What seems to be missing in all of this is an analysis of the hegemonic struggle that is bound to ensue between the major powers. As recent events have shown, Russia is working hard at rebuilding its superpower role and China is not the push-over it once was. Rather than pursue a military response to the "China in Africa" issue - which is what AFRICOM is, the U.S. should match investment for investment, help build industries and infrastructure and not just talk democracy. AFRICOM is just creating military bases that will move air strikes from long ranges to "within arms reach". One thing this U.S. administration does well is to say one thing and mean another.

Interesting to read these comments about Djibouti and US military there. I would suggest doing some research on the many and varied projects undertaken by CJT-HOA since 2002 as well as having a look at what had gone on before as a comparison. The attitudes of the people towards the USA have changed greatly!

Having spent ten years in the Horn working with an independent NGO starting the same month as Operation Hope which eventually turned into 'Blackhawk Down", I applaud the new focus and the excellent results I have seen 'to win hearts and minds'. It's the best use of military power I have seen out side of it's obvious involvement in times of war.

All I can say is if this is what AFRICOM will bring then bring it on!

Mixing the US military mentality, with the Rice sisterhood of State Department officials has not been a good mix in preparation for Africom. The US military received marching orders from the President and Sec. Def to stand-up a command. They are doing so, but from the onset there has been a clear lack of communication between State and DoD. Why, probably Assit Sec for African Affairs Jendayi Frazier and her mentor Sec. Rice. Frazier was Rice's student, a whole series of Rice friends, mostly African American woman have now flooded the continent and are US ambassadors--Nigeria, AU, South Africa, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and on and on. Rice has now stacked State with her sisterhood, who are unable to demand respect of mostly gender biased leaders. Former Nigerian President Obasanjo was reported to say that he did not want to talk with the woman (Rice) again. In short, there is no leadership here from the President and he has allowed Rice, Frazier and the lot to make Africa an affirmative action case, when we really need to engage Africans with yes, Africanists, who didn't get their jobs from connections.

What Mr. Arkin conveniently neglected to mention in his blog is that DoD has had an interest and presence on the African continent for some time via EUCOM, CENTCOM and PACOM. The Executive Directive to establish AFRICOM is an initiative to focus our ongoing involvement on the continent and to minimize further dillution of our efforts. Several of the reservations and skepticism against AFRICOM as posted herein, in my opinion, speak more to current critiques of US actions in Iraq and less to AFRICOM's potential for doing some good in a region that has languished for far too long. Take for example the comments about China; China's influence in Africa is only adversarial if we allow it be perceived as such. AFRICOM in conjunction with US DoS, AU, EU and other agencies can go a long way to promoting positive change, e.g. improved governance, security, and economic development. The key to AFRICOM's success hinges on support both inside and outside the Beltway to include partnerships with other agents like China. Having served in the military for 26+ years with some experience in the affected region, the US military doesn't "look for war"; it earnestly tries to prevent it and only engages in it when directed to do so. I don't recall the US military ever invading another country without some political imperative. If the bitter pill in question is war, we should all take a long hard look at the political machine that employs this nation's military. In regards to AFRICOM, this new command is an attempt to build linkages between DoD, DoS, USAID, AU, EU and other potential agents of change. If we as a country persist in allowing chronic cynicism as promulgated by our supposed free press to taint our views, then the failure of AFRICOM will be our own undoing.

The real question the formation of the African Command raises is why the State Department and Department of Defense divide the world differently? It would seem that if we are to have a coherent national strategy then the Executive Departments responsible for the elements of national power should look at the world the same.

So what if the U.S. is going to Africa for oil? What's the big deal about it? As long as they pay for it, I don't see any problem. I would rather dance with an American than Chinese! China kills and jails its journalists. You can't worship freely in China. You must seek permission from the Chinese communist rulers to sleep with your wife. Hell with Chinese! They're predatory, just like any other person. I love Americans. Although they're big hypocrites when it comes to dealing with immigrants, especially from Africa, I admire their values of hardwork and prudence.
I am a Kenyan living in the United States. Were the U.S. to base AFRICOM in Kenya, I will jump into the next plane to go set up a McDonald for the Marines. I will open a big night club for them.

I arrive in the horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) for a one year tour starting next month. Mr Arkin is either reporting on three year old information, or he needs to double check his sources when he states that the command is comprised of "1,800 combat Marines." There are somewhere around 200 Marines there to take care of base security at Camp Lemonier.

