
U.S. military is expanding special forces operations in Africa - 3131s
https://news.vice.com/story/the-u-s-is-waging-a-massive-shadow-war-in-africa-exclusive-documents-reveal
======
ryanmarsh
My information from buddies who were there is at least six years old so do
with it what you will.

Organizations such as AQM have so much support and capability that local
governments are often afraid to oppose them directly for fear that things will
escalate and they'll lose the entire country. This often presents logistical
challenges for US forces.

American forces are working on multiple levels and approaches not just "direct
action".

It's not just about Somalia. Somalia is the poster child and gets the most
press but really a drop in the bucket. Africa is a big continent with systemic
challenges and those challenges are the perfect power vacuum for these groups.

We've been there since before 9/11\. It's an ooooold fight.

~~~
hackuser
The article doesn't say activities in Africa are new, but that they are
significantly expanded. From the article:

> In 2006, just 1 percent of all U.S. commandos deployed overseas were in
> Africa. In 2010, it was 3 percent. By 2016, that number had jumped to more
> than 17 percent. In fact, according to data supplied by U.S. Special
> Operations Command, there are now more special operations personnel devoted
> to Africa than anywhere except the Middle East — 1,700 people spread out
> across 20 countries

~~~
ikeyany
What are the raw numbers? How do we know the percentage increase isn't mostly
due to other commandos coming back home?

------
nickik
The U.S. has lost any strategic thinking.

The U.S. is now fighting a active war against "loosely connected groups from
north West Africa to Central Asia" most are Sunni Extremists. This is already
a insane thing to do, war on loosely connected groups that reach over 10000km
even when the waste majority of these groups have never actually attacked the
US or have any plans to. There is also almost no evidence that one can
actually win such a war in a military sense. The guy who lead ISIS was turned
into a terrorist not in the 1980s when the US was supporting Afgans against
the Soviets but rather in 2004 during the Battle of Fallujah. Fighting and
bombing people everywhere will create more Anti-American opinions then it
destroys. Ironically the only place people actually like the US is in Iran
where the US have not been able to bomb anybody for 40 years or so.

Outside of that they are also actively working against and sometimes fighting
with the Iranian block (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and maybe even the Houthis plus
a few other groups) who are often equally opposed to the before mentioned
"loosely connected groups from north West Africa to Central Asia". This means
the US is at a total strategic impact where there are people already fighting
but the US wants to get in there and crush both groups but also make sure the
destruction of one does not empower the other.

The allies of the US, Israel, Saudis and Pakistan are all highly problematic
and in many ways strategically counterproductive. Israel because support for
Israel makes everybody else, especially among the population of the region
angry prevent the government from embracing any alliance with the US. The
Saudis and the Pakistanis are largely responsible for the creation of many of
the before mentioned "loosely connected groups" and continue to support them
all over the world.

The US supports Sunni governments against Shia governments but is fighting a
war against both Shia and Sunni non-government actors. At the same time non of
the governments they support actually give flying fuck about the US except for
the support they can get from the US.

Why all of this? The US was only involved in the region because of oil. The US
does not actually need the oil anymore, even if they did the resources spent
are probably higher then just paying the higher price for oil. Not to mention
that even without the US everybody who has oil has a huge intensive to sell
it.

If you look objectively at any of this you can only shake your head. The
danger of all of these groups is minimal. Yet the US spends the same amount of
money they did when they were opposing another world supper power.

