Wikipedia

Talk:United States Africa Command

Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Learn more about this page

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danielleaar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

USAFRICOM vs. AFRICOM

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The acronym "AFRICOM" commonly resolves to a few other organizations, including an alliance of African museums, and an ISP based out of Zimbabawe. Therefore, I suggest people use "USAFRICOM" as the acronym for the U.S. military command structure. --Petercorless 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is the proper full military acronym anyway... 153.103.190.11 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stand up?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What does "Bush had made the decision on 2006-12-15 to stand-up the new command." and "The President, on the 15th of December, made the decision to stand it up"[1] mean? Create, mobilize, "forceful prevention"? -- Jeandré, 2007-02-10t17:41z

'Stand up' is Western/english military slang for establish, or form for the first time.

Buckshot06 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Such as 'As Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down,' Bush Tells Nation. To "stand up" a unit means to mobilize and officially authorize, man and equip. It's an actual formal term in military jargon, and is not "slang." --Petercorless 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, we learn a new thing every day. Where would I find an official DOD definition of 'stand up'? Cheers Buckshot06 06:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can't find a DOD definition, though I found plenty of DOD uses, which I cited in in a delightful new article: Stand up (military)... Enjoy! --Petercorless 07:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

African opposition to a high-profile military establishment

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

African governments may well support the war on terror, but, having thrown off British, French, Portuguese and white South African rule, African public opinion does not support the establishment of any new high-profile military bases or headquarters on the continent and African opposition to any such thing is entirely predictable (and I'm sure the State Department would have told the Department of Defence just that). Rexparry sydney 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I read at the time, probably in Spiegel, that the German government was going to accommodate Africom in Stuttgart after all African countries had rejected to host it. I wonder how much rent they pay to the German government, because American influence in Africa is not a German cause, as far as I know. Nearly 10 years later than your remark, more Africans than ever are leaving Africa for Europe. One boat after the other arrives on Lampedusa crammed with Africans. Has the increased American military activity in Africa driven these people out or is it just more population growth than economic growth, or both? 2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:6D02:F49F:FCF6:F225 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This page reads like a military press release

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is well-documented, well-founded concern in Africa about the role of Africom. This page hardly reflects those realities.

This is from the March webpage of the UN's IRIN: "AFRICOM will focus on military training and counter-terrorism WASHINGTON, 14 March 2008 (IRIN) - In a key briefing to Congress on 13 March, General William “Kip” Ward, head of the US Command for Africa, AFRICOM, devoted only 15 seconds of his four-and-a-half minute opening remarks to a possible humanitarian role.

Focusing instead on military training, security and counter-terrorism, his remarks came in sharp contrast to a year ago when officials announced that the command would concentrate on humanitarian assistance, alarming many aid agencies, which were concerned that US military involvement in humanitarian aid would undermine their neutrality."

This sure seems like a sideways move to continue the quasi-legal role the US has played in Somalia and Kenya and other African nations when it ignores national boundaries to target suspected terrorists in those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.138.141 (talk • contribs)

