9 ms·

U.S. military is expanding special forces operations in Africa

53 points by 3131s 9y ago

muninn_ 9y ago
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.
- throwway390 9y ago
  They could also knock it off with the tribalism - there's what, 100000000 different tribes?[0] They'd go back to killing each other anyway. EDIT: read that link and then explain how that is not a problem instead of downvoting: "The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands," Wake up boys - it's all the same meat and bones. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_of_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_of_Afric...
  - finid 9y ago
    Though I didn't, you deserve to be downvoted. Tribalism and the "killing each other" thing is not unique to Africa. On the latter, Europeans have Africa beat. If you're an America, I'll suggest you make a study of your ancestors history.
    - throwway390 9y ago
      > Europeans have Africa beat. War seems to have stopped in (Western) Europe though. That is until the Russians take advantage of the current power vacuum to start one, or a spark ignites between ethnic groups that haven't been around in large enough numbers until very recently. On the other hand, Africa is at war today. See: article being discussed and [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa#21...
      - finid 9y ago
        I'm glad you qualified that, because splitting Yugoslavia was not peaceful. And Kosovo and Serbia is still a hot spot. But yes, wars stopped because after WW II, they decided the madness had to stop. That led to the formation of the EU. Countries that belong to the same economic group seldom go to war. ECOWAS serves the same purpose in West Africa. Assuming you're an American, you should be blaming your govt. rather than Russia for the what's happening around that region. I know you won't believe it, but that doesn't change the facts.
      - finid 9y ago
        You should note that the wars in Libya on that list were caused by the major European countries and the US.
      - hutzlibu 9y ago
        "War seems to have stopped in (Western) Europe though" There might be differen reasons than giving up on tribes. Afaik the biggest wars we had were totally not tribe related, but rather "Nation" and than "Race". And the original tribes in central europe are loong gone, replaced by feudalism and christianity over 1000 years ago.
        throwway390 9y ago
        My point is that Africa is at the lower end of that scale (tribes) where the West is at the upper end (Unions). Or was, until Trump and Brexit. My point is that progress in Africa is hampered by unnecessary divisions between people. It's obviously not the only problem, but it's not helping, either.
  - shakna 9y ago
    Instead of spewing a incredibly short-sighted rhetoric that suggests people kill each other if they have a tribe, perhaps you should stop and think. Let me pose it this way. You were born a Native American, your tribe is your family, and your history. For all intents, yhey are a nation that raised you. Around you are strangers. They come from a different nation. They butchered your ancestors to steal what they had. Yet, as is the way of your tribe, you try to be peaceful and considerate. In response, some are kind to you. But, their leaders steal your water. Not just sustinence, something special to the stories of your people. You protest peacefully. They react with violence. How do you feel? Tribes aren't something to give up. They're a part of you. Your history. Do you tell an Irishman to forget his kilt? An Englishman his Coat of Arms? Do you tell someone who's grandfather was a slave that its okay to be poor, because he's equal now? The tribe is family, history, and nation. When your neighbour tried to sell your grandfather out for diamonds, there will be problems. If anything, Africa shows us problems we ignore... And that with time and effort, relations can be improved. Sometimes it doesn't work. Bill kills Joe, because Joe bragged that his Da used to eat your family. But forgetting who you are, isn't going to help.
    - throwway390 9y ago
      Where there's division, there's conflict. Ordered by number of conflicts, in decreasing amount: Tribes > Nation-states > Unions. There will be more wars when the European Union breaks up. Or when the US does. Conversely, Africa will greatly benefit from becoming more united in the same way the West has. This is now being reverted (see Trump, Brexit), so you just wait and see where that takes us.
      - shakna 9y ago
        There are thousands of tribes in Australia. Where is their civil war? It isn't as simple as you say, because a tribe is more than you seem to think it is. I can change my country, I cannot change my tribe. Having many tribes does not mean unity is impossible.
        throwway390 9y ago
- bluedevil2k 9y ago
  What does "stop global warming" have to do with all the other Africa-specific solutions you've outlined? And I don't think any of the solutions are simple, and the resources to accomplish things like education, food, hospitals would most likely have to come from outside of Africa, where most otherwise "rich" countries are struggling with their own unemployment and immigration issues
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    Most Africans are subsistence farmers, when climate change causes their crops to stop producing, they can't make money, and can't eat. Africa has been pretty hard hit by the changes in the climate caused by green house gas emissions. And I disagree with you. The solutions themselves are trivial. What's difficult is, as you said, getting the "rich" countries to support it. But these immigration issues don't exist in a vacuum. Why do you think Africans are fleeing Africa? What do you do if all you have is a farm and it dries up? Do you just sit there and die? Do you try to travel to Europe? I'm very bearish on immigration. I think immigration policies in both the United States and Europe have been so negligent that they might be considered criminal, but I don't think it gets any better or easier if we leave people in Africa to starve or die from war while we keep pumping the atmosphere with CO2. My point is that it's in our best long-term interest to create stable societies in Africa.
    - louithethrid 9y ago
      It is, and has been. Ever since the end of colonialism, some countrys have supported causes and countrys in africa to get some african tiger states going the way of south korea, japan, china, south america, russia, east europe, turkey - indonesia, malaysia etc. But here we are, and today even the anti-colonial ideologys exclaiming "help to help themselve" sound exausted. Europe has the most interest to stabilize africa, but good ideas on the how to are rare. I know, colonialism- the excuse for everything- but other countrys where colonized several times over and are back on theire feet or ruling the world by now. And africa is diverse enought to show that colonialism is not just it. My personal believe is that africa pays the price for bad circumstances (in part due to beeing the craddle of humanity/ bad distribution of croppable plants/ diseases) and living the facists and racists dream: "Constant warfare of one ethnicity against another. Mighty, messianically worshipped leaders, with no bigger aim then keeping the lion pack that brought them to power with corruption from tearing them apart." My assumption is that if you have this mix, a spiral sets in which optimization is geared towards "surviving and propsering within the cycle of constant strife". The effect is partially visible in other country not on the african continent. To break the cycle, one would have to understand the human adaptions to crisis and strife - and combat the reactions. Create small oasis of prosperty- who can defend against african anti-capitalistic traditions, like leeching of the wealth of wealthy relatives (like public officials- who need constantly bigger bribes to pay this family mafia) and begin the same journey like south korea and south america did. I guess saying that makes me a racist. And for racists im worser, calling theire gut feelings to "walk in cirles" dangerous. I just think it would be great if africans where the first to build a beanstalk for humanity.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Don't forget infrastructure which on its own has transformative potential. China seems to be making the running on that though: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/dec/22/the-new-scramble-for-africa-how-china-became-the-partner-of-choice https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
- sgift 9y ago
  The solution seems simple, but gets massively complicated by history. I'm not willing to accept the "Africa was great and happy until Europeans came" theory, but that's - to the best of my knowledge - the most common belief on the African continent. And that leads to a "Europe is the source of all our evils, give us money and go away" mentality, which massively complications any attempt to stabilize the situation. I'm not sure how to overcome this and I have to admit that at one point or the other I thought that the EU should simply stop providing any help to Africa and just make sure the problems don't swap over here, cause Europe will be blamed anyway - and being blamed for not helping is far cheaper than being blamed for helping. Most of the time, I just hope there's still a solution which doesn't end in a complete disaster.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    > that's - to the best of my knowledge - the most common belief on the African continent Never heard of that once. Where did you get it from?
    - sgift 9y ago
      News articles and talking with people from Africa.
- spraak 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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.
      - douche 9y ago
        Japan is a terrible example of a country unaffected by colonialism. Perry's Black Fleet triggered the downfall of the Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration, and so Japan's industrialization and embarcation on a path towards being a colonial power in its own right.
      - nickik 9y ago
        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.
- nickik 9y ago
  That's absurd! The economics profession has studied these problems for a very long time. If it were simple to do what you suggest then we would have done it. Literally everything has been tried in Development Economics. > I know that part of the stable government solution involves taking down dictators and other military action Again, based on what evidence are you making these claims? The story that you can military overthrow dictators and put in a stable government has utterly failed in most cases. > but this has to also include education, food, medicine, and teaching people how to build things. Do you have evidence for any of this? Development economics has long ago concluded that 'teaching things' has no long run impact. Have you ever actually looked at the evidence and history of all these policy's?
  - AlbertoGP 9y ago
    Hi, I'm very curious about the last part, "Development economics has long ago concluded that 'teaching things' has no long run impact." Could you point me towards some overview of the issues?
    - nickik 9y ago
      The problem is just that human capital by itself does not facilitate economic growth. A look at the Soviet Union can show you that as well. The Soviets had a huge well educated population with fantastic mathematicians and everything you need to be successful, but the had almost no growth for 20 years. I don't know a book specifically focusing on that issue, but any book on the history of economic development should have some discussion on this problem. There are good books both those that are more populist and the more academic ones. There is also the question do you want to focus on Development Economics specifically or general growth theory. One is more about how you can help somebody grow the other is more fundamentally about why growth happens. I suggest you start view something more broad then just looking into education. A mooc like this: http://www.mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics-0 http://www.mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics-0 The list of books are very long. Something like "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics" might be a starter. Once you get into the topic you can go in different direction. I am confident that I will also conclude that education by itself will not lead to sustained development.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
Clickbait title could be fixed.. Edit: You fixed it, hurrah!
- 3131s 9y ago
  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.
chiph 9y ago
According to a former South African coworker - the number 1 problem in Africa is corruption. Terrorism is a byproduct of that.
- SpikeDad 9y ago
  Sadly it's quickly becoming the #1 problem in the US as well.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    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.
    - nickik 9y ago
      Bribing a cop? No. Bribing a senator? Sure that normal.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      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.
ryanmarsh 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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
  - ryanmarsh 9y ago
    I don't believe the 3% number. 3% of which command. LOL
  - ikeyany 9y ago
    What are the raw numbers? How do we know the percentage increase isn't mostly due to other commandos coming back home?
- burntrelish1273 9y ago
  Somaliland is slightly better-off now, but remaining Somalia is still mostly a de-facto failed state with warlord-of-the-day management. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-hedge-fund-manager-founds-school-in-somaliland/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-hedge-fund-manager-founds-sch...
nickik 9y ago
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.

53 points by 3131s 9y ago

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.

throwway390 9y ago
They could also knock it off with the tribalism - there's what, 100000000 different tribes?[0] They'd go back to killing each other anyway. EDIT: read that link and then explain how that is not a problem instead of downvoting: "The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands," Wake up boys - it's all the same meat and bones. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_of_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_of_Afric...
- finid 9y ago
  Though I didn't, you deserve to be downvoted. Tribalism and the "killing each other" thing is not unique to Africa. On the latter, Europeans have Africa beat. If you're an America, I'll suggest you make a study of your ancestors history.
  - throwway390 9y ago
    > Europeans have Africa beat. War seems to have stopped in (Western) Europe though. That is until the Russians take advantage of the current power vacuum to start one, or a spark ignites between ethnic groups that haven't been around in large enough numbers until very recently. On the other hand, Africa is at war today. See: article being discussed and [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa#21...
    - finid 9y ago
      I'm glad you qualified that, because splitting Yugoslavia was not peaceful. And Kosovo and Serbia is still a hot spot. But yes, wars stopped because after WW II, they decided the madness had to stop. That led to the formation of the EU. Countries that belong to the same economic group seldom go to war. ECOWAS serves the same purpose in West Africa. Assuming you're an American, you should be blaming your govt. rather than Russia for the what's happening around that region. I know you won't believe it, but that doesn't change the facts.
    - finid 9y ago
      You should note that the wars in Libya on that list were caused by the major European countries and the US.
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      "War seems to have stopped in (Western) Europe though" There might be differen reasons than giving up on tribes. Afaik the biggest wars we had were totally not tribe related, but rather "Nation" and than "Race". And the original tribes in central europe are loong gone, replaced by feudalism and christianity over 1000 years ago.
      - throwway390 9y ago
        My point is that Africa is at the lower end of that scale (tribes) where the West is at the upper end (Unions). Or was, until Trump and Brexit. My point is that progress in Africa is hampered by unnecessary divisions between people. It's obviously not the only problem, but it's not helping, either.
- shakna 9y ago
  Instead of spewing a incredibly short-sighted rhetoric that suggests people kill each other if they have a tribe, perhaps you should stop and think. Let me pose it this way. You were born a Native American, your tribe is your family, and your history. For all intents, yhey are a nation that raised you. Around you are strangers. They come from a different nation. They butchered your ancestors to steal what they had. Yet, as is the way of your tribe, you try to be peaceful and considerate. In response, some are kind to you. But, their leaders steal your water. Not just sustinence, something special to the stories of your people. You protest peacefully. They react with violence. How do you feel? Tribes aren't something to give up. They're a part of you. Your history. Do you tell an Irishman to forget his kilt? An Englishman his Coat of Arms? Do you tell someone who's grandfather was a slave that its okay to be poor, because he's equal now? The tribe is family, history, and nation. When your neighbour tried to sell your grandfather out for diamonds, there will be problems. If anything, Africa shows us problems we ignore... And that with time and effort, relations can be improved. Sometimes it doesn't work. Bill kills Joe, because Joe bragged that his Da used to eat your family. But forgetting who you are, isn't going to help.
  - throwway390 9y ago
    Where there's division, there's conflict. Ordered by number of conflicts, in decreasing amount: Tribes > Nation-states > Unions. There will be more wars when the European Union breaks up. Or when the US does. Conversely, Africa will greatly benefit from becoming more united in the same way the West has. This is now being reverted (see Trump, Brexit), so you just wait and see where that takes us.
    - shakna 9y ago
      There are thousands of tribes in Australia. Where is their civil war? It isn't as simple as you say, because a tribe is more than you seem to think it is. I can change my country, I cannot change my tribe. Having many tribes does not mean unity is impossible.
      - throwway390 9y ago
bluedevil2k 9y ago
What does "stop global warming" have to do with all the other Africa-specific solutions you've outlined? And I don't think any of the solutions are simple, and the resources to accomplish things like education, food, hospitals would most likely have to come from outside of Africa, where most otherwise "rich" countries are struggling with their own unemployment and immigration issues
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Most Africans are subsistence farmers, when climate change causes their crops to stop producing, they can't make money, and can't eat. Africa has been pretty hard hit by the changes in the climate caused by green house gas emissions. And I disagree with you. The solutions themselves are trivial. What's difficult is, as you said, getting the "rich" countries to support it. But these immigration issues don't exist in a vacuum. Why do you think Africans are fleeing Africa? What do you do if all you have is a farm and it dries up? Do you just sit there and die? Do you try to travel to Europe? I'm very bearish on immigration. I think immigration policies in both the United States and Europe have been so negligent that they might be considered criminal, but I don't think it gets any better or easier if we leave people in Africa to starve or die from war while we keep pumping the atmosphere with CO2. My point is that it's in our best long-term interest to create stable societies in Africa.
  - louithethrid 9y ago
