Open thread … please leave some news or views …
Back to Main
November 2, 2007
OT 07-76
Comments
@ 95 Thanks for the run down b real. I’m always lurking around Moon but have not had much to say.
Your point on African perceptions of Liberia as a colony of sorts is on the mark.
We tend to lump all African states as equal failures and riven with corruption but the historic and political prestige enjoyed by a Nigeria or a S. Africa across the continent and a Senegal or Zimbabwe in localized regions makes a difference with respect to influence peddling. Even the US/EU favored but less controversial New Economic Plan for African Development was adopted baseed on the spearheading support of Senegal, Nigeria and S.A .
Africom will need some major figure to come out for it – I’m surprised Uganda is not on board or at least less vocal. I’m sure Africom will eventually find a home – after all the bases in Kenya and Dji have served well with no major local opposition.
I have a feeling the issue is less about the infrastructure and basing rights than it is on the underlying ambitions of Africom. It may be that the unease and resistance from folks is based on perceptions of Africom as the U.S.’s over compensation for its global set backs and Africom as part of the U.S.’s new vision for the place of Africa in an emerging global order in which U.S. competition with rival powers – Russia, China, Iran etc. – will form the over riding frame work for Africa’s engagment with the globe. Mind you the last time that happened – all of the 2nd half of the 20th century – Africa was pumping out primary products like a continent of banana republics and it was filled with Mobutu look a likes and cold war terror groups.
I think African elites want to play ball – there are no Robbin Hoods – just hoods but even Africom is too “hard core” and passe’.
That’s why the Chinese with all their “socialism with Chinese characteristics” have gotten the forward sounding Go East Policy and support for a multi-polar global order as the hottest debate in African public policy. Ironically they are the new America – how about that for counter-fitting?
Posted by: BenIAM | Nov 6 2007 21:45 utc | 101
My neighbors point out that our property value will increase
symptomatic of the general insanity. peace and quiet gone, trees cut down, ground disturbed, wildlife endangered, yet “value” has increased — some theoretical equity value, imaginary dollars in distant banks, more real than the real conditions of our real lives from hour to hour?
and we shake our heads over the Church’s ability to brainwash people into enduring misery and humiliation today in anticipating of a wonderful future in Heaven “by and by”. what is it that the neighbours are pleased about? if their increased home “value” is sufficient, they will be able to sell and move on to… what? some place as quiet and pleasant as theirs used to be before the bulldozers and concrete mixers arrived?
money seems to have mediated entirely now between large numbers of “civilised” humans and reality. we are willing to lose everything — quality of life — today, for the dream of some imagined better quality of life if we only had more money tomorrow. or maybe it is fear and not dreaming: if we only have enough money we can escape the fear of falling, the fear of getting sucked down into the underclass. and since the capitalist system eats its young, there is never really enough money to allay that fear. so money is always preferable to anything else, because it’s the only and inadequate bulwark against the great fear?
Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 6 2007 22:53 utc | 102
@95
South Africa’s Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota recently defined the refusal to AFRICOM “a continental stand”.
seems like the Africans have almost unanimously lost faitth in the USA as a positive party in Africa’s affairs. Moreover, it seems with the exception of Liberia, no African country trusts Africom to conduct itself properly, if allowed to set up shop in the neighborhood.
so, we’re left with a quarterly-report type approach. Hoping something will give in favor of the Africom narrative over time, eventually. Because it does’nt seem like the Africans are going for it. And the more it turns out that the Africans have made their minds up about Africom, the more useless divide-&-rule becomes.
the condescending approach by Africom may not be its most important feature, but its the one that probably turns the Africans off the most.
and its interesting that much of the perception of Africa is based on some presumptions via class observation. Even though class-structure in Africa are in dissaray, much more than anywhere else on the planet.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 7 2007 0:38 utc | 103
that heavily circulated nov 5th AP story on skepticism & distrust greeting AFRICOM — Skepticism, distrust greet America’s new military command in Africa — was heavily reissued again this afternoon — Skepticism Greets New US Africa Command — w/ some subtle changes, the most significant of which i’ve noted below. (headline dropped the word “distrust”)
nov 5th version
Africans are concerned the new command is an American attempt to project military might, unnecessarily bringing the global war on terror to their own backyard.
They also wonder whether it is a ruse to protect America’s competitive stake in African oil and other resources increasingly sought by rising powers like China and India.
nov 6th version
Some Africans are concerned the new command could draw the continent deeper into the global war on terrorist groups.
Others wonder if it is meant to protect America’s competitive stake in African oil and other resources increasingly sought by rising powers like China and India.