Sadly in Washington there is a foreign policy consensus and a echo chamber and
there is almost nobody who moves very far from the 'party line' on foreign
policy. Not to mention the massive vested interest that it supports when the
Saudis buy 10 Billions in US weapons.

~~~
arca_vorago
>Why all of this?

It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation of
the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to happen. This
while the Leo Strauss-ians like Kissinger and Brzezinski work hard to initiate
cold-war 2.0 because the Middle East destablization program was simply a
precursor to bigger more nasty conflicts, (which start economically) and most
of this is arising due to the fact that technology has advanced so fast it
altered the nation-states threat model and they don't know how to handle a
kind of world where any lone-wolf actor could do devestating things. Hence a
surveillance state of totalitarian dystopia is the only response they know
that might be able to handle it except they don't really care about national
security that much or they wouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on kickbacks
to relatives around the beltway instead of fixing problems.

Africa is a war ground for precious minerals and metals (and some oil) and
because the Chinese have been making big plays there the Americans want to
balance out the power so they have a foothold when the minerals that go in
that phone in your pocket become more scarce because China suddenly halted
exports of theirs or something similar.

I spent some time in the Horn of Africa, and I can tell you I'd rather be in
Iraq... at least Iraqi's pickup their dead bodies, and I never saw a 12 year
old patrolling with an AK in Iraq either.

The point is that while you are right that we need to rethink how far we
overextend our forces into foreign entanglements, there are other things at
play here of which terrorism is only a part of and is often a _byproduct_ of.
We also need to consider how often such moves have resulted in blowback worse
than the initial problem. I look all over the world and see problems that are
blowback from our meddling in the first place. (Iran is a prime example of
this. The Mullahs would have never come to power if we hadn't overthrown their
gov for oil in the first place.)

~~~
nickik
Well, what your are arguing is essentially a conspiracy theory. That does not
mean its wrong, but it does mean that there is a waste upper class that have a
secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that explanation makes any sense.

> It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation
> of the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to happen.

I don't know why that should happen. Even if it did, why would you care about
the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important resource and as long as it
is the US has its own supply. A middle east that is unable to export Oil would
mean LESS resources for china who I assume would be the enemy in that massive
war you are predicting.

> because the Middle East destablization program

If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective ways
to do it. It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq
invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret
even once they are retired. It also does not explain why the US send 100'000
people into Iraq to stop the civil war, it would have been far cheaper just to
keep out and let things happen.

I see no evidence for this theory.

> they don't know how to handle a kind of world where any lone-wolf actor
> could do devestating things

Bomb building has not changed that much, Anarchist have killed far more people
in the US then Muslim Terrorists. A small group of students started WW1.

> Africa is a war ground for precious minerals and metals (and some oil) and
> because the Chinese have been making big plays there the Americans want to
> balance out the power so they have a foothold when the minerals that go in
> that phone in your pocket become more scarce because China suddenly halted
> exports of theirs or something similar.

The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch. They operate with
special forces for the most part. They don't attempted massive economic
inroads or outright conquests that would be required if resource security was
the main goal.

I agree about blowback.

