US military presence in Western & Eastern Africa and aid totals.

On Friday 12 Dec, the NYT ran a several page story examining the American military presence in Mali, but also the larger tactic of training militaries to combat Al Qaeda offshoots. It's a three page web story illustrating how the Green Berets and special forces in separate branches offer military instruction on insertions, ambushes, weapons, etc. As the article points out, however, AID is spending millions on soft, non-military programs with the intention of providing a military and social counter to Al Qaeda or any other form of radical Islam. Of course, these American projects aren't limited to Africa, and appear throughout Asia and the Middle East. Missions such as this are often overlooked in the larger media narrative of the US' fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A friend and others quite rightly point out that George Bush has given more aid to Africa than past presidents. That's rosy, but I think the reality is that the aid hasn't been restricted to shipping tons of condoms, AIDS drugs, wheat, rice, or 2007 Bears Super Bowl Champion attire. It is certainly true that the US donated some of the previously mentioned items (even Bears' ware), but Bush certainly shouldn't be labeled as a humanitarian when a large portion of his African aid figures have been tied up with weapons, military training, and education programs stressing abstinence and monogamy before condom use (ABC). As I mentioned in a previous entry, the Bush administration (in their Cold War, dichotomous Islamophobia) pushed the Ethiopians to attack Somalia, which did little to stabilize the country. Or, as some would say, it accomplished nothing but to sustain a cycle of hell in Somalia and empower pirates and groups like Shabab. So if you're wondering why Somali pirates have the freedom to operate with a sense of impunity (besides random attacks from the Indian navy), I encourage to you to reconsider US policy in East Africa.

Since 1945, one of the more impressive and overlooked American undertakings has been to train the world in a plethora of subjects: labor (the one I know best), military/security, diplomacy, commerce, education, health, business, and others. It's a product of the Cold War, largely beginning with the Point 4 Technical Assistance Program under Truman. The war on terror permitted such projects to expand, and it seems unlikely that they will decrease with the Obama administration. If you wish to see a more benign side to this matter, one could easily say the US is generously sharing its expertise in affairs where it's the world's leader. If, on the other hand, one interpreted this through a more cynical lens, it would be foolish to consider this anything more than spreading/imposing American hegemony and normative values--all accomplished through the US leveraging its preponderant international authority. Honestly, I don't have an answer but those are two views one could take.

One last thing, here is a link to a 2005 Brookings report that debunks the Bush admin's claim regarding its beneficent aid figures. It would dishonest to claim that the situation hasn't improved since then, however, I cite the findings only to illustrate that the first term wasn't Bush funneling money to Africa for the good of humanity.