U.S. Army Hones Antiterror Strategy for Africa, in Kansas by Eric Schmitt, New York Times.
FORT RILEY, Kan. — Here on the Kansas plains, thousands of soldiers once bound for Iraq or Afghanistan are now gearing up for missions in Africa as part of a new Pentagon strategy to train and advise indigenous forces to tackle emerging terrorist threats and other security risks so that American forces do not have to.
The first-of-its-kind program is drawing on troops from a 3,500-member brigade in the Army’s storied First Infantry Division, known as the Big Red One, to conduct more than 100 missions in Africa over the next year. The missions range from a two-man sniper team in Burundi to 350 soldiers conducting airborne and humanitarian exercises in South Africa…
Comments
Sometimes it seems we think strategy is employing tactics on a broader scale. Hopefully the US Army is just a small part of broader plans employed in these countries to resolve conflict and defeat criminal organizations.
With few exceptions, it appears that the goal of US strategy is to maintain the status quo. In other words, to ensure that governing powers remain in place regardless of how corrupt or inept they are. It's almost un-American.
I'm no strategist and I don't really know what strategy is. But it seems to me that when faced with a problem, you find or make a tool to fix it. I think what we have here is a tool developed over the last decade and we are looking for a problem to fix with it.
An Army with no mission is an army that is stood down for the peace. So let's go find a mission...
I question the validity of this statement: "Missions that were once performed largely by Special Operations forces, including the Army’s Green Berets, are now falling to regular infantry troops..."
"Falling to"? The Army lacks Special Forces capacity for the missions that need to be done, or the Army is simply creating missions to keep BCTs employed in a manner that makes it seems like it is necessary to retain them?
One important thing to remember before we dash about the globe passing on what we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan to other countries dealing with their own internal, revolutionary insurgencies is this: Those good tactics could not overcome bad strategy in those two places of our own making, and they are equally unlikely to overcome bad strategy in Africa.
There is tremendous hardship in Africa. There is also tremendous bias in governance that leaves large segments of important population groups cut off from governance more likely to serve them well by some artificial state border, or bundled by these same borders under a system of governance that ignores them. But people live on ground with all manner of resources, so these lines are unlikely to change anytime soon. This means it is governance that must change, evolve, to be more inclusive.
Africa does not need more military capacity to enforce systems in dire need of evolution, Africa needs a comprehensive overall to attempt to undue the residual damage of a century and a half of colonialism and post-colonial poor governance.
Insurgency is the demand signal for governance to evolve. If we go in with little understanding of why that demand signal exists and simply work to help the current regime in power suppress that signal we only delay the inevitable and make ourselves a greater target for transnational terrorism in the process. AQ could not have designed a better plan for us to follow if they tried. It totally supports their UW campaign plan and validates their narrative when we do this.
Africa is in a bad cycle of governance that they will be challenged to break free from its inertial forces. We too are trapped in an inertia of Cold War perspectives of the size and role of US military in implementing our foreign policy. I'm not sure which force is stronger, or more self-destructive.
I really believe that the role and mission of an Army is to destroy magnificent things. In war, those are the magnificent things of one's enemy and that destruction is to coerce the political change desired by our civilian leadership. In peace, however, the magnificent thing the army must destroy is itself, even if our civilian leadership lacks the military experience to make that determination and give that order.
Hitman,
I have relatives in the Capital Police !
Concur with you. It's an LEO problem. We have used DOJ and DTRA for nearly a decade.
But, it's not DOS that drives the train and their (ahem) security agents fall short of even protecting the embassy. The Country Team does sadly enjoy pulling chains and disagreeing with "other than State actors" in country.
African dictators will make a mockery of any best attempts at solving their problems. Probably because the very criminals we are out to catch are the local government officials themselves.
In sum, yes, our military prepare and train military. As most African nations LE are based on some colonial structure, men in green seem to fair better in training environments than that of their exotic civilian counterparts.
It is the Country Team (Which often includes the LEGATT) that should be providing the expertise to the pre-deployment team to at least see what the best training scenario would look like and who best to handle it.
BTW, thanks for your service in a place I regrettably once called home !
Stan,
The reason this would be a DOS mission instead of DOD, is DOS covers the Police mission which includes FBI, even though I use police, it's inclusive
of all law enforcement. The Anti terrorism Assistance (ATA) Program which DOS is in charge of covers this. The ATA is made up of experienced law enforcement officers.
Now, I'm not and can't compare Iraq and Afghanistan to the continent of Africa or the countries of Africa, but what I do know as a 17 yr. law enforcement officer from the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington DC is criminal behavior, and criminals, when the actions are placed on display. And as law enforcement officers, we know how to address the criminal behavior and deal with it, that's why law enforcement is successful, unlike the military.
Hey Hitman 483 !
If in charge and sent the DOS in to train Africans would indeed be sad and a real joke.
However, you are correct in your line of thinking where I'm concerned. We, the US Military, are not a Presidential fix it all kit bag. We don't hug babies, we don't do much other than destroy things. It is sadly our forte.
Let’s get one thing straight about the DOS. IF you want police training, you need the FBI or State Partner LEO, not the DOS. If you want to combat terrorists and insurgents, you need the FBI, not the State Dept.
The DOS and the very limited military presence at US Embassies are but a conduit to the real deal.
This author spent more than 12 years in Africa as both a soldier and senior instructor and continues to work same to this day, almost 20 years after retirement.
Please do not even begin to compare Sub Sahara with Afghanistan or Iraq. That is exactly why we are blowing this campaign.
This has to be a joke. The military, specifically, the US Army is coming up with a Foreign Internal Defense(FID)strategy for the African continent. So we are going to mentor, train, and advise different countries National Security Forces in Africa on how to defeat insurgencies and terrorists attacks. OK, we couldn't beat the insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Army is putting plans together for FID in Africa. LOL, I can't wait to see this. US Army conventional forces conducting Irregular Warfare training. This is a lose, lose all day long.
Department of State(DOS) should handle this. Because, it's the police that will be out in front. Once again, insurgencies and terrorists are criminals, not combatants. Organized narcotics gangs, and organized crime have the same makeup of terrorist and insurgent cells. The behavior is the same. It's a shame the military doesn't understand this.
The author is a former Embedded Police Mentor and former Law Enforcement Professional. Assigned to Special Operations Task Force South (SOTF South)from 2010-2012.