Al Qaeda is still active in East Africa but nobody sets up a combatant command to deal with a short-term problem. Combatant commands are set up to deal with long-term strategic challenges.
Most of your foreign policy challenges stem from your addiction to oil from the Middle East. Africa has a lot of oil, and the US wants to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. Al Qaeda is merely side show.
Have you heard about the Niger Delta militants? There are 14,000 square miles of Mangrove swamp in the Niger Delta and about two million bpd being pumped. There is also a very serious insurgency movement there. A major disruption to oil supplies from the Niger Delta could destabilise the World economy. Also remember that Nigeria is your fifth largest supplier of crude oil.
There is Libya with vast Oil and Gas reserves and Angola (have you heard about the insurgency in Cabinda?). Oil has been discovered off the coast of Ghana, in Uganda, in Chad and in Southern Sudan
The US also wants to be in Africa because the Chinese and Indians are there. The Chinese and Indians figured out that Africa would be a major growth market twenty years ago. America came to that realisation in 2008.
The US is geared up to re-fight the same battles they fought against Soviet proxies during the Cold War. This time, the enemies are the Chinese. The problem is that the Chinese don’t play the same game as the Soviets - they are more focused and extremely smart about it.
First the Chinese understand that this game is more about economics than security as economics drives everything. They understand that the game is not necessarily going to be won by the side that who spends the most money, but the side who creates the most economic opportunities.
For example, Western multinationals have been operating in the Congo for at least fifty years, but have done very little to improve local infrastructure. The Chinese stormed Congo with a massive deal ($9 billion) - you give us mining rights and we provide you with 2,400 miles of road, 2,000 miles of railway, 32 hospitals, 145 health centers and two universities.
The deal staggered the World. When questioned, the Chinese explained that when they opened up their economy, the Japanese requested for natural resources in exchange for infrastructure (China was net oil exporter as recently as 1993).
Think about it, if you were an African farmer, would you prefer to hack your way through the jungle to sell your products or save time and costs moving on a road?
Secondly, the Chinese realise that the Western aid model does not work and they are the first major World power to offer a serious alternative. The Chinese came to Africa with the idea of SEZs (Special Economic Zones). African nations ranging from Mauritius to Nigeria competed for Chinese money to set up special economic zones on their soil.
The logic behind the SEZ is simple. Carve out a zone, preferably near a port; provide facilities, infrastructure and low tariffs and invite manufacturers to set up shop. (A 16,000 acre Chinese / Singaporean supported SEZ is being set up in Lagos, Nigeria). The lessons learned can then be applied to the rest of the nation.
Thirdly, the Chinese understand that Africa is changing. The West is still stuck in a 1984 “Live Aid” time warp (as many of the comments in this forum show). It is becoming clear to African leaders that unemployed young men are the most serious national security challenge they face. The solution to that problem is more employment and more employment comes from more economic activity, not more aid - and the Chinese are best placed to provide that.
Having said that, Africa has serious security challenges and the US is very well placed to deal with them. However, capitalism, not security is (was?) the natural strength of the United States. The US has not framed its engagement with Africa in terms of economics (except in a few strategic sectors like Energy). The Chinese and Indians, on the other hand, are eager to participate in all sectors like Telecommunications, Agriculture, Manufacturing etc.
What should the US do? One school of thought is of the opinion that the US should forget ideology and focus on cooperating with China. However, African leaders prefer a competition between the West (US) and the Chinese in order to drive a hard bargain.
Another school of thought is that the US should cooperate with the Indians to contain Chinese influence in Africa. However, the Indians are a pretty independent bunch and don’t like taking orders from anyone and in any case, the Chinese and Indians already complement each other in Africa (Chinese provide infrastructure, Indians - services).
America’s disadvantage in Africa is that the US is no longer in the business of producing low cost goods and services (that capacity was shipped to China (goods) and India (services)). And if there was any market for low cost goods and services, it is Africa.
That is your dilemma.
Having considered all these factors, your egg heads probably decided that the best course of action was to concentrate on what you do best - securing the commons, Oil and Gas and high margin / high technology goods and services.
Will the US still be relevant in Africa forty years down the line, I doubt it?
Finally, as someone who lives in Africa, I haven’t seen much evidence to support your claim that Obama “intends to MIS-use US Africa Combat Command to forward his own neo-colonialist brand of radical politics in Africa, which will set tribe against tribe.”
There is very little distinguishing Obama’s Africa policy from Bush’s Africa policy.
Could you please explain what you mean, with concrete examples?
If they are with anyone they are either with the South Sudanese, the Kenyans or the Ugandans.
To move equipment to South Sudan, you offload them at Mombassa, and send them by road via Uganda to Juba. On the other hand, Muslim North Sudan has its own port - Port Sudan on the Red Sea, so they have no need to smuggle tanks through Uganda (enemy territory).
Map of Sudan showing Port Sudan
They are not with Sudanese Muslims or the Lord's Resistance Army (which is being supplied by Sudanese Muslims). They are not going to be used on US military personnel.
American advisors are not going to fight either the Kenyan, Ugandan or Sudanese militaries.
Sheesh!! (You guys really need to brush up on your current affairs).