The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and
internal political intensives. Not some long running prepare for some future
war. I don't think any such war will happen, politically, economically and
there is the problem of nukes.

~~~
arca_vorago
> upper class that have a secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that
> explanation makes any sense.

I don't think people will be able to ever understand whats really going on in
the world until they understand it's true, and makes lots of sense. (not sure
what you mean by "waste" though.) I have spent the vast majority of my time
since I got out of the military tracing the big picture for myself based on
the evidence, wanting to find the truth regardless of where it took me. Those
who invoke variations of hanlons razor (it's all incompetence) or just say
it's perverse results of bad incentives organically corrupting the system,
simply haven't carefully examined the evidence. That being said, I do
acknowledge two things that hamper my claims somewhat. First, when dealing
with such issues I am often restricted to inductive logic due to a lack of
hard evidence. Deductive logic is always preferable. Two, I know it's hard for
claims such as mine to be taken at face value without better citations, but I
do have many contextual citations that I simply haven't made public _yet_. I
also understand such a vast scope means I still have a shitton of things to
learn, and don't know everything.

> why would you care about the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important
> resource

This is a line I have heard from the intelligencia that hasn't stood up to
actual real-world tests. Like I said most of the oil issue was never about us
actually having the oil, it was about us _controlling_ who did get the oil.
Likewise, I find it humourous that people have already bought the line about
no needing oil hook line and sinker. It's simply not realistic to pretend a
lack of potential depedence on oil in 2030-50 is going to cause us to suddenly
give up our imperial ambitions. Oil is but a part of a much bigger game.

> If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective
> ways to do it.

What other than war, and especially civil and secretarian war comes even close
to the same amount of destablization?

> It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq
> invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret
> even once they are retired.

First of all, yes, most of them were/are pathological liars. Second, the
nature of compartmentalization creates a breeding ground for such abuses to be
top down while middle-men ground-pounders (in this case military generals)
have no clue about what's really going on. This is a variation of the fallacy
I hear too often about "if X conspiracy theory is true, it would take Y number
of people to be silent which is impossible/improbable and therefor conspiracy
theory is false." Really, all you needed was a core group running the show,
the rest tend to just do as told. (Bremer/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld part of
core group)

> I see no evidence for this theory.

Then I don't think you have examined very much material relating to it.

> Bomb building has not changed that much. Anarchist have killed far more
> people in the US then Muslim Terrorists.

Modern threats are cyber, genetic, etc. That's the threat model shift many in
the natsec industry are at least pretending to try to shift to, and even the
most academic of the natsec group admits technology has rapidly shifted the
equation faster than nation-states of been able to adapt. Ignoring this with
such a flippant dismissal isn't a serious attempt at conversation on the
topic.

> A small group of students started WW1.

History as written by the instigators. King Edward the 7th was the single man
most responsible for WW1. I don't have time to get into this one though.

> The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch.

It has been, but it's not going to be for much longer.

> They don't attempted massive economic inroads or outright conquests

The American's haven't, but the history and modern history of Africa and it's
current state is inextricably tied to the European colonialism and
exploitation of Africa through "economic inroads" and "outright conquests".
Rhodesia, Congo, Suez, Morocco, are all examples of this. Not to mention
IMF/World bank explotation that creates the corruption and inculcates the
extremism being fought. Hell, South Africa apartheid barely ended in 1991!

So your comment about the US is mostly true, but I'm also talking about the
supranational oligarchy of the west as a whole, not just the US.

> The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and
> internal political intensives.

I dismiss Hanlons razor as an inherent logical fallacy, and the organic
incentives angle simply doesn't match the evidence or fill the gaps needed to
understand the global geo-economic/political games being played here.

Don't get me wrong. I see this response from intelligent people quite often,
and I understand it because it's the safe academic viewpoint especially
without all the contextual knowledge/evidence required to say otherwise, but
I'm telling you now it's not the truth of the matter at all.

The pages of history are littered with conspiracy, and until people can stop
trying so hard to dismiss it because of the negative modern connotations they
won't be able to approach the evidence and follow it to the truth regardless
of where it leads.

See part 4C. [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-
created...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-
phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge)

~~~
nickik
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your logic at all.

> King Edward the 7th was the single man most responsible for WW1.

I would actually be interested in that one.

I have only heard one person ever to blame Britain for WW1. That person was
conspiracy theorist who believed in Anglo-Saxon elite that has a secret plan
for world domination and they had it since 1066.

I myself have read quite a lot about WW1 and making Edward the 7th responsible
is simply wrong.

~~~
samsonradu
From my understanding the problem was that Germany was growing very strong and
threatening Britain's domination.

An interesting book about the topic is The Great Illusion By Norman Angell [1]

Saying a bunch of students started WW1 is quite absurd.

I did find some material pointing fingers at King Edward though, might want to
take a look [2]

[1]
[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38535/38535-h/38535-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38535/38535-h/38535-h.htm)

[2]
[http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n13-1995032...](http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n13-19950324/eirv22n13-19950324_017-king_edward_vii_evil_demiurge_of.pdf)

~~~
nickik
> From my understanding the problem was that Germany was growing very strong
> and threatening Britain's domination.

That is an argument often made, but the evidence for it is basically
speculation based on pure balance of power theory.

There is just one very big problem with that theory. Why would Britain not
have the same issue with the US? The US was tracking and even outpacing
Germany in growth and population, but Britain was willing to compromise with
the US based on reasonable disagreements. Because the US did not overreach,
Britain was content with losing influence.

The US for example promised not to annex Cuba and signaled that they did not
have much interest in further expedition in the east. The also agree on how to
deal with South America.