– – –
nov 5th version
Instead, it aims to help Africans “help themselves” through military training programs and support for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations crucial to stability and preventing conflict…
nov 6th version
Its aim is to help Africans with military training and support peacekeeping and aid operations crucial to stability and the prevention of conflict…
interesting that they drop the ‘helping africans help themselves’ slogan.
to quote chomsky, from what we say goes [p. 124]
When you conquer somebody and suppress them, you have to have a reason. You can’t just say, “I’m a son of a bitch and I want to rob them.” You have to say it’s for their good, they deserve it, or they actually benefit from it. We’re helping them.
– – –
nov 5th version
Regional powers including Libya, Nigeria and South Africa have expressed deep reservations, partly because they believe Africom could undermine their authority, analysts said. So far, only Liberia has publicly stated it would host Africom, though even critics like Nigeria welcome the continuation of the American military training programs they say have been beneficial.
nov 6th version
Regional powers including Libya, Nigeria and South Africa have expressed deep reservations, partly because they believe Africom could undermine their influence, analysts said. So far, only Liberia has publicly stated a willingness to host Africom, though even critics like Nigeria welcome the continuation of the U.S. training programs.
big difference between “authority” — as in sovereignty — as opposed to “influence” and dropping the qualifier on nigeria’s interest in military programs is a bit misleading.
– – –
nov 5th version
“Africom is being pitched as a kind of non-kinetic military command,” Shillinger said, “and that seems to be an oxymoron.”
nov 6th version
[excised]
AFRICOM –> moron
obviously someone was offended
– – –
nov 5th version
Other analysts said there has been criticism within the U.S. government itself, notably from State Department officials concerned the authority of diplomats could be confused or usurped.
nov 6th version
Analysts said there has been criticism of the command within the U.S. government itself, notably from State Department officials.
remove context for criticism; easier to pretend it doesn’t exist
– – –
nov 5th version
Africom, he said, would “not be taking the lead” in humanitarian operations or U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it would support them by making available a massive military infrastructure that could help both.
nov 6th version
It will “not be taking the lead” in aid operations or U.S. policy, he said.
after all, whoever thought of soldiers in a combatant command as “humanitarians”? and there goes the reference to military infrastructure, when then implies dependencies.
– – –
nov 5th version
Since 2002, about 1,800 American troops have been stationed in Djibouti…
nov 6th version
Since 2002, about 1,800 American military personnel have been stationed in Djibouti
“military personnel” based on your continent is much more benign than “troops”
– – –
nov 5th version
The U.S., he said, would work with “African partners to make sure the resources that emanate from the continent are available to the global community.”
nov 6th version
The U.S. wants to work with “African partners to make sure the resources that emanate from the continent are available to the global community,” he said.
change from authoritative stance toward one of influence
– – –
nov 5th version
An internal conflict in Nigeria has sporadically disrupted the local flow of oil there, and offshore platforms throughout the region are little-protected and highly vulnerable because most countries have only tiny navies.
nov 6th version
Internal conflict in Nigeria, Africa’s biggest oil producer, has sporadically disrupted the flow of its crude, and offshore platforms along the western coast are little-protected because most countries have only small navies.
wasn’t a good idea to make fun of the size of anothers navy & call them “highly vulnerable” when you’re trying to appear “helpful” rather than conquering.
interesting rewrite & republishing. does this happen often? or did someone command demand it?
Posted by: b real | Nov 7 2007 4:43 utc | 105
In an interview he gave soon after the publication of his book, Wright said that his main aim in writing it was to deglamorize the war — and war in general. The problem with American society, he said, “is we don’t really understand what war is. Our understanding of it is too sanitized.” For the past decade, he explained, “we’ve been steeped in the lore of The Greatest Generation” — Tom Brokaw’s book about the men who fought in World War II — “and a lot of people have developed this romanticism about that war. They tend to remember it from the Life magazine images of the sailor coming home and kissing his fiancée. They’ve forgotten that war is about killing.” In “Generation Kill,” he noted, he wanted to show how soldiers kill and wound civilians. In some cases, he said, the U.S. military justified such killings by the presence of Iraqi fedayeen fighters among the civilian population, but, he added, “when you see a little girl in pretty clothes that someone dressed her in, and she’s smushed on the road with her legs cut off, you don’t think, ‘Well, you know, there were Fedayeen nearby and this is collateral damage. They’re just civilians.'” The “real rule of war that you learn — and this was true in World War II — is that people who suffer the most are civilians,” Wright said. “You’re safest if you’re a soldier. I’m haunted by the images of people that I saw killed by my country.”
…
In his reflections on politics and language, Orwell operated on the assumption that people want to know the truth. Often, though, they don’t. In the case of Iraq, the many instruments Orwell felt would be needed to keep people passive and uninformed — the nonstop propaganda messages, the memory holes, the rewriting of history, Room 101 — have proved unnecessary. The public has become its own collective Ministry of Truth — a reality that, in many ways, is even more chilling than the one Orwell envisioned.