PDA

View Full Version : Prez sending 3000 + troops to Africa



revelarts
06-15-2012, 08:15 AM
3,000 “and likely more” – will begin regular deployments to the African continent beginning next year.

Because we are threatened by Africans now too?
or because of "our" resources?

I'd say the 2nd. we want to control other countries and there stuff because it's "ours" "we wants it." "our precious".

China has been making Great strides in TRADING with the various counties in Africa. It seems some of the -big wigs- in the US gov't are concerned China might be a lil toooo Good at FREE MARKET deals in Africa and that we need to let the Africans Know we are their real friends by dropping a few of our poor overworked troops in. So the Africans aren't over run and manipulated by the trixie Chinese.Also you can never have to many Jumping off points to the ME andelsewhere

Can someone give me a legitimate alternative to sending MORE troops across the globe when their is NO WAR? Looks like empire building to me. Is there a chance of that? I am EXTREMELY Skeptical of our "mission" here, the Army is used to kill people and break things. Why is it there? Training their Armys can come here to train... but no its more than that.

but if you think it's For the good of the Africans, bringing democracy, gettin kony, freeing slaves, aid and relief, I'm sure there will be some band aid activity like that and your welcome to put whatever spin on it makes you feel better. "Were the Army, we're here to heal the sick and and feed the hungry" Ooo KKKkkk. right. whatever, I'm done sugar coating it.

When AFRICOM achieved full operational capability on October 1, 2008 it became the first U.S. overseas regional military command established after the Cold War (since U.S. Central Command was created in 1983).

Washington, in its plan to achieve military presence throughout and superiority over the rest of the world, reserved Africa for last. Now its hour, too, has arrived.


“As far as our mission goes, it’s uncharted territory,” Maj Gen Hogg tells Army Times.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-3000-soldiers-serve-in-africa-next-year-060812/


3,000 soldiers to serve in Africa next year


By John Ryan - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 8, 2012 11:50:43 EDT

<form id="hidden"> </form> A brigade will deploy to Africa next year in a pilot program that assigns brigades on a rotational basis to regions around the globe, the Army announced in May.
Roughly 3,000 soldiers — and likely more — are expected to serve tours across the continent in 2013, training foreign militaries and aiding locals.
As part of a “regionally aligned force concept,” soldiers will live and work among Africans in safe communities approved by the U.S. government, said Maj. Gen. David R. Hogg, head of U.S. Army Africa.
GETTING THERE

To serve on the continent, soldiers can:
•Volunteer for duty with U.S. Army Africa.
•Join an office of security cooperation for the region.
•Apply and become a foreign-area officer.

Tours could last a few weeks or months and include multiple missions at different locations, he said.
The Army has not announced which brigade would deploy or where the soldiers would come from.
As the Afghanistan war winds down, the new readiness model affords Army units more time to learn regional cultures and languages and train for specific threats and missions.
Africa, in particular, has emerged as a greater priority for the U.S. government because terrorist groups there have become an increasing threat to U.S. and regional security.
Though U.S. soldiers have operated in Africa for decades, including more than 1,200 soldiers currently stationed at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, the region in many ways remains the Army’s last frontier.
“As far as our mission goes, it’s uncharted territory,” Hogg said from his headquarters in Vicenza, Italy.
But “I’m not there to win their wars or settle their differences,” he added.
Instead, with more soldiers, U.S. Army Africa will continue to strengthen ties with regional militaries and governments by teaching military tactics, medicine and logistics, as well as combating famine, disease and terrorism in secure environments. The Army currently allows conventional soldiers to enter only 46 of the 54 African states due to security risks.
The State Department and U.S. special operations commands handle activities in the other countries, including those amid conflict.
Active-duty soldiers, guardsmen and reservists have helped quell regional violence, assist sick and injured Africans and feed the famished in East Africa.
During a recent annual training exercise, U.S. soldiers taught Ugandan forces how to deliver supplies by air to comrades in the bush chasing rebels from the Lord’s Resistance Army, a militia accused of atrocities in central Africa.
Through State Department initiatives, soldiers have also trained African troops headed for peacekeeping missions in Somalia on convoy security and countering improvised explosive devices.
On medical missions, Army doctors have replaced eye lenses of cataract patients in Malawi and Zanzibar, who danced and beamed after seeing, in some cases for the first time. Medical soldiers have also handed out mosquito nets to protect locals from malaria, the No. 1 killer in Africa, Hogg said.
Army chaplains teach Africans in classes about dealing with post-traumatic stress and running family readiness groups.
Real-world lessons

