13 April 2018

Proxy Wars and Imperial Footprints in West Africa


ISIS and Al Qaeda are active in West Africa and the semi-arid Sahel zone which extends from Mauritania to Sudan and Eritrea. No one disputes this but at the same time many Africans have woken up to the fact that both France and the United States are using this reality as pretense to expand their footprints and to carve out spheres of influence and control.
In addition, the posturing of the Trump administration and of course Trump himself has sent a clear signal that the welfare of Africans is not really Washington's concern. I would argue it never has been but in Trump, Western indifference and even contempt is expressed in its most base and even brutal form.


Ghana has long been a friend to the West and yet a segment of the population realises that the relationship is on the verge of transformation and when the Americans are let in... they're not so easy to get out. Ghana has long collaborated with the Pentagon but this latest move seeks to open a new chapter in the relationship. Ghana will become a frontline state in the new Scramble for Africa and possibly in some of the smaller 'hot' wars that are being fueled by the Great Powers struggle for resources and control. The many militias and now terrorist groups that riddle the countryside provide enough instability and economic hindrance for countries like France and the United States to get involved and make sure China and others don't. Of course some of these paramilitary groups are proxies and are supported by regional proxies like the governments of Uganda, Rwanda, Chad and others. While Western soldiers on the ground are begrudgingly deployed, the strategists, military brass and defense contractors are rubbing their hands together.
As I have repeatedly pointed out the military is deceptive in its 'stationing' nomenclature. They can and will say that no troops are 'stationed' here or there. They make distinctions between 'deployments' and stationings. They might have a thousand troops staged at a location for months or years and yet they aren't necessarily 'stationed' there. They might rotate troops in and out every 3-6 months and thus they can say with a straight face that they have no permanent base or troops 'stationed' there and yet of course the reality is they have a steady and enduring presence. Additionally these numbers can swell during certain periods, sometimes even extended periods and yet The Pentagon will still insist that only 1,000 troops (following the example) are deployed at that location. The fact that maybe 2,000 additional troops are present doesn't count because they might be there on a temporary duty or TDY basis or maybe they're on an 'exercise' which itself may be a pretense for something else. There are many bureaucratic loopholes.
The Reuters article mentions the American Special-Ops forces killed in Niger last fall and yet I don't agree that it sparked a real debate in the United States. The debate if it can be called that was over the White House's handling of the event and its optics but I don't recall any mainstream media coverage that wrestled with the questions of 'why' the US has a sudden interest in Africa. These groups didn't just appear in the last couple of years. Why is the US so focused on Africa right now? That raises questions that the mainstream doesn't want to discuss.
Additionally, no one raised the controversial questions regarding the fact that the US has been pulled into another series of wars without public debate or knowledge and apparently largely under Congressional radar. This should have been the scandal but the media controlled the narrative and quickly brushed it aside. After just a couple of days the congressional question all but evaporated. Given that it was months ago... the mindless and bemused American public has moved on.
Here's another recent story regarding French actions in Mali:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.