Questions Surround Third U.S. War Theater: AFRICOM

(SALEM, Ore.) - Americans are keenly aware that their national and state troops have been engaged in bitter, protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. But few are equally knowledgeable of the third U.S. war 'theater' as they are known, in Africa.

In recent years, American corporate interests have completely invaded the infrastructure of the African continent. It happened with the assistance from the last Presidential administration, and the timely distraction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not colonizing, but the United States, now in all but one of Africa's 56 countries, has sewn the seeds of its interests. Regions known to contain sought after material like uranium, are now fully open to American exploitation, thanks to all of the signed agreements.

Morally bankrupt American companies like Monsanto are being set up to force their "mad scientist" seeds created in labs to replace natural seeds and food products, on poor farmers who already have no other option.

The United States proved to the world with the invasion of Iraq, that it is willing to start and conduct war for the sake of business. The nation's last leaders demonstrated that the U.S. is completely unpredictable, and capable of launching world level conflict against a nation that is absolutely a zero threat to the U.S. That nation is the broken country known as Iraq.

A place where America paid its enemies, then stopped paying them as soon as the limelight from the positive press of a "surge" was over. I was in Iraq during the end of the surge and it wasn't exactly pretty.

Exclusive Salem-News.com video: Sudan of rioting in al Fashir,
after U.S. backed reelection of genocidal henchman al Bashir

Talk about disillusioned people; welcome to Baghdad, where Sunni and Shi'ite people were divided by Uncle Sam and forced to carry ID defining their religious sect as walls were erected between neighborhoods, dividing the populace for the first time in history. This will undoubtedly go down as an example of how unsafe it is for the residents of any country to believe promises the U.S. makes. The American notion of liberation, is simply a death sentence to hundreds of thousands.

If I lived in Africa, I would be concerned, especially with the history of the U.S. adopting, funding and praising allies like Hussein and bin Laden, before turning around and bombing them into submission. Hell, the U.S. even suckered Iraq into invading Iran during the 1980's; that led to the deaths of countless thousands and years of violence and unrest between the two countries. Some track record, and it continues.

The United States recently refused to aid Hmong refugees in Thailand, who helped the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Also, the first Bush turned his back on the Kurdish people after encouraging them to revolt during the first Gulf War. Of course most Americans called Saddam Hussein's retaliation against them a war crime, but he never came close to killing the number of innocent people that Bush has his name fixed to.

Now, as the U.S. inserts its military presence in Africa, something vital is missing. Traditionally the Americans are only there to help the oppressed, the populations of the needy, or so we are raised to believe. Today there is plenty of American help; help for its greedy corporate layout, help for the shareholders, help for the top 2% of the country's wealthiest citizens. They aren't complaining about this extreme yet quiet American presence in Africa.

Today in Africa, children are still starving, AIDS is raging, people are dying in genocidal violence, and the U.S. is backing political henchmen, seriously scary stuff. But, we have our access to uranium and other African resources well under control.

The needs of the American business world, "American interests abroad", are clearly accounted for.

Most Americans are unaware of the massive political unrest that is violently claiming the lives of hundreds of people on the African continent every day. Our African Affairs Correspondent Alysha Atma has been covering the Sudan elections through contacts on the scene, and the ensuing attack of demonstrators who decried the supposed U.S. funded 'reelection' of the country's genocidal Dictator al-Bashir. It is horrible, tragic and systematic. Troops were going house to house to try to learn who in a particular city, had sent the photos out to Salem-News.com.

The history of genocide in Africa in recent years, can largely be attributed to the European colonization of yesterday. It was Germany that first moved into Rwanda in the late 1800's. The Germans sided with the lighter complected Tutsi people, and helped them on several occasions to fight uprisings from inhabitants who were Hutu. By 1933, residents had to carry ID cards that designated their tribal status.

1933; a year forever associated with the launch in Germany, of the Third Reich. By this point in Rwanda's history however, Germany was out and Belgium was in. That had come about as a result of Germany's loss of WW1. Still, the light skin people of Rwanda were favored by the Europeans, and animosity naturally grew.

Interestingly, one of the tragic realizations of the U.S. war in Iraq, is that residents in Baghdad suddenly, for the first time, had to carry ID cards designating them as Sunni or Shi'ite. Iraq, where dozens of civilians continue to die in mass suicide bombings. Baghdad, a city divided with huge walls installed by American contractors, to divide the residents by religion. It obviously didn't help Rwanda, where multiple genocides have taken place in recent years, some of the most horrific attacks on civilian populations in recent history.

According to the U.S. government, the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) was installed to broaden American ability to bring peace to Africa. So far it hasn't worked for a lot of Africans.

In fact, since the 6 February 2007 launch of AFRICOM, the United States has actually 'taken sides' in this continent's complex political upheaval, and the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, decided to back the election of Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir (Arabic: عمر حسن أحمد البشير‎), the 'president' of Sudan and the head of the National Congress Party.

Right on cue, demonstrations in Sudan that called foul on the nation's elections, perceived as rigged, were attacked by forces loyal to Bashir. Salem-News.com was the only agency in the world who had someone on the ground there, the photos and video were taken as demonstrators were under attack.

When former U.S. President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the creation of U.S. Africa Command, they said the decision was the culmination of, according to the AFRICOM Website, "a 10-year thought process within the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledging the emerging strategic importance of Africa". The command operates under the leadership of General William "Kip" Ward^[1].

The statement recognized the need for "peace and stability" but also noted the importance of, "the interests of the U.S. and international community". There had only been a U.S. presence in three locations on the African continent. Now there is reportedly a cooperative agreement between the U.S. and all nations there except for Egypt.

"The creation of U.S. Africa Command enables DoD to better focus its resources to support and enhance existing U.S. initiatives that help African nations, the African Union, and the regional economic communities succeed. It also provides African nations and regional organizations an integrated DoD coordination point to help address security and related needs."

"Security" to a Palestinian or a Baghdad resident, can carry sinister overtones. It is another simple term for enhanced military presence.

According to a mission statement approved by the Secretary of Defense in May 2008:

"United States Africa Command, in concert
with other U.S. government agencies and
international partners, conducts sustained
security engagement through
military-to-military programs,
military-sponsored activities, and other
military operations as directed to promote
a stable and secure African environment in
support of U.S. foreign policy."

U.S. foreign policy of course is of a different nature than in previous years. Today it involves unilateral strikes on nations like Iraq, constant posturing toward unproven and undocumented threats of alleged nuclear weapon development in Iran, two million dollars of U.S. taxpayer support for Israel every day as that nation/state systematically attempts to eliminate the native Palestinian people from their own land, enacting and increasing apartheid laws clearly in violation of countless international laws.

That, is U.S. foreign policy these days. Along with Scott Gration's backing of al Bashir. It hardly seems like advocacy for Africa. Based on the history of western influence here, it is hard to visualize where an American presence that is so military in nature, could be the needed answer.

And it is important to remember that Africa is a vast, diverse place. There was dissent over the formation of AFRICOM, and one nation against it was Nigeria. STRATFOR reported on 14 December 2007 that Nigerian President Umaru Yaradua yielded on his government's opposition to the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

On 15 May 2009, Online Journal reported from Asmara, Eritrea, that, "The USA African Command (AFRICOM) is building their new African megabase in the tiny Horn of African country of Djibouti. The first phase is costing $2 billion, according to reports, and eventually another $4 billion will be spent. This latest expansion of USA imperial might, this time on African soil, is turning into a fiasco for the Pentagon and US State Department."

The Online Journal reporter, Thomas C. Mountain, considered himself 'the last white man living in Eritrea' just one year ago,discussed how Ethiopia, with the USA’s instigation and funding, "invaded Somalia in Dec 2006 after the Union of Islamic Courts began to defeat the Ethiopian/USA-backed Somali warlords and started to build a new government is Somalia for the first time since 1991."

The article cites how almost no one in the West seems to know that Ethiopia, equipped and funded by the USA and other Western countries, started a war with Eritrea in 1998 and carried out an invasion of Eritrea in 2000 in an attempt to regain their former colony^[3].

The deal for Ethiopia? With a little help from the West and particularly the USA, gets a major port and international airport in Assab. This is a strategic location, situated close the entrance to the Red Sea. Under the arrangement, Ethiopia regains the use of Port Assab, something dear to the heart of Ethiopian nationalists.