A brigade combat team has the capability to satisfy more than two-thirds of these missions in Africa. The rest will require skilled specialists — mechanics and logisticians — from the National Guard and Army Reserve, Hogg said.
Each week, U.S. Army Africa operations personally affect 300 to 400 locals, he said.
“I’ve seen some of these missions where the battalion commander down there could probably run for governor,” he said. “That’s how close of a relationship they have with some of their counterparts, both on the military side and with the local civilian community.
“It gets out the indirect approach [toward] some of these violent, extremist organizations that will talk bad about the Americans and the U.S,” he said. “It leaves behind a lasting effect over time.”
From African forces, U.S. soldiers have picked up real-world lessons about tropical diseases, international cultures and foreign military tactics.
In the future, U.S. soldiers might also attend military courses in Africa, such as the French desert survival school in Djibouti and African jungle schools in Ghana and Gabon.
Still, the Army has no plans to construct permanent bases across the continent, and the mission does have its limits, Hogg said.
“For all the challenges that happen and sprout up across Africa, it really comes down to, it has to be an African solution. We are here to enable, where wanted, the African forces to figure out and solve their own problems,” said Hogg, who has visited more than 20 countries.
“We are not trying to reproduce the United States Army in the 54 countries in Africa,” he said.



http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2012/06/army-3000-soldiers-serve-in-africa-next-year-060812/061112-africa-map-800.JPG

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-15-2012, 08:37 AM
More proof that other nation's problems rate higher priority with Obama than our nation's great problems. One would think that we are doing well when obama decides to do so much world problem solving while ignoring our nation's great problem of rapidly vanishing wealth. Historicly , national wealth and great world influencing power go hand in hand. Certainly appears to me that somebody has no problem with both our vanishing wealth and our vanishing power. The greatest danger in that is when a nation becomes weak , it's chances of being attacked grow greatly. I see a day rapidly coming when this nation will no longer be able to hold the "wolves at bay". When that day comes it will be too late to yell for help. For those then capable of helping are very likely be the same as ones that are doing the attacking. History and survival both favor the strong. The weak often become just a footnote in a history book. The old cry of "but not us" has been cried often enough to prove it's inaccuracy.

Thunderknuckles
06-15-2012, 10:28 AM
I can't speak to all of the location listed on the map but a number of them make sense from a historical and strategic perspectives.
Norther Africa makes sense due to our Mediterranean interests and past conflicts with the Barbary States and modern day Libya
Liberia is a nation we helped create with freed American slaves so we have a long standing relationship there.
While we have been in South Africa for a long time, it was the anti-apartheid movement that brought us into a close relationship with them.

Some of the others like eastern Africa I can only guess we are there because they are hotbeds for Islamic extremism.

My historical knowledge falls a little short with the rest of them like Gabon, Mali, Cameroon, etc and I'm not gonna regurgitate anything wikipedia has to say about it.

That said, we definitely have a need for resources from Africa and I won't put it past any nation to try and secure those interests.

All said and done, I don't think 3,000 troops is all that much in this context.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-15-2012, 10:37 AM
I can't speak to all of the location listed on the map but a number of them make sense from a historical and strategic perspectives.
Norther Africa makes sense due to our Mediterranean interests and past conflicts with the Barbary States and modern day Libya
Liberia is a nation we helped create with freed American slaves so we have a long standing relationship there.
While we have been in South Africa for a long time, it was the anti-apartheid movement that brought us into a close relationship with them.

Some of the others like eastern Africa I can only guess we are there because they are hotbeds for Islamic extremism.

My historical knowledge falls a little short with the rest of them like Gabon, Mali, Cameroon, etc and I'm not gonna regurgitate anything wikipedia has to say about it.

That said, we definitely have a need for resources from Africa and I won't put it past any nation to try and secure those interests.

All said and done, I don't think 3,000 troops is all that much in this context.

My friend , moving pawns when it's heavy pieces needed to do the job is feeble at best. Africa and its resources play a very small part in our overall national security and much needed increase in international commerce. Obama would do better to allow and even promote our country drilling for its own oil and cutting the need for foreign oil. Also stop the EPA from wrecking havoc nationwide with its ever increasing costly new restrictions! Our economy recovering is more important to national interests than anything in Africa right now.

