Comments on: Africa Command to be Based in Germany

By: mannning

mannning — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:18:27 +0000

It is bad enough to be posted to a hardship assignment without family, normal support, and with the danger of being killed in the next uprising.

The Army is being sensitive to the majority of its assignees, and basically relegating most of Africa to a hardship posting. If you have ever been there, you would agree with this decision.

Let them stay in Stuttgart, a very pleasant city. The 20% in-country folks can develop what rapport that is needed and possible, and their assessments of the current situation in these chaotic places. I do not envy them!

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:33:15 +0000

I think Richard hit the question on the head. What country in Africa is far enough down the democracy road to be a stable allies 50 years hence? There are no guarantees, but I have a hard time pointing to a stable country 5 years hence.

Then think about the infrastructure, family housing, etc. Stuttgard has the advantage of being in the same time zone (CENTCOM doesn't even get this advantage).

By: new comer

new comer — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:00:11 +0000

don't forget the special ops in eastern ethiopia and the huge american complex being built in that country.

By: Richard Gardner

Richard Gardner — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:12:56 +0000

Even if there is a desire to have the HQ in Africa, where could it be located? What African country would want a permanent USA military presence and be seen as being closely aligned with the USA? And what African countries are stable enough for us to establish a base?

The only place I can think of that we have troops is tiny Djibouti.

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:36:31 +0000

Ah! Just what we need; another sub-bureaucracy in the DOD. It isn't as if our military (ground forces, at least) isn't already stretched to the limit. So we pull another tens of thousands off the line. Anyone ever hear of, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians"?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:32:37 +0000

I suppose there might be problems with basing CENTCOM in Tel Aviv ....

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:01:00 +0000

would a command center actually based in the geocultural area it's responsible for, perhaps have a better chance of avoiding some of the really dumb mistakes we've made?

Certainly, you'd like to have a longterm, institutional relationship with the people. It's worked out well for us in Europe, generally speaking. Perhaps less well in the case of Southern Command (HQ'd in Miami but with personnel constantly rotated to Latin American assignments, unique among the regional commands) but its still be useful at the operational level. The CENTCOM area of responsibility, like AFRICOM's, is tricky, though. Not only are there severe logistical constraints with HQ'ing there but there's so much cultural diversity in the regions under the labels "Africa" and "the Middle East" that it might be easy to get a false sense of expertise. Nigeria ain't Zimbabwe which ain't Sudan. Still, you've got to start somewhere.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:56:34 +0000

Recall, too, that we’re currently fighting not one but two wars in the territory controlled by Central Command (CENTCOM). Its headquarters? Tampa, Florida.

At some point, of course, the argument becomes silly, unless one's prepared to argue that FDR and George Marshall should've spent WW2 shuttling between Normandy and Midway.

Still, the CENTCOM example is thought-provoking: would a command center actually based in the geocultural area it's responsible for, perhaps have a better chance of avoiding some of the really dumb mistakes we've made?