"Prior to the creation of AFRICOM, three Unified Commands had divided responsibility for U.S. military operations in Africa. The United States Navy´s Naval Postgraduate School noted in January 2007 that U.S. policy towards Africa, at least in the medium-term, looks to be largely defined by international terrorism, the increasing importance of African oil to American energy needs, and the dramatic expansion and improvement of Sino-African relations since the turn of the century." ^[4]

Huffington Post writer Charles Rukuni, reported in January 2009, that Obama had a lot of eyes from Africa watching, and waiting, to see what this black U.S. President held for them in terms of real promise^[5].

In his article, “Understanding AFRICOM” Author Bryan Hunt, said, "the real objective is the procurement and control of Africa's oil and its global delivery system."

In the same article, US foreign policy towards Africa according to Letitia Lawson seems to be largely defined by "international terrorism, the increasing importance of African oil to American energy needs, and the dramatic expansion and improvement of Sino-African relations".

Alexander von Peleske said the establishment of AFRICOM means that U.S. consumption of African oil will rise from 18 percent, to 25 percent by 2015. The specific information is attibuted to the African Oil Policy Initiative Group report.

It is hard to get excited about practices that so closely resemble the exploitation of yesterday. This is an informational report, meant to serve as an introduction to Americans who know nothing about their nation's current role in Africa.

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the U.S. Army and the Marines.

Tim holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year (2004), first place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Serving the community in very real terms, Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website. You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Randy Cadnau May 20, 2010 1:55 pm (Pacific time)

In regards to northern Mexico as including the area that the states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California (and Nevada) occupy, that is pretty much a no starter. Have you researched what the population of this area was prior to western expansion? What type of development it had? Past Russian occupation in the California area? Well, really no Mexican population to speak of. Most of this area was desert, thus no agriculture, nothing of any consequence. Mexico sold us a desert for a remarkable profit for that time period. Try doing research on the different water projects that were built for the Imperial Valley and southern California, and other parts of this referenced area. Sure, now that it's been developed, you have people who say it's their land and they want it back. The entire planet is made up of different borders that some like and some don't. Wars and treaties do that. I guess we could put it up for a vote about who owns this land now, but then, why? Mexico going to make a formal request to have the land returned? I read where the visiting president of Mexico called the recent Arizona law on immigration, which is a rewrite of federal law, was descriminating. So maybe some journalist should have asked him to explain their illegal immigration process. Follow the money, in this regard, consider how much of our money is taken out of circulation here and sent to Mexico by illegals and green card holders. Doesn't help us in this serious economic downturn. We need as much of our money circulating within our economy.

Ersun Warncke May 20, 2010 6:35 am (Pacific time)

Sam: I was actually alluding to the Spanish-American War, although there have been a few military adventures involving Cuba since then. As far as the invasion of Mexico goes, I refer to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California - all previously known as "Northern" Mexico. Neither of us were alive then, so the history books are as good as it gets. I will be happy to stand on the opinions of Abraham Lincoln who declared in Congress that the invasion of Mexico was an illegal aggressive war instigated in violation of the Constitution without a Congressional declaration of war.

Dexter May 19, 2010 10:14 pm (Pacific time)

Sam: I'm writing a nice long story to re- educate your rather amusing ( badly informed) hypothesis of the British people. I find it hugely amusing that I can now put you in the spot light due to your ignorance in this little history lesson you are obviously misleading due to blind ignorance!. People like you make me thrive on writing on such stories. Again you showed a tipical one bias mature comments ( coming from a guy that should be old enough to know better). Goodie. Maybe you can talk to the people that have given me the information to deflate your rather inferior complex. If you know your history that well?, then don't forget we were pretty occupied taking on the French and Spanish while trying to take over your country ( that was occupied by Europeans to begin with.. What nationality are you originaly from Sam?) Thank you Sam :) god bless America. Here is the link: Great Britain, Still a Real Contender in African Affairs - Dexter Phoenix Salem-News.com.