Thunderknuckles
06-15-2012, 10:47 AM
My friend , moving pawns when it's heavy pieces needed to do the job is feeble at best. Africa and its resources play a very small part in our overall national security and much needed increase in international commerce. Obama would do better to allow and even promote our country drilling for its own oil and cutting the need for foreign oil. Also stop the EPA from wrecking havoc nationwide with its ever increasing costly new restrictions! Our economy recovering is more important to national interests than anything in Africa right now.
I agree with you for the most part. But, I don't think we need heavy pieces on the board in Africa. I think pawns work well enough in that part of the world. Again, we're only talking about 3,000 troops here. A drop in a drop in the bucket. We can achieve everything else you mentioned without any regard for what we are doing in Africa. The only thing stopping us from expanding domestic resource production is political willpower.

revelarts
06-15-2012, 10:49 AM
More proof that other nation's problems rate higher priority with Obama than our nation's great problems. One would think that we are doing well when obama decides to do so much world problem solving while ignoring our nation's great problem of rapidly vanishing wealth. Historicly , national wealth and great world influencing power go hand in hand. Certainly appears to me that somebody has no problem with both our vanishing wealth and our vanishing power. The greatest danger in that is when a nation becomes weak , it's chances of being attacked grow greatly. I see a day rapidly coming when this nation will no longer be able to hold the "wolves at bay". When that day comes it will be too late to yell for help. For those then capable of helping are very likely be the same as ones that are doing the attacking. History and survival both favor the strong. The weak often become just a footnote in a history book. The old cry of "but not us" has been cried often enough to prove it's inaccuracy.

i agree with a lot of that.
But i 've been thinking about this for a awhile.
since the 1980's I've heard, and pretty much accepted, the idea that
"if we aren't a super strong military nation deployed around the world THEY are gonna get us... one way or another" .
And I'm just not so sure about that any more. Is that really true?
I mentioned China to you before. they dont have a military all over the world no big navy. Haven't been attacked since what... imperial Japan?
But the one i've looked into a little more, is Switzerland. they stayed out of WWI and WWII.
they have a defense similar to Israels, everyman armed and in the militia man. If we did the same and had a primarily U.S. based navy/army (maybe with state based hig tech high caliber weapons.) and a scary good intel service and some space weapons. We'd still be among the most frighting countries on the planet it seems to me.

THEY whoever they may be would have to calculate ReeeeALLY hard before they decided to come over here for more than a vacation.

That just my alternative to Bases around the world with Our man power and equipment spread thin over the globe "just in case" something happens "somewhere".

Do you folks thinks something like that could work?

revelarts
06-15-2012, 10:57 AM
I can't speak to all of the location listed on the map but a number of them make sense from a historical and strategic perspectives.
Norther Africa makes sense due to our Mediterranean interests and past conflicts with the Barbary States and modern day Libya
Liberia is a nation we helped create with freed American slaves so we have a long standing relationship there.
While we have been in South Africa for a long time, it was the anti-apartheid movement that brought us into a close relationship with them.

Some of the others like eastern Africa I can only guess we are there because they are hotbeds for Islamic extremism.

My historical knowledge falls a little short with the rest of them like Gabon, Mali, Cameroon, etc and I'm not gonna regurgitate anything wikipedia has to say about it.

That said, we definitely have a need for resources from Africa and I won't put it past any nation to try and secure those interests.

All said and done, I don't think 3,000 troops is all that much in this context.

3000 to start, camel's nose in the tent probably

the rest of what you said was spoken like a true imperialist.
--just taking the candy coating off folks--
"secure resources", jezz lousie, whats wrong with free trade, Not secure enough?

Thunderknuckles
06-15-2012, 11:12 AM
But i 've been thinking about this for a awhile.
since the 1980's I've heard, and pretty much accepted, the idea that
"if we aren't a super strong military nation deployed around the world THEY are gonna get us... one way or another" .
And I'm just not so sure about that any more. Is that really true?
I mentioned China to you before. they dont have a military all over the world no big navy. Haven't been attacked since what... imperial Japan?
But the one i've looked into a little more, is Switzerland. they stayed out of WWI and WWII.
they have a defense similar to Israels, everyman armed and in the militia man. If we did the same and had a primarily U.S. based navy/army (maybe with state based hig tech high caliber weapons.) and a scary good intel service and some space weapons. We'd still be among the most frighting countries on the planet it seems to me.

THEY whoever they may be would have to calculate ReeeeALLY hard before they decided to come over here for more than a vacation.

That just my alternative to Bases around the world with Our man power and equipment spread thin over the globe "just in case" something happens "somewhere".

