US military intervention, done right, could boost African stability
Los Angeles Times - 7 hours ago
By Michael O'Hanlon
February 16, 2014
For decades, one golden rule has guided America's military involvement
in Africa: Stay out.
Generally speaking, the reason was a sense that the strategic stakes
did not justify the risk. When we deviated from this rule, we often
learned lessons the hard way that seemed to reinforce its validity, as
in Somalia in 1993. And while presidents often profess a stronger
interest in Africa than their actions would imply, they tend to say
such things when not in the White House — witness
Bill Clinton calling the nonintervention in Rwanda's 1994 genocide his
greatest regret as president, or Sen.
Barack Obama calling for more assertiveness in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, or DRC, and Sudan six to eight years ago.
But, in fact, now is the time to reassess this long-standing American
anathema to military involvement in Africa's terrible wars.
At a time of national war fatigue and fiscal austerity, it may be
counterintuitive to propose an increase in U.S. involvement —
particularly military commitment — abroad. And given the problems that
continue in Somalia, Kenya, Mali, Libya, Sudan, the DRC and Nigeria,
Africa does not appear to be an area of opportunity. But, for a modest
investment, the U.S. and other countries may be able to make major
strides toward improving the prospects for peace and stability on the
continent.
France is doing important work in Mali and the Central African
Republic, and the
European Union is planning to help in the latter conflict as well.
Most impressive of all, the
African Union, led by states such as South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya and
Uganda, is making a major difference in Somalia, the DRC and beyond.
But rather than view that as an excuse not to be involved, the United
States should seize the opportunity to contribute to a greater
international effort to help turn Africa gradually from a zone of
conflict to a zone of hope. Doing so will be good for America's own
security and economic interests, as well as humanitarian ones.
Specifically, the United States could deploy a brigade combat team or
one to two security force assistance brigades, or SFABs, making for a
total of roughly 5,000 U.S. troops, to the DRC. This would beef up the
existing U.N. peacekeeping force of just under 20,000 and give it the
capacity to help the DRC get on its feet. The SFAB concept, developed
in Iraq and Afghanistan, minimizes the combat role for U.S. forces
while maximizing their mentoring and training roles (they can also
help with logistics support).
The DRC mission has had recent successes but remains seriously
under-resourced and under-equipped; fewer than 20,000 international
troops are attempting to aid a country with twice the population and
several times the land area of either Iraq or Afghanistan.
In addition, the U.S. could deploy up to several hundred Americans as
part of a coalition team to train and mentor Libyan security forces so
that Libya, which seemed a successful part of the Arab Spring when
Moammar Kadafi was overthrown in 2011 but has since descended into
chaos, can return to a more successful path. The real regret about
Libya should center less on Benghazi — a tragedy to be sure but a
limited one in strategic terms — and more on the fact that we are
losing a chance to build stability in this small but hardly
insignificant state.
Some view Africa as a continent forever mired in poverty and conflict.
But over the last few years, several hopeful signs have emerged there.
Healthcare has progressed, with tangible headway against HIV/AIDS.
Continent-wide, the annual economic growth rate has averaged 4% in
real terms for a decade. A number of countries — roughly a third of
the continent's total — are showing significant progress in democratic
and economic reforms. Civil wars in West Africa and southern Africa
have subsided; estimates of overall death rates from conflict on the
continent are at their lowest since the 1970s. The French intervened
successfully to support a democratically elected leader in Ivory Coast
in 2011. Even Sudan and Somalia have shown progress of late, albeit
limited and fragile.
The U.S. can build on this fragile progress and make a significant
contribution to its counter-terrorism and humanitarian agendas in
Africa with relatively modest effort. We have already deployed a small
contingent to help Uganda pursue the
Lord's Resistance Army, while maintaining special operations forces in
Djibouti to pursue Al Qaeda. The focus of this expanded effort should
work through the U.S. Africa Command to build capacity in African
states through programs such as the Global Peace Operations Initiative
and the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership.