Germany on the other hand was different. They essentially tried and did
everything to piss everybody off. Britain was in some cases actually prepared
to agree with Germany, but Germany behaved so stupidly that they drove them in
French hands.

Then Germany continued to behave like idiots so that eventually the arch
enemies Russia and Britain agree to an alliance even when they had outstanding
issues in Persia and other places.

Even then, once German soldiers were literally walking threw and destroying
Belgium Britain only joined the war on a thin margin in parliament.

I really don't see how Britain can be made responsible for any of it. Britain
loudly called for peace talks until right before WW1 and Germany/Austria
refused any kind of talks.

> Saying a bunch of students started WW1 is quite absurd.

The caused a geopolitical event who's fallout caused the war. Of course they
did not put on German uniforms and walked over the Belgium border.

> I did find some material pointing fingers at King Edward though, might want
> to take a look [2]

Seems to me that amounts to about a conspiracy theory. There is this Anglo-
saxon elites conspiricy theory going around. Everything that happens was
somehow planned and put in place by the British so they could profit form it.

I have read multiple very modern books that in detailed researched these
diplomatic relationships and not a single modern historian seems to endorse
this theory.

> An interesting book about the topic is The Great Illusion By Norman Angell
> [1]

He had some good points. His problem was to misunderstand the political
economy of the countries. In the autocratic empires the people who have the
power to declare and make war are not the same people who mostly profited from
the markets.

The German and Austrian high officials were part of a separate culture where
they actually look down on many business men and the newly rich, all they car
about was power and honor. Looking at the Austrians makes this point quite
clear, these people were not living in the same world that Angell was
outlining.

Many German capitalist understood the problem and were against war, but they
did not have the required influence.

Edit:

If you want to read one book on the subject I would recommend "The War that
Ended Peace" by the highly respected historian Margaret Macmillan.

~~~
samsonradu
A conflict with the US would have been pointless I assume due to geographical
reasons, very hard to send troops over. Meanwhile Germany was posing a threat
quite nearby. But indeed there were very complicated times and it's hard to
blame someone explicitly.

I agree with you about the King Edward material, feels a bit conspirative to
me too. Although some political and economical points there make sense.

Thank you for the book reference, will check it out.

Btw, this discussion is a bit discouraging to me since I realise that not even
after 100 years we can properly agree on some facts. Tech giants fighting fake
news will have a big challenge.

~~~
nickik
A war with the US or Germany is pointless from Britain perspective. So is it
pointless for the US or Germany. Nobody benefits.

Britain was perfectly willing to accept the rise of the US. They were willing
to accept the growth of Germany until they started behaving very aggressively.

Germany could not defeat Britain in a naval race. They had already given up
even trying before WW1. Why would Britain intentionally start a war, after
Germany had already been defeated. That would only give them the chance to
conquer France/Belgium.

------
chiph
According to a former South African coworker - the number 1 problem in Africa
is corruption. Terrorism is a byproduct of that.

~~~
SpikeDad
Sadly it's quickly becoming the #1 problem in the US as well.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Corruption in the USA and corruption in the developing world are two
completely different beasts, similar in name only. Corruption in the
developing world is from the bottom up, it's the way that the common person
does business. Corruption in the developed world is from the top down.

Try bribing a cop in a developed country and you'll find yourself in an even
bigger hole. But in the developing world, it's the normal way of doing
business. You bribe a cop to get out of a ticket, you bribe an official to get
your paperwork done faster.

~~~
MichaelGG
It's beyond even that. Corruption is the lubricant of bureaucracy. These
countries are messed up. One way to "fight" corruption is to create lots of
paperwork: after all, if everything's documented, then you can't get away with
anything, right? Ignore the fact that most official papers end up rotting in a
box in a warehouse.

