In May 2005 Catherine Fellows for the BBC reported on Operation Flintlock (where do they come up with these names?):

The US military has just concluded a major training operation in the Sahel region south of the Sahara desert, which it describes as its biggest exercise in Africa since World War Two.

But, there are some questions surrounding the timing of Operation Flintlock and the motivations of some of the countries involved in the US-led operation.

The "terrorist attack" in the days immediately preceding the US training exercise was blamed on the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat [GSPC]. Critics like Jeremy Keenan, a UK expert on the Sahara, do not agree. Keenan states: "Probably 90% of the Saharan population just knows that the GSPC is just a pseudonym for the Algerian security services, and there's a lot of truth in that."

Again, in 2006, the US Military was involved in another joint training excercise -- Exercise Natural Fire 2006. It should come as no surprise then, that on December 15, 2006 -- citing the Saharan region as the new front in the War on Terror -- President Bush approved plans for an African Command, or AFRICOM.

In February 2007 EUCOM announced that Navy Rear Adm. Robert T. Moeller was appointed to lead the Transition Team.

Still in it infancy, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) will eventually have responsibility for the entire continent of Africa, except Egypt.

[snip]

"The Department of Defense's plan is to eventually locate Africa Command's headquarters in Africa, but that, and many other details of the new command, still has to be determined," he said.

And things seemed to be moving forward ... According to the Stars & Stripes:

AFRICOM is scheduled to stand-up on Oct. 1, when it would begin coordinating at least some of the military’s activities on the continent. The command plans to be fully operational by October 2008. Army Gen. William E. Ward, the European Command’s deputy commander, has been nominated to become AFRICOM’s first commander.

Oil and Terrorists, it would seem the two go hand in hand these days. Building permanent military bases in Africa under the pretext of hunting terrorists seemed almost too good to be true ... and maybe it was. It appears Mr. Bush and his transition team ran into a bit of a snag. It would seem the Decider never stopped to consider that we wouldn't be welcomed. (How does that go again? Greeted as Liberators?) The Guardian reports in June 2007:

The Libyan and Algerian governments reportedly told Mr. Henry that they would play no part in hosting Africom. Despite recently improved relations with the US, both said they would urge their neighbours not to do so, either. Even Morocco, considered Washington's closest north African ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent military presence on its soil.

"We've got a big image problem down there," a state department official admitted. "Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US."

So, on to Plan B I guess ... Let's give them guns and money and maybe then they will be our friends.

In the most recent edition of Newsweek in a report entitled "The Next Battlefront" Scott Johnson takes a hard look at the future of AFRICOM and the perception of the African nations:

There is no permanent presence, but the hope is to generate support and suppress radicalism by both sharing U.S. weapons and tactics with friendly regimes and winning friends through a vast humanitarian program assembled by USAID, including well building and vocational training.

[snip]

Sgt. Chris Rourke, a U.S. Army reservist in a 12-man American Civil Affairs unit living in Dire Dawa, in eastern Ethiopia, says it comes down to this: "It's the Peace Corps with a weapon."

[snip]

"If you have soldiers hugging trees and painting hospitals at the same time as they're killing people, the perception of the local populations is going to be altered significantly," says one European official, who spoke to NEWSWEEK on the condition that his identity be kept secret.

At this point it is unknown whether AFRICOM will ever get past the planning stages. It is also unknown what the motivation for AFRICOM really is ... the fleeing terrorists or the abundant oil reserves. Whichever the real motivation, apparently the African nations have this misconception that the US might abuse any permanent presence and have decided that nobody should let US in. Go figure. But maybe, just maybe, if we throw enough money and weaponry at somebody they will change their mind ...

Footnotes

¹Burdens of oil weigh on Nigerians

Other Articles you may find interesting ....

Aug. 30th, 2007, Aaron Barlow ... Nothing New: A Small Enterprise Development Project in West Africa

July 27th, 2007, Greyhawk ... Civilization's African Toll: From The Cradle of Civilization to a Grave of Indifference

Nov. 17, 2005, Aaron Barlow ... The Impact of the African Diaspora