Consider again the DRC. Despite the creation of a rapid reaction
brigade in recent months to strengthen the U.N. presence and take on
militias such as the
M23 group, Congolese forces remain weak. The general absence of the
state in all domains of life will continue to compromise the very
survivability of vulnerable groups such as the young, the elderly, the
diseased and childbearing women. More than 3 million people are
believed to have died in the eastern part of the country since the
mid-1990s.
The best path toward a more hopeful future is a systematic effort by
the United States and other outside powers to strengthen and reform
Congolese security forces. This requires a deployed force on the
ground such as a brigade combat team or an SFAB.
In Libya, the real strategic loss has been a missed opportunity to
help strengthen and stabilize the new government. This mission need
not be particularly large or costly. But the minimalist approach that
the international community has followed has left the country worse
off than it was under Kadafi. Militias roam the streets; oil
production and national GDP are way down; institutions, including
those providing education and healthcare, are barely functional.
As part of a larger international effort, several hundred American
troops in a training role could make a major difference. In so doing,
they could also help reduce the spillover risks posed by renegade and
extremist groups to neighboring countries such as Mali, Tunisia and
Algeria.
To be sure, any stepped-up military involvement — by U.S. forces
and/or other countries — needs to be carefully designed and
implemented. But in countries such as the DRC, the forces needed would
be modest enough in scale that such an initiative would not be
incompatible with the Asia-Pacific rebalance, ongoing defense budget
cuts or even a modestly stepped-up American role in Syria.
And for a U.S. president struggling to find workable big ideas to
inspire his presidency and the nation, Africa may counterintuitively
be a promising place to look.
Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
the author of "Healing the Wounded Giant: Maintaining Military
Preeminence While Cutting the Defense Budget."
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
 Comments 4
Comments (4) Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ
Jimmy Scott at 11:38 AM February 15, 2014
I wonder what resources in Africa the banker media mob wants to steal now.
NO!!!
walkergrega at 8:24 AM February 15, 2014
First, we have not been successful whatsoever with the concept of
"nation building" since the end of WW2.
Most recent examples of this epic failure/nonsense are the failed
nation-states of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Africa, across the board, swallows up interventionist armies /
para-military escapades just as Afghanistan has for centuries. The
"Golden Rule" as expressed in this article has proven itself wise ...
stay out.
The international community's interests/involvement in Africa has
always been economic and nothing more. Enough of mining Africa for
cheap labor, minerals, and cheap goods. Enough of offering
intervention in Africa is in our national security interests...the
mantra for the spilling of our nation's blood and the waste of our
national treasure in the name of our government's terribly ill hubris.
Stick to the Golden Rule - Stay out of Africa militarily. Read the
history and learn something from its lessons.
tommythek50 at 7:38 AM February 15, 2014
The U.S. has done too much since 9-11-01.
Let the U.N. handle this with troops from other nations. Afterall,
the U.S. funds the most to the U.N. and what have they done?
Time we STOP being earth's policeman. We've given enough in lives,
limbs, and treasure.
Perhaps the author could go. It's easy to tell other what to do and
not do it yourself.
http://www.google.ca/gwt/x?gl=CA&u=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ohanlon-troops-to-africa-20140216,0,572595.story&hl=en-CA&ei=p8r_UrrKBMnrsgf6r4HAAQ&wsc=yh&ct=np&whp=3116
--
SIBOMANA Jean Bosco
Google+: https://plus.google.com/110493390983174363421/posts
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B4024D0AE764F3D
http://www.youtube.com/user/sibomanaxyz999
***Online Time:15H30-20H30, heure de Montréal.***Fuseau horaire
domestique: heure normale de la côte Est des Etats-Unis et Canada
(GMT-05:00)***
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.To post a message: RwandaLibre@yahoogroups.com; .To join: RwandaLibre-subscribe@yahoogroups.com; .To unsubscribe from this group,send an email to:
RwandaLibre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____________________________________________________
More news: http://amakurunamateka.blogspot.co.uk/; http://ikangurambaga.blogspot.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment