AFRICOM is making its case:
While there have been reports of a possible U.S. drawdown of forces in Africa as part of Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s review of U.S. force posture around the globe, the top U.S. general in Africa, General Stephen J. Townsend, presented his assessment to the U.S. Senate that: “A secure and stable Africa is an enduring American interest.”
In the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, which serves as a guidance for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. government prioritized addressing security challenges from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as well as violent extremist groups. AFRICOM’s new strategic approach to secure its interests on the continent are guided by the following: partner for success; compete to win; and, maintain pressure on non-state actors.
I discussed this issue recently.
Indeed, this low priority in resources (the AFRICOM unofficial motto must be "Thank God for SOUTHCOM!") is one reason I advocated in Military Review for The AFRICOM Queen modularized auxiliary cruiser as a power projection platform for use around Africa. It would provide a mobile reserve to move the few assets where it is needed from over the horizon.
We need to be careful in allocating combat resources to our unified commands. With the small numbers involved, will reductions in AFRICOM in favor of EUCOM or INDOPACOM provide significant reinforcements to the latter two regions?
Or will those transfers simply cripple AFRICOM's ability to defend our interests and prevent big problems from emerging in Africa?
As an aside, when I wrote that Military Review article it was virtually verboten to refer to any American "base" in Africa. In that lead article I link the American base in Djibouti is referred to as "the largest U.S. military base on the continent." Times change and I guess local sensitivities have faded (although I'm assuming reporter terminology reflects military source terminology. That might not be so).
