, there are plenty of ways to do that such as economic isolation, cutting off of foreign aid, etc...

And if we want to blow something up, we have stealth fighters and bombs with destructive capabilities ranging from 1000 pounds of TNT to a full out nuke.

An image of a moralistic freedom-valuing nation that none of the world buys anyway is simply not worth the lives of our young men and women on the ground. This is why sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake. Dropping nuclear weapons in suspsected troubled cave-networks would allow the radiation to simply destroy anyone within 100 miles and (hopefully) not hit any civilized (this term is highly relative) populated area.