Sam May 19, 2010 6:35 pm (Pacific time)

Dexter your view on my country is nothing new. Pretty sure that I first went to Africa long before you were born, and have probably also spent more time there than you have been alive. In regards to the "world history" education our students receive here, well I imagine that is quite varied as no doubt it is in the UK as per your stated knowledge on Africa and your assessment of what we have been doing there. Compared to many Brits I have known for close to 50 years, that I first met in Africa, their view is remarkably much different than yours. Field experience is very educational Dexter. In regards to arms-dealing, after most conflicts I was in, we found mostly arms from Russia, and as the years went by, China. U.S. arms were brought in piece meal at first, and have increased over the years, but represent a tiny percentage of the total small arms there. As far as the UK military, I have never been impressed by your leadership, but when your military comes under our guidance, they perform well, and are nearly as good as the Aussies. Historically it is well documented that the UK has never done well militarily when they face those with equal military power. It was relatively easy for a poorly armed American Revolutionary to route the so-called best military in the world. Had we not provided assistance to both the UK and the Soviet Union through our huge military assistance program back in the 1930's/40's, you both would have ceased to exist. Maybe we wouldn't have this horrible oil disaster caused by BP? Of course we are glad to have the UK military come around and pull their fair share, hopefully that will happen soon, but unlikely. Your military is like your economy, trending downward. Maybe that's why so many Brits are leaving for other parts. In fact I just hired a nice Brit couple for bi-weekly cleaning services, and so far have been impressed. Dexter are you familiar with our Peace Corps that has been in Africa for nearly 50 years

Sam May 19, 2010 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King I have not read the articles, nor do I have any first hand info about Sudan other than from former associates who spent some time there. They asserted that we should provide assistance, but keep our military out of there.

Tim King: OK Sam, thanks. Just please understand that everyone here has good intent, thanks.

Dexter May 19, 2010 3:07 pm (Pacific time)

SAM MAY: Oh really, have you actually been to Africa or worked there?. I would say American education on anything out of the States is extremely bias and one sided to say the least. Already Europe and much of the rest of the world are still scratching their heads on what kind of world wide history you lot have been studying?, you are also very well known to manipulate and make up such crap about the rest of the world, that it's starting to confuse your own kids. Britain still has huge ties to Africa, and has been involved in that area of the world more so than most other countries, making us very "educated" when it comes to this subject. I also I am sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the "foreign" people that are working in Africa are "NONE" American. So that just shows your arrogance in this whole matter. Also set your facts right, their are oil companies from all over the world including the States!!! That are stationed in Africa. It’s so easy to point a finger at the past, just so you can cover "your" asses now that you have taken over the so-called chalice. America is doing quiet a nice job of taking over Britain’s past cock ups (even though a lot of it was very successful, and made Britain a very wealthy and powerful country). Most Americans have no idea what is over the Atlantic let alone world wide politics, so do not make me laugh about your red neck one sided prejudiced opinions on such an intelligent matter like this. I would say this has got to be one of the most insulting dumbest comments I have ever read from an American. This just proves a point about what I have been saying all this time. A scary thought that people like you, and think like you, now want to rule the world. Oh by the way, what cock ups have Britain done in helping support you in nearly all your military operations?. So far from most of the American Military I have spoken to, they are very happy and pleased for us to be on their side, let alone supporting them, and the strong ties that America and Great Britain has had together for so many years. All have given a huge thumbs up when it comes to are military.

Dexter May 19, 2010 2:41 pm (Pacific time)

An Africanist: QUOTE: Hey Dexter, open a history book. The French and Dutch have been in Africa longer than the US (by a century) An Africanist: QUOTE: Hey Dexter, open a history book. The French and Dutch have been in Africa longer than the US (by a century) Did I mention how long those countries have been involved in those areas?!. I also know Britain has been involved for a very long time when it comes to Africa's history and politics. I also forgot to mention the Portuguese as well (I do apologies Mr Africanist!). I am just stating the fact that America tries to make any excuse to intervene when it comes to their own financial interests. America does not care about the plight of Africa; they are more concern in making huge amounts of profit in arms dealing, and draining the resources (legal and illegal) out of any country that they deem fit in to inflating their war chest, as well as their bank balance. Read your history about America's clandestine operations in to manipulating worldwide politics to gain wealth, control and power “including Africa”. The political involvement they have had in Africa is also very familiar to South America "HENCE" the comparison in their dark deep motivation in being involved in this situation with Africa.

