Into Africa?

[hollister]

In this article from the WAPO, David Ignatius wonders if the US has put the cart before the horse in the formation of yet another command.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403562.html

"The growing U.S. military role in Africa isn't a hypothetical issue. In one of the sleeper events of 2007, the Pentagon established a new command for the continent, known as AFRICOM. The organization has a commander, Gen. William "Kip" Ward, but it doesn't yet have a plan for where it will be based or even a clear statement of its role. Right now, it's a headquarters in search of a mission."

Part of the problem is that the US does not have the soldiers to do anything! Unless we activate the draft!

Right now I think the military is so top heavy with higher ranking officers - it is almost forced to form these new commands to have somewhere to put them! Not a good use of my tax-payer money! However, I do think it is wise for the US to be watching Africa - just not sure this new bureaucracy is the way to go.

[valpomike]

hollister,

The troups in the war, and doing a great job, and they were not due to any draft. Were you a general in any war? This could be only what you think.

Michael Dabrowski

[hollister]

valpomike said:

.... Were you a general ....

Why, yes I am a General! How did you know Private? ;D ;D ;D

[valpomike]

hollister,

Is that Gerneral Pain in the Neck? I am not very private, open to all.

Michael Dabrowski

[hollister]

Pvt. Mike,
Here is some data for you from the 12/20/07 edition of Government Executive Report on the budget shortfall for the US Army, which is paying the highest cost of the services for the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the report...."To meet its current commitments, and prepare for any other contingencies, the Army needs to expand, always the costliest line item in its budget. At the same time that it is struggling to recruit and retain personnel, so the per capita cost, including new incentives, is steadily rising. Nevertheless, the overall quality of of the people in the Army is continuing to degrade, so the return on investment isn't what it used to be."

But Bush is attempting to veto the Military Appropriation Bill - so I guess he disagrees with his own report that more money is needed.

Gen. Hollister

[valpomike]

Per you

[bescheid]

I have been some what confused with this information {I had presented this previous spring}{not problem, I am happy you introduced this}.

My confusion has been in the vocabulary used: Is this to remove from the European {meaning Germany} operations centre {Stuttgart} for total relocation into Africa?

usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=February&x=20070206170933MVyelwarC0.2182581

My other basis of confusion is: Is the relocation as is depicted, a soft form of occupational forces?

Africa is of many indipendent nations and of many problems. With many of the international aid organizations, much has been provided to assist in aid to those African nations in need.

But, to place military basis {American} inplaced in specific areas of Africa, is a question mark? For who will benefit, and for what specific purpose.

South Africa was isolated my the American foreign policy some years back with the Apartheid government, then penalized for providing arm sales. Then forced to destroy, rather then place on the international market, a considerable large amount of ammunition {7.62x54}{Winchester 308}at a considerable loss to the firm of PMP {Pretoria metal Pressing} and associated surplus weapons. These have been an on-going destruction process for some time.

Will this be a new form of international police action?

Will Europe be 1st as subjected to this form of policing, then next, Africa? Then the new direction to be? South America?

These are questions, we as people must be concerned of.

Please do understand, my concerns are not a form of American bashing, very far from that. I am concerned at preserving our way of life.

Charles

[hollister]

Charles,
This link may help explain the semi-current DOD command structure (AFRICOM) is not listed yet, probably because a specific location is not yet settled.
www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/

Yes, AFRICOM is supposed to move out of Stuttgart and be based somewhere in Africa - the thought had been somewhere in Kenya - but that seems less likely now.

No, it is not occupational forces - it is a HQ set-up in order to eyes and ears on the ground so to speak if CASE something is needed. The majority of soldiers stationed at one of these commands are desk jockeys.

I think the rational for setting up such a command, is that being" in country" gives us (meaning the US of A) access to better intel - yadda, yadda.....

As far as your worried about policing, Do you fear US European Command? AFRICOM will be the same type of organization.

That being said, I do think it is interesting that the only other country that thought to divide the world up into military areas of responsibilities such as this was the old USSR. One of those things that make you go hmmmmm..

[bescheid]

Holly

Thank you for your very factual post reply. And yes, I do habour some concerns of the evolving scene with world division of command centres, rather it be which ever nation as deemed as dominant.

For every thing, there is a reason, and not always what is apparent.

The problem with the American foreign Policy: It is placed into force, then at end of a given Presidency, it then is changed or simply placed onto the shelf of forget. But, fairly often, the effects are still inplaced for others to deal with.

With this as exampled with the fire storm of missile defense system for installation in Poland. The cause and effect is: The Russian Federation threatening to emplace their missile system pointed into our direction, not at America.

The similar of American nuclear weapons stored in Germany. This in self, placed us as a target.

Then we have the self imposed competition between the American Presidency, and the EU. It is competition rather then cooperation.

Charles