Defense Expert Calls for Thousands of US Troops in Africa by John Vandiver, Stars and Stripes
The U.S. should send a 5,000-strong security assistance brigade to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help stabilize a country ravaged by more than a decade of war, a prominent U.S. military analyst recommends.
In a “memorandum” to President Barack Obama, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution also urges the White House to send several hundred military advisers to Libya to help train that country’s fledgling armed forces.
“The United States should, with a focused effort and in partnership with other states, make a significant push to improve security in Africa,” O’Hanlon wrote in his Jan. 23 memo, which was posted on the Brookings website. “No massive deployments of U.S. troops would be needed, and in fact no role for American main combat units is required. But we should step up our game from the current very modest training efforts coordinated through Africa Command (AFRICOM).” …
Comments
While I am not totally opposed to increased US engagement in Africa or within UN PKO operations, I think that Mr. O’Hanlon is pushing way beyond what is prudent as it’s in pursuit of an unachievable goal and we are not postured to do the job right.
Improve FARDC (DRC Armed Forces) capabilities and professionalism: Great goal, but we don’t have the patients, money, or investment inclination to make it work on a large enough scale (think 75K person military) where it would be effective. We have been involved in building at the battalion level, but the gains are fleeting at best.
Small footprint/5,000 troops: 5,000 is kind of a elephant, especially when you consider the types of logistical/life support that US forces have come to expect. I think in many way we are incapable of doing this type of small operation without bringing massive overhead both physically and with the numerous GO’s that we will no doubt require.
That being said, there are areas where we can add significant value to UN PKO’s in Africa and other places in the world by bringing some of the unique capacities that we are able to provide at sufficiently higher quality/value than other UN contributors. Some of these capacities (think of things like the ability to conduct 24/7 MEDEVAC) actually can be accomplished with small footprints and are generally executed by units who’s skills and missions are sometimes difficult to train in peacetime due to cost or other constraints.
Mr. O'Hanlon's memorandum is a bit confused as far as the DRC goes. On the one hand he notes that things have been getting better as of late and it is time for us to get involved. That sounds like a bureaucratic animal looking to get in there and grab some easy credit. That impression is reinforced by the tone of the piece suggesting that it wouldn't be that hard.
He says the brigade to be sent wouldn't be have much of a combat role and notes the the UN force has had some recent success. He doesn't say that the recent success of the UN was due to their finally deciding to engage in actual combat and kill people.
He says only 5,000 soldiers would be needed but the goal would be to "...help train and mentor a DRC army so that it can gradually replace the U.N. while establishing control over much of the country’s interior (especially in the east)." The Congo has 75 million people in a country the size of the US east of the Mississippi. There aren't any real roads outside a few of the cities. What he proposes so dwarfs what he suggests using to accomplish it that he is either a complete fool, or more likely a very clever inside the beltway denizen who will score a lot of career points by proposing something 'practical' to fulfill the need to 'do something'.
The part of his proposal that does reflect what I consider titanic ignorance (the kind that can get a lot of people in trouble), is his naive belief that mere exposure to American soldier/trainers will make Congolese troops something other than Congolese troops. We could make them as good as anybody probably, if, if we had complete control of their pay, their supply, their deployment, their training and the selection and promotion of officers and NCOs. But that would be in effect establishing a colonial army or constabulary, which wouldn't do anybody any good. Short of that, we would be just be spending a lot of money and end up right where we started, with Congolese troops. Stan has said we've done that often in the past and that is where we end up.
Dinking around in eastern Congo may mean going up against Paul Kagame politically. People like Mr. O'Hanlon are innocent children compared to Paul Kagame. The problem is Mr. Kagame knows that but Mr. O'Hanlon and his ilk don't. If interests clashed, things would be complex.
Mr. O'Hanlon, to the extent his concern is sincere and not motivated by concern for his career should learn that there really isn't anything we 'can do' about the Congo, at least not as a country. There are things we as individuals can do to help individuals in Congo though. And those thing are of value. If Mr. O'Hanlon really wants to help, he can contact Stand Proud ( http://www.standproud.org/ ) an organization that does real work with real Congolese children and youths who are crippled by polio.
If the Chinese have the right to go forth and seek to expand their economy and influence in foreign lands, does not the United States have this right also?
If the answer here is "yes," then is this where "religious fundamentalism" actually comes into play, to wit: as the means and method that native peoples use to deter and defeat such powerful foreign entities, their ambitions and their local government lackeys?
Is the governance "wrong" that the population seeks to "right" the understanding that their local governments now work for and thus seek to accommodate -- not the native peoples themselves -- but, rather, foreign governments, foreign business interests and foreign populations?
Thus when looking for what creates "global strife" today -- as in the past -- should we not point to the wants, needs and desires of the more aggressive (and, seemingly, more needy) foreign countries (ex: the United States and China)?
And not, as it were, to "religious fundamentalism;" which may be better understood as:
a. The reaction of local populations to such great power aggression/ambition/interference and
b. The contemporary means and method that certain populations use to rally their people -- in different corners of the world -- to the anti-foreigner/anti-foreign interference cause?
Different, diverse and disconnected local grievances?
These would not seem to be as likely to both cause -- and drive -- an international "religious fundamentalism" train; nor cause, and drive, the call for thousands of more foreign troops to Africa.
There is little evidence that religious fundamentalism "creates" global strife, though certainly there are reams of evidence that religious-based ideologies are very effective at rallying populations to work together in bringing illegal, and often violent, challenges to systems of governance perceived as illegitimate, tyrannical, or that are very biased in their application of governance.
As to Chinese influence, do not the Chinese have equal right to Europeans or Americans to go forth and seek to expand their economy and influence in foreign lands?
Perhaps the Chinese see significant national interests where, as you admit, the US has few. So it is not enough that we aggressively pursue our own interests, but we must work equally aggressively to stymie others in the pursuit of their own even where we have no conflict?
America needs to focus. If we keep acting like the rest of the world is out to get us, someday that will undoubtedly become true.
While I agree that the US has no significant interest in the affairs of the DRC, or many other African nations, there is more to it. (Isn't there always?) I would say that there are two powerful factors involved in our growing presence in Africa. First, and more immediate, is the continuing spread of religious fundamentalism and the global strife it creates. Second is the growth of Chinese influence and interests in Africa. Western interests need to be in place to balance these two factors. However, I also agree that we are clumsy in our efforts. We would be so much better off, if our efforts were consistent.
There is NO direct interest of the United States in the affairs of the DRC. In fact, there is no direct interest of the US affected by the endless tribal strife between the various criminal and tribal warring parties from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope.
History has vividly demonstrated that we are terribly inept and clumsy at this sort of intervention. It is foreign policy roulette with as usual out of Washington no coherent strategic underpinning. The American public is losing patience with our half-baked military adventures that realize nothing of value for the USA and yet always cost more in blood and treasure than characters such as Mr. O’Hanlon might suggest.