Please be bold. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Look, at the risk of sounding like a US apologist I'll try to explain. U.S. Unified Combatant Commands, like AFRICOM, are mechanisms to direct worldwide U.S. military operations, rather than the single services, which obviously do the admin. They run all U.S. military operations in their area. Now Africa for a long time hasn't seen much US military activity, at least in contrast to Asia and Europe. It's been a little bit of United States Army Special Forces training etc, the awful debacle in Somalia, but apart from that, it's mostly been supporting humanitarian aid and the UN (eg, are you aware the USAF did virtually all the airlift for the UN during the Congo Crisis in the 1960s).
So when they decided Africa was getting important enough to untangle the administrative mess that had three separate unified commands tripping over each others' heels (as when Anthony Zinni, CinCCENT, and CINCEUR had to hold a mini-summit between each other to determine policies over Africa(Dana Priest, 'The Mission,' 2003, pp.180-181), they decided one of the nice lines for the media would be to play up the humanitarian angle, which, in fairness, they're doing a lot of, along with the US idea of trying to build up better countries (pity that that US idea is so often expressed as building up the armed forces!) However, make no mistake, this is a military outfit, and it is only because they see, at the moment, that their goals can be be carried out best by a bunch of programmes which are humanitarian-heavy and military-lite that this line is being taken. If, to take a hypothetical example, the PRC were to decide to try to deny the oil resources of the Gulf of Guinea to the USA ten-fifteen years down the track, you'd see a full Operation Desert Storm happen. I'm not trying to put something over on you here - please try to understand, this is an attempt to explain; the humanitarian aid business was real, but a small part overemphasised - this will be, if necessary, as much a warfighting command as CENTCOM during the Gulf War.
Rereading your remarks, to exactly address your point, that quasi-legal (completely legal, or completely illegal, depending on whose countries' lawyers you talk to; we're living in an anarchic international system governed by national interests, just like before 1914), anyway that quasi-legal role was part of the command's task when it was envisaged, is part of the command's task, and will continue to be, in common with all the other unified combatant commands. They just don't advertise it. (Technically there may be a bunfight between SOCOM and AFRICOM on who has the responsibility, but I don't think you're really worried about that.)

Hope that helps. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Germany/Africa

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is the US Africa Command in Germany (Europe)? or Why ain't it in the US or somewhere in Africa ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.206.182 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because European Command, at Stuttgart, was responsible for most of Africa, and thus the temporary headquarters 'budded' off from EuCom was initially established there. The US wants to move the HQ to Africa, and due to African opposition, it will either eventually go to Africa or to somewhere in the States as you said. Buckshot06(prof) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are they allowed to do it if so many Africans oppose. They are affraid to show their faces because it would cause massive blood shed. This is Wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.245 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand that effectively the only change was the name? There were previously three commands supervising various bits of Africa - US Central Command, European Command and Pacific Command. Now there is one. The one with the biggest area of responsibility in Africa, European Command, has effectively budded off a bit of its headquarters separately for Africa - and that's about the total of the effective changes. All the remaining U.S. military activites in Africa remain as before. 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Daggers for USARAF?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116871

Worth a mention or link here? Hcobb (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Further activities

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37220.htm - U.S. Africa Command has also built a sophisticated logistics system, officially known as the Africom Surface Distribution Network, but colloquially referred to as "the new spice route". Its central nodes are in Manda Bay, Garissa and Mombasa in Kenya; Kampala and Entebbe in Uganda; Bangui and Djema in the Central African Republic; Nzara in South Sudan; Dire Dawa in Ethiopia; and the Pentagon's showpiece African base, Camp Lemonnier. - the DOD uses drones and manned aircraft out of airports and bases around the continent including Camp Lemonnier, Arba Minch airport in Ethiopia, Niamey in Niger and the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean, while private contractor-operated surveillance aircraft have flown missions out of Entebbe. Recently, Foreign Policy reported on the existence of a possible drone base in Lamu, Kenya. - Another critical location is Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, home to a Joint Special Operations Air Detachment and the Trans-Sahara Short Take-Off and Landing Airlift Support Initiative that, according to military documents, supports "high-risk activities" carried out by elite forces from Joint Special Operations Task Force - Trans-Sahara.

Article needs update as of May, 2015

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

74.60.161.158 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Magharebia.com

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I am going to WP:AFD the Magharebia article, but a short statement or section about it could be included here. Here are a few articles from the Washington Post about it. The site was an operation of USAFRICOM, but it doesn't seem to fit in this article's Operations section and I don't think it merits a section of its own. The site started in 2005 and the web domain was blanked sometime between January and April 2015. See Internet Archive for more info. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here is the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magharebia -Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Can somebody else weigh in on the AfD for Magharebia? There is one other !vote and its been relisted for the second time just now. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Africa Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Africa Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on United States Africa Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Africa_Command&oldid=1209747189"