Do you folks thinks something like that could work?
I don't think that will work Rev. The fact is we interests all over the globe and we can't secure them with just a defensive military.
A good example of this is our conflict with the Barbary States. At that time the U.S. had only a defensive military yet we traded with countries all over the world. The Barbary States routinely captured trade vessels, demanded ransom for their release, and then would come back to make a deal where they would agree not to capture trade vessels in exchange for a yearly "fee". Basically extortion. Our hands were tied at the time as had no offensive capability to deal with them. This was also by no means cheap. The money we were paying them represented a serious chunk of the U.S. budget. Even so, the Barbary States never honored the agreements. Thomas Jefferson finally came to reality and created the Dept of the Navy, the Marines, and commissioned the construction of an offensive navy that went out kicked their asses and that was the end of that.

Lesson: No we cannot rely on a defensive military to protect our interests.

revelarts
06-15-2012, 11:23 AM
I don't think that will work Rev. The fact is we interests all over the globe and we can't secure them with just a defensive military.
A good example of this is our conflict with the Barbary States. At that time the U.S. had only a defensive military yet we traded with countries all over the world. The Barbary States routinely captured trade vessels, demanded ransom for their release, and then would come back to make a deal where they would agree not to capture trade vessels in exchange for a yearly "fee". Basically extortion. Our hands were tied at the time as had no offensive capability to deal with them. This was also by no means a cheap. The money we were paying them represented a serious chunk of the U.S. budget. Even so, the Barbary States never honored the agreements. Thomas Jefferson finally came to reality and created the Dept of the Navy, the Marines, and commissioned the construction of an offensive navy that went out kicked their asses and that was the end of that.

Lesson: No we cannot rely on a defensive military to protect our interests.

Barbary pirates...
That's why we HAVE TO have more and more bases across the globe?
So like the Somolia pirates are the reason we need a big navy spead thick and strong across the seas forever and ever amen.

Are China's vessels attacked all day every day? Japan's ships are loaded down with Honda's, heck africas raw minerals and Oil. seem to make it to India and south America regularly,

Are we FUNDING the wholes worlds Shipping lane freedom?
If so we should be compensated.
If not, it seems to me, we need to get realistic about the threats. the real possibility of a Defensive plan for today's environment.

jimnyc
06-15-2012, 11:28 AM
I know I've stated many times in the past why we have went into certain countries to help people, or why we went in to remove bad dictators. When I did so, I got jumped on with a list of African places where people were suffering, and that if we really cared, why weren't we going in to help them. Seeing Uganda alone on that list makes me happy.

I'm not saying that we don't in fact have things that need to be fixed at home, but I don't have much of an issue going to help others that cannot help themselves. There's some really nutty characters killing people there, and if we can help, I don't see it being such a big deal.

Thunderknuckles
06-15-2012, 11:32 AM
Barbary pirates...
That's why we HAVE TO have more and more bases across the globe?

Obviously not. You're missing the point of the lesson from history. You can peacefully engage in Free Trade but if you don't have the military muscle to back it up, someone, somewhere will get it into their heads to make a move on you. What form that may take today, I do not know, but history is pretty clear about what will happen if we scale back to far.
Now, I do agree with you in the sense we can scale it back in general. I just don't know how far we can go before it becomes a security risk.

Abbey Marie
06-15-2012, 11:44 AM
We don't have enough years/money/manpower to fix Africa. Some things are just too messed up.

Gaffer
06-15-2012, 11:55 AM
The article reads like a propaganda letter. There's no mention of where the brigade will be based. Sounds like the operation is what was done in Vietnam with Marine Force Recon and Green Beret's. They can teach the villages how to defend themselves from the arabs. Might be a good thing but more likely a costly failure.

jimnyc
06-15-2012, 12:36 PM
Here's a take from one of our foreign members:


Yes, he was a horrible bastard, but it is NOT the job of America to play hero and rescue everyone. I don't know why you don't get that. Sure, he killed many people - but what about people in African countries who are starving to death? What about the women and children in Sudan who are being raped daily? I do not see America marching in to save them all. Like I said, I believe that the US will only ever act against a country if there is something in it for them. If it makes America look good, then they'll do whatever they have to do.

Now that American is going to help some African countries - lets all sit back and see how much Australia contributes to help these people out.

aboutime
06-15-2012, 01:52 PM
Obama doesn't need to send our troops into African nations.
My neighbor, whose back yard is just across my back fence. Just returned from a 3 month tour in, what must remain...an Unknown nation in Africa.
He is a Lt. in the U.S Navy CB's.

We can complain about whatever we like. But none of us can change the reality.

ConHog
06-18-2012, 03:42 PM
Here's a take from one of our foreign members:



Now that American is going to help some African countries - lets all sit back and see how much Australia contributes to help these people out.

Now, now, I'm sure Australia will send 3 guys and a Koala Bear, which is actually a pretty significant contribution when you consider that is one half of their Army.

:coffee: