U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed a few months ago a plan to form a new African command in response to the increasing strategic importance of the continent in the Global War on Terror. The new command, known as AfriCom, is expected to begin initial operations this fall and should be fully operational in late 2008. The timing couldn't be more critical.
As the United States and its allies keep pressure on terrorist groups in Europe and the Middle East, the activities of radical elements in Africa serve as a sober reminder that the Global War on Terror is not limited to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to analytical reports by Austin-based Stratfor, a private intelligence and counter-terrorism firm, al-Qaeda's operations have expanded from the Horn of Africa into the northern part of the continent, and are likely to spread further unless the threat is addressed soon. Islamic militants of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council in Somalia continue to engage in fierce fighting with Ethiopian troops, a U.S.-led task force is conducting counter-terrorism operations in Djibouti, bombing plots have been uncovered in several African countries, and the list goes on.
Stratfor also says that recent suicide bombings indicate that jihadist warfare, primarily under the guise of the al-Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb, is now being waged on a much broader scale than was previously the case. By establishing a new combatant command in Africa, the United States is hoping to combine the strengths of joint-service military forces with other governmental resources, agencies, and departments to stop the spread of terrorist influence in Africa before it establishes a firm foothold.
Some analysts have argued that establishing a larger U.S. military presence in Africa will only serve to embolden the terrorists who are already there. But the alternative to expanding our Global War on Terror operations on the continent is a much less attractive option. Once terrorist organizations are firmly rooted in Africa, it will be much more difficult and much more costly to dislodge or destroy them. Once a new base of operations is established, radical terrorist groups will use Africa as a springboard for their Islamic movement, working to topple nearby secular governments first, gradually spreading their hatred and subjugation until their ultimate goal of world domination can be achieved.
That is why it is so important, now more than ever, for the new AfriCom to become fully functional as soon as possible, and for it to have the resources it needs to fight terrorists in Africa. The United States and allied nations must remain focused on the larger strategic picture that is the Global War on Terror. We cannot become fixated on Iraq and Afghanistan, for to do so would be to ignore the threats that are gaining momentum in the Philippines, Africa, and other places where radical Islamists are attempting to establish bases of operations.
Now is when we must keep the pressure on, not only in the Middle East, but wherever terrorists seek to set up shop. AfriCom is designed to do just that, allowing us to bring to bear the full power and resources of the United States, so that by fighting them over there, we will not be forced to fight them over here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
As for the utter nonsensical premise that by fighting battle overseas, terrorists will somehow magically be unable to attack us here, not only is there absolutely no evidence to support this mythical fantasy, but in fact, there is substantial evidence that what we're doing in Iraq has made us far more vulnerable and far less safe. According to the president's own NIE report of last April, global terrorism has increased exponentially since 2001, and is spreading rampantly, as a direct result of our involvement in Iraq.
It's time for us to wake up and get real about this. This is no more a "war on terror" than the "war on drugs" is a war on drugs. This is nothing more than yet another way to siphon massive amounts of the national treasury into the hands of the wealthy corporate elite.
In reality, they could never achieve that goal, so our mission has become one of fighting them over there so that they don't attack us over here. You say that we are less safe, but the only way to prove that we are not deterring attacks against the US homeland is for there to be another attack. Surely you don't want that, do you? You call it fantasy, but until it is disproven, that's stretching it a bit.
The NIE report did indeed say that our actions in Iraq have increased terrorism, but it also said that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden radical Islamists who would view it as a victory and use it to further their cause. Funny how that part always seems to get left out of the discussion.
As for shifting national treasure into the hands of the wealthy corporate elite, I would argue that relatively few corporations are actually getting wealthy off the war. Primarily defense industries, Haliburton, Dyncorps (a corporation identical to KBR). But that sector of the economy hardly translates into a generic statement about the wealthy corporate elite benefiting from the war.
For the life of me, I don't get this reasoning. It supposes that we have the entire global population of terrorists tied up in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan and that none anywhere else are willing/able to make their way to the U.S. and do some damage. I find this hard to believe at best.
I love how this argument keeps changing for supporters of the conflict in Iraq. First it was WMD and links to al Qaeda. That didn't pan out, so then it became "operation Iraqi freedom" a democractic beacon of light for the entire Middle East to emulate, so far that hasn't necessarily panned out, so now we're "fighting them over there so they won't follow us home." When the inevitable terrorist attack does again happen in the U.S., what will the next argument be?
I don't dispute that the Bush administration's missions in Iraq have changed, something we in the Army call mission creep. But for the record, the war in Iraq was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from day one when the President announced that "the liberation of Iraq has begun." It didn't change into OIF. And the "fighting them over there so they won't follow us home" theme emerged when we went into Afghanistan, not Iraq.
We can debate all day long, but let's keep the record straight and not distort historical facts.
We can pick nits if you like, but you know as well as I that I am talking about shifting justifications for invading Iraq and what was highlighted at different times. There is no disputing the fact that these justifications have changed from WMD and "next attack being a mushroom cloud" to the "freeing" the Iraqis to now fighting them there so they won't follow us home... which is silly, at best.
Try finding any prominent right-winger still claiming WMD, links to al Qaeda and Iraqi freedom as high priorities these days... it's no accident that we're hearing a whole lot of "if we leave, they will follow us home" baloney from the Right these days... the fear mongoring continues to shift, no matter how implausible.
Since WMD and ties to al Qaeda have long since been discredited, and most ordinary Americans don't spend too much time worrying about "Iraqi freedom," we now have "war" supporters trying out the new mantra of "following us home." Nonsense.
We can't eliminate the risk of attack entirely, but we can reduce the likelihood of another 9/11.
Absolutely spot on, Michael S.
The stupid venture in Iraq by the AWOL in Chief has radicalized a population that now is more hateful than ever.
We aren't "tying them up", we are frigging creating them.
We know that support for Bin Laden grew as long as we had an army stationed in Saudi Arabia, our anti-Soviet alliance with the radical mujadeen was destroyed when we placed an army on the ground there.
And, as long as we are "occupying" Iraq, we are going to be creating terrorists where the population was not previously sympathetic to religious radicals.
The NIE that everyone likes to cite does indeed say that worldwide terrorist attacks are up as a result of our invasion of Iraq. It also says that a precipitous withdrawal would be a disaster for Iraq and would emboldent terrorists who would see it as a victory over the United States. That last part is almost always conveniently left out.
I agree that troops on the Arabian Peninsula increased support for bin Laden, but the Saudis wanted us there because they have relied on the United States for their defense for decades. Foreign policy in the Middle East has been a problem since long before Bush.
I absolutely do believe that "staying on the offensive" against al Qaeda terrorists is the right thing for us to do... which is why I'm totally baffled as to why this administration failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and also to capture the man who actually led the attack against us.
Instead, Dubya, in all his brilliance, looked at the problem of global terrorism and saw the solution in, of all places, Iraq. Now, in his infinite wisdom, Dubya proposes to fix the whole mess with exactly 21,500 additional U.S. troops... who knew it was so simple? Too bad Rummy didn't just add 21,500 troops from the start. He'd still be around, Iraq would be the bastion of democracy only Dubya truly knows it would be, and al Qaeda would have been stopped dead in their tracks!
Such a simple plan from such a simple man.
Another point, while it would be great to see bin Laden do the perp walk, I differ with a lot of folks in that I don't believe it will do anything to help us in the war on terror. His death or capture will elevate him to martyr status, which benefits us not one iota.
As I've also said, the surge troops can't fix the problem in Iraq. They're not designed to. As General Petraeus said, they are designed to buy time to provide the Iraqis the opportunity to get their act together. Even if no one in the government admits it publicly, the Iraqis, and not U.S. troops, are the key to the success or failure of the surge.
One last note (trying to cook dinner for the kids while I do this): the idea of a democracy in the Middle East serving as a springboard for changes throughout the region is a grand and noble one. I don't think there are very many people who had the foresight to see just how difficult it would be. There was some speculation, and there was some reason for hope. I think part of the reason we picked Iraq was that there were so many positives: UN defiance for over a decade, use of WMD against the Iranians and Kurds, iron dictatorship, Saddam hated by a majority of Iraqis, etc. The idea of liberation had some merit, but the sectarian divides among Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds have proven far more severe than most anticipated.
I think, it is a good idea to keep the terrorists on the run, I dont understand when some say, there is no war on terrorists. As long as the terrorists have faces and names, and want to kill innocent people, wouldnt you say , that we are at war against them, as well as their ideas?
Good article Greg, thanks for the inf. I hadnt heard anything about this.
A deferment is a deferment. Never a doubt about his getting a deferment. Never a doubt that he opposed the war in VietNam. Cheney supported the war in VietNam and got several deferments...how does that measure up to someone who climbed over the bodies of 100,000 men on a waiting list to get into the Guard, and then was AWOL. AWOL in wartime is a crime.
Where is the comparison?
And wasn't the AWOL issue disproven with the fraudulent documents at CBS (Dan Rather)? It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember that.