Sam May 19, 2010 11:57 am (Pacific time)

My previous statement: "Academics spend a lifetime studying just a small portion of Africa and then still acknowledge they know very little. Of course you will always have plenty of people who claim expert knowledge, and many of those have spent little time on this massive continent, and some, none at all. Suffice, "agenda-driven" just don't like the facts that conflict with their ignorant fantasies." I base the above on actual field experience. You'd be surprised how many Phd's are recognized as experts whose only experience in Africa (and other foreign locations) were brief stays in luxury hotels coupled with some cocktail chatter with some locals. Then you have the college students who listen to lectures by these people and become inculcated with very poor and misleading information. I have spent time in some countries and felt I knew what was going on, then after going back a number of years later found that I was too quick to judge. I find it interesting that someone actually wrote about our invasion of Cuba. So when did this take place? Talking about the Bay of Pigs? Was this person even alive during this period? Go read some newspapers from that time. Maybe get some info on our so-called invasion of Mexico also? Has this person even been in Africa? Asia? Unlikely.

Tim King: Are you the same Sam who wrote negatively on our reporter Alysha Atma's articles about Sudan? The one I accused of working for the al Bashir government? I know the IP is different, but shoot straight with me so I know who I'm dealing with, thanks.

An eritrean May 19, 2010 9:02 am (Pacific time)

Tim well done!!
this guy has no clue. pentagon asked our country to have a base and we said no that's why they have now a base in djibuti. Tim i want to invite you this link, its an interview with our president by Gulf news, its intresting, if you have time watch it.
gulfnews.com/news/region/eritrea/we-have-no-deal-with-iran-eritrean-president-1.616423

Tim King: Thanks to both you and Ersun

Ersun Warncke May 19, 2010 10:29 am (Pacific time)

"Diplomacy, development, and defense..." that is a nice slogan. From a government that calls most of its wars peacekeeping missions it is a bit difficult to take seriously. Excellent article Tim. If history is any guide, what starts with political interference, giving weapons and money to one group or another, targeted assassinations, etc, sows the seeds of conflict that can be used as justification for full scale invasions at a later date. That U.S. government has been engaging in that pattern of conduct since the invasions of Mexico and Cuba, right on up to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. On a side note, to say that the military is not controlled by and totally subservient to corporate interests is an absurdity, as long as the military is still subject to civilian control. The chain of command ends with elected officials, and they belong to corporate interests, so as Tim says: "follow the money." While you're at it, don't forget about the revolving door for top military officials, especially those with contracting authority.

An eritrean May 19, 2010 8:33 am (Pacific time)

hey an africanist Omg, you people are crazy, don't relay on western media, who told you there are terorists in eritrea, go and see, there is one country who fights terorisim by its own, that is eritrea, the safest,new, and independent country, way before 9/11, in 1993 we declined the terorists to enter to our country, and we reported to the international community, read the hitory, no one took it serious.

Sam May 19, 2010 7:36 am (Pacific time)

To Africanist: Good overview. Back in the early 1970's a number of us who served in Vietnam together (1960's) went to different locations on the continent and provided training for several democratic-oriented groups. One of our biggest rivals (and very violent) were Russian-backed Cuban military personnel, who actually got there in the early 60's. These were very violent times over there, and unfortunately revenue and logistic needs were not being met to help turn back the truely evil forces at work there. China is a major player, and they represent the most dangerous barricade in helping this part of the world to gain independence from outside forces. The Brits caused so much damage over the centuries. The Brits have truely been the world's most malovolent entity, and the current oil disaster BP has caused, coupled with their lame excuses and elitist attitudes clearly demonstrates that we must sever all ties from them in the energy field, and even joint military operations. They actually hamper us to a very high degree. It's amazing how incredibly ignorant people are about this part of the world and who also fail to realize the incredible danger different countries there present to us in the not too distant future. Academics spend a lifetime studying just a small portion of Africa and then still acknowledge they know very little. Of course you will always have plenty of people who claim expert knowledge, and many of those have spent little time in this massive continent, and some, none at all. Suffice, "agenda-driven" just don't like the facts that conflict with their ignorant fantasies.