Faced with these stupid requirements and tons of needed stamps and seals and
signoffs, if you wanna get stuff done, you pay Vs letting the ineffective
system slowly get to it. In one case, the customs officer worked overtime:
after 5, he'd continue to process paperwork, correctly, legally, but extra
money decided which pieces he'd work on. After anti corruption systems went
into place, he can't do this anymore and just goes home at 5. No one wins.

~~~
jorvi
> In one case, the customs officer worked overtime: after 5, he'd continue to
> process paperwork, correctly, legally, but extra money decided which pieces
> he'd work on. After anti corruption systems went into place, he can't do
> this anymore and just goes home at 5. No one wins.

Isn't that analogue to net neutrality though? Old situation: those who pay
enter the bureaucracy fast lane, screw the rest. New situation: everyone gets
processed at the same speed, regardless of monetary power.

------
unityByFreedom
Clickbait title could be fixed..

Edit: You fixed it, hurrah!

~~~
3131s
I should have titled it "The U.S. is waging a massive shadow war in Africa",
which is actually not clickbait IMO. I think the current title is misleading,
given that the article is more about the already sizable scale of US military
operations in Africa.

------
muninn_
Oh, United States military operations in Africa? I've heard of that one.
Interesting article though.

What bothers me is that there is a ,largely, simple solution here: stop global
warming and build educational, medical, and governmental structures to support
the people in Africa. We need to bring them along with us in our prosperity,
and, find a way for them to enjoy stable government. I know that part of the
stable government solution involves taking down dictators and other military
action, but this has to also include education, food, medicine, and teaching
people how to build things.

~~~
spraak
Much of Africa's poverty comes from the oppression imposed by white people in
the past and present. Yes, they [edit: Africans] came with their own problems,
but white invaders really fucked things up.

~~~
nickik
What is your evidence for that? Countries with the least colonial involvement
are not richer then those with colonial involvement. You can simply not
explain wealth in Africa based on history of colonialism. The data just does
not check out.

~~~
UweSchmidt
Can you provide some data?

It seems that pretty much all of Africa was affected by colonialism; even
"litte" colonial involvment would have dramatic effects. Just upsetting an
established government can lead to extreme instability down the road, and
redrawing country borders can pit cultures into unresolvable conflicts
forever.

A country not affected by colonialism would be Japan which did quite well
throughout the years.

~~~
nickik
It has been a long time since I went really deep into this topic, so I can not
remember where exactly what paper or book had the numbers.

Almost all of Africa was in some way effected, but that leaves you with the
same problem. Why is Botswana doing fantastically well when Zimbabwe is going
down the drain. Why is Tunis doing better then Libya?

We also have to account for the fact that all of these countries were pretty
poor before the Europeans arrived as well. So you can really only blame
Europeans for them to continue to not do very well.

Colonization is still a very important topic, but more in the context of how
it shaped the institutions in those countries. The question we are trying to
explain is why are all these countries unable to make sustainable
institutional changes NOW.

> A country not affected by colonialism would be Japan which did quite well
> throughout the years.

Well, first I would argue that Japan culture has been far more effected by the
West then the culture of Nigeria or Botswana. Why the Japan is a pretty
special and unique case is a separate debate.

The same pattern does not hold for south east Asia for example. The countries
not colonized are not doing better then those who have.

~~~
UweSchmidt
In 1990 people thought the German unification would be a piece of cake. We're
rich and we're sprinkle some market economy on the formerly communist part.

Turns out that even under perfect conditions developing a country that was
held back just 40 years in its development is extremely difficult.

Africa was held back 1000x more, and in crucial moments in history
(industrialization) at that. The situation of Japan is highly relevant as an
example what can happen when you have continuity and a stable environment.

~~~
nickik
I agree with everything you say. It just to narrow. Japan would not have not
developed if not pushed. Botswana would not as rich if the Brits had never
come.

It just not as simple, its not linear and then colonialism comes along and is
holding you back. The reality is that the institutions need to develop are
complex, culture, foreign involvement, geography all play a role.

Africa is poor because colonialism story just does not hold up. Its a part of
the story, but by itself it explains little.

Japan is not successful because they were not a colony. The are successful
because they had a centralized state for a long time, that state was was able
adopt new institutions. Even had the been a colony, once the imperialist leave
Japan would probably have better growth is the avg. growth in Africa.