The majority of military personnel are in the Navy, to include Seabees, communication techs, supply corps personnel, pilots, ship driver's, and submariner's as well.

We go outside the wire with well digging equipment, not guns. We,(DOD) are a resource provider for the state department and for USAID. State and USAID simply don't have the resources that DOD has, hence Secretary Gates recent plea for more State and less DOD funding in the future. To put it in perspective, the military has more band members then USAID has employees.

The last time Eritrea and Ethiopia went at it, the death toll was 70,000. They could easily do it again in the very near future due to an unsettled border dispute, the fact that they have thousands of combat troops stationed on the border that are so close they can tell what the other is having for lunch. And last but not least, the fact that the Presidents of each country literally want to kill each other.

I'm pretty sure that I have more friends then Eritrea.

Whoops, sorry, just re-read the article, found out they are sending marines.
Needless to say, that changes everything. All good, carry on...

Oh for the love of Christmas, Bill. Is there no godforsaken patch of suffering earth we aren't preparing to fight over? Can't we open a Military Command in Tahiti or something? We could open one in Thailand, I here it's very nice. The Cambodians are a little strapped for cash, they got a lot of beach front, wouldn't cost much to get us in down there...but no.
We aren't going to a tropical paradise.
We're going to the frippin horn of Africa.
The other thing I want to ask you is why is it always the Army that has to fix the planets reeking sphincter when it goes b-up? You'd think that would be States job, since they don't mind the smell, and if they don't know how to set up a command, they certainly employ people who do.
Might as well get something useful for the billion we gave pretty boy and his private army.

Well lets see if the United States is the "inheritor" of the British Empire and Iraq was a redux of the Boer War then the US and China resemble nothing less the Great Powers scramble for Africa. ..hey another reason to elect Obama!!

"The African press has been writing about it as an effort to thwart Chinese encroachment on the continent. Others have speculated about American designs on African oil.

The Pentagon insists that AFRICOM is not about China and not about oil, and not even about war."

Which means of course it is exactly about thwarting Chinese encroachment (the United States only near peer competitor) in Africa: all those precious mineral resources and about oil from the Gulf of Guinea and the Angolan basin to reduce dependecy on Middle Eastern Oil.

For real unadulterated crap, please go to my website:

www.joestalinwasagreatguy.com

voting is free in russia as long as you vote for Putin. United Russia will vote for you if you can't vote for yourself.

Arkin answers his own question, it would seem, regarding the reasons for AFRICOM. The answer is, as Arkin points out, that the Defense Department has the resources, knowledge and experience to establish this new effort in Africa. The State Department simply can't do it, and no ammount of reallocating resources or shifting of paradigms is going to change that.

The fact is that there are real security concerns in Africa, especially the Horn, and a US military presence would go a long way toward stabilizing the region and securing US interests. Of course it will garner oppostion from the usual suspects of paranoid regional despots, jihadi terrorists, and anti-western ideologues. This oppostion in no way diminishes AFRICOM's potential nor should it be reason to restrict or restrain AFRICOM's mandate in the region.

Anyone who has been following recent events in the Horn should know that regional counter-terror efforts have not been adequate at all, with a Taliban-style government controlling half of Somalia and Eritrea acting like an African Iran, sponsoring and supporting the jihadis as proxies aginst their Ethiopian adversaries. Add to this the failure of AU forces to provide a meaningful deterrent aginst genocide and destabilizing civil conflict and the need for a coherent, capable military presence in Africa becomes undeniable.

Gates is right about development in Africa, but that will not occur with "Free Trade". The lesson has been repeated over and over again, that development occurs behind trade barriers. Each nation must control their own economy and development. We can assist them with advise and monetary aid, but it is their country.
Also the military can aid with disaster relief, which is an ongoing need for that continent. The goal is economically, independent states that "determine their own fate".
But, we have to watch carefully, this Administration and any future one so that they will not engage in preemptive wars or uses the military to support multinational corporations in raping Africa.

Perhaps the Cheney/Bush regime has used 9/11 to launch our new "Manifest Destiny": subjugate third world countries with oil resources, in the name of democracy, of course.

Arkin writes:

"And the core mission will be preparing for military contingencies and looking for wars to fight."

Interesting choice of words. Those of us who have served on Unified Commander staffs know the CINCs near total effort is on preventing or defusing wars, for finding them.