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.