Editor: Well you would probably be able to convince people of all types of things with scare tactics. Africa is a place that has been terribly manipulated by the colonizing nations. My point is that Africa needs food, medicine and education. People in some cases need infrastructure, in other events they simply need to be left alone. I've seen poverty and the heavy handed results of relying on the U.S. for help, it is a joke in this world and that, sadly or not, is an established fact.

An Africanist May 19, 2010 3:24 am (Pacific time)

The problem with this article is providing broad generalisations to a complex problem. The obvious anti-militarism of the author reads like a op-ed from Al-Jazeera or public statement from Al-Qeda. Having served in both Iraq (even during the "surge") and in Africa I can say that the goal of AFRICOM is decidedly not to take over the vast mineral wealth of the continent of Africa to satiate the desires of business fat-cats. In reality the only polity that is unashamedly persuing that aim is China. Go to almost any market in Africa and you will see cheap crap with the 'Made in China" mark. Look into the commercial contracts with China and their ultimate aim is to exploit the resource and leave the host nation high and dry; like Congo-Brazzaville where the Chinese have agreed to build a railroad... but only to harvest the timber and only with their workers. United States Foreign Policy consists of Diplomacy Development and Defense. Notice that there are two other terms before Defense. These entities (who consist of many govenment agencies Dept of State, Dept of Justice, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Agriculture, CIA, FBI, DEA, Peace Corps, USAID, CDC; just to name a few) have been on the continent long before the establishment of AFRICOM. So in reality AFRICOM is coming late in the game, and since the US Military is civilian led it takes direction (orders if you will) from the president and chiefs of staff not as the author alludes from Big Buisness. Additionally There is a special job outside of the Unites States called Ambassidor. In Africa NOTHING is done without his/her approval. And his job is responsible directly to the President. So its easy to say that with the establishment of AFRICOM the US Military is trying to implement a Military take over of the continent. The move was actually to provide a unity of command and therfore a focus on an area that has been ignored, exploited and yes, enslaved for centuries.

Tim King: Oh yeah, I'm a real anti-militant, what a strange accusation. I imagine you are paid well to spout this stuff off. Beyond the fact that you're listing propaganda right out of a book you lose credibility big time because of your stupid al Qaeda comment. Do you even realize that you can't spell the word? Do you know who created that 'terrorist' group? No. Al Jazeera on the other hand, is a credible news group, and I have had a story on the cover of Al Jazeera's online magazine, damned proud of it too. Oh yeah, the U.S. isn't out to exploit Africa, this country would never do anything like that, right? And I have some beachfront property in Florida for a great price. Try reading the AFRICOM Website; it confirms that the command was set up to ensure U.S. interests. That is how they say it. Even mildly experienced reporters know all they have to do is follow the money trail.

An Africanist May 19, 2010 2:48 am (Pacific time)

Hey Dexter, open a history book. The French and Dutch have been in Africa longer than the US (by a century) and South America is a much different geographical, political and cultural region to provide the general hand wave of "This is hardly no different than what the Americans are doing all over South America". You are right that there are terrorist training camps in the Sahel, Sudan, Eritrea, and Somalia; Drugs are a new threat comming from South America up through West Africa by centuries old trade routes through the Sahara to Europe and the US or from Afghanistan, India China transiting through Ethiopia to Europe and the US, Burkina Faso is a Narco-State and several West African States could follow suit. So why would it not be within the strategic interest of US Foreign Policy to prevent and or destroy these threats to US interests?

Dexter May 18, 2010 8:37 pm (Pacific time)

My Father and myself have seen American military as well as the british get their hands dirty "still" in many areas of Africa. There is a huge interest in the Oil, Gas and mineral reserves over there thats just to enticing for those countries to ignore. I have also known that the French and dutch are also getting themselves rapped up quiet nicely in there. This is hardly no different than what the Americans are doing all over South America. You would think after all the cock ups from the past, with the CIA trying to manipulate African politics, would have been enough to put them off in being involved in such a thing. I know exactly what kind of excuse will be coming out of this one... " terrorist training camps", and "Drugs".

[Return to Top]

Questions Surround Third U.S. War Theater: AFRICOM

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News