    It is, and has been. Ever since the end of colonialism, some countrys have supported causes and countrys in africa to get some african tiger states going the way of south korea, japan, china, south america, russia, east europe, turkey - indonesia, malaysia etc. But here we are, and today even the anti-colonial ideologys exclaiming "help to help themselve" sound exausted. Europe has the most interest to stabilize africa, but good ideas on the how to are rare. I know, colonialism- the excuse for everything- but other countrys where colonized several times over and are back on theire feet or ruling the world by now. And africa is diverse enought to show that colonialism is not just it. My personal believe is that africa pays the price for bad circumstances (in part due to beeing the craddle of humanity/ bad distribution of croppable plants/ diseases) and living the facists and racists dream: "Constant warfare of one ethnicity against another. Mighty, messianically worshipped leaders, with no bigger aim then keeping the lion pack that brought them to power with corruption from tearing them apart." My assumption is that if you have this mix, a spiral sets in which optimization is geared towards "surviving and propsering within the cycle of constant strife". The effect is partially visible in other country not on the african continent. To break the cycle, one would have to understand the human adaptions to crisis and strife - and combat the reactions. Create small oasis of prosperty- who can defend against african anti-capitalistic traditions, like leeching of the wealth of wealthy relatives (like public officials- who need constantly bigger bribes to pay this family mafia) and begin the same journey like south korea and south america did. I guess saying that makes me a racist. And for racists im worser, calling theire gut feelings to "walk in cirles" dangerous. I just think it would be great if africans where the first to build a beanstalk for humanity.
Boothroid 9y ago
Don't forget infrastructure which on its own has transformative potential. China seems to be making the running on that though: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/dec/22/the-new-scramble-for-africa-how-china-became-the-partner-of-choice https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
sgift 9y ago
The solution seems simple, but gets massively complicated by history. I'm not willing to accept the "Africa was great and happy until Europeans came" theory, but that's - to the best of my knowledge - the most common belief on the African continent. And that leads to a "Europe is the source of all our evils, give us money and go away" mentality, which massively complications any attempt to stabilize the situation. I'm not sure how to overcome this and I have to admit that at one point or the other I thought that the EU should simply stop providing any help to Africa and just make sure the problems don't swap over here, cause Europe will be blamed anyway - and being blamed for not helping is far cheaper than being blamed for helping. Most of the time, I just hope there's still a solution which doesn't end in a complete disaster.
- euyyn 9y ago
  > that's - to the best of my knowledge - the most common belief on the African continent Never heard of that once. Where did you get it from?
  - sgift 9y ago
    News articles and talking with people from Africa.
spraak 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
    - douche 9y ago
      Japan is a terrible example of a country unaffected by colonialism. Perry's Black Fleet triggered the downfall of the Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration, and so Japan's industrialization and embarcation on a path towards being a colonial power in its own right.
    - nickik 9y ago
      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.
nickik 9y ago
That's absurd! The economics profession has studied these problems for a very long time. If it were simple to do what you suggest then we would have done it. Literally everything has been tried in Development Economics. > I know that part of the stable government solution involves taking down dictators and other military action Again, based on what evidence are you making these claims? The story that you can military overthrow dictators and put in a stable government has utterly failed in most cases. > but this has to also include education, food, medicine, and teaching people how to build things. Do you have evidence for any of this? Development economics has long ago concluded that 'teaching things' has no long run impact. Have you ever actually looked at the evidence and history of all these policy's?
- AlbertoGP 9y ago
  Hi, I'm very curious about the last part, "Development economics has long ago concluded that 'teaching things' has no long run impact." Could you point me towards some overview of the issues?
  - nickik 9y ago
    The problem is just that human capital by itself does not facilitate economic growth. A look at the Soviet Union can show you that as well. The Soviets had a huge well educated population with fantastic mathematicians and everything you need to be successful, but the had almost no growth for 20 years. I don't know a book specifically focusing on that issue, but any book on the history of economic development should have some discussion on this problem. There are good books both those that are more populist and the more academic ones. There is also the question do you want to focus on Development Economics specifically or general growth theory. One is more about how you can help somebody grow the other is more fundamentally about why growth happens. I suggest you start view something more broad then just looking into education. A mooc like this: http://www.mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics-0 http://www.mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics-0 The list of books are very long. Something like "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics" might be a starter. Once you get into the topic you can go in different direction. I am confident that I will also conclude that education by itself will not lead to sustained development.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

Clickbait title could be fixed.. Edit: You fixed it, hurrah!

3131s 9y ago
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.

chiph 9y ago

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

SpikeDad 9y ago
Sadly it's quickly becoming the #1 problem in the US as well.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  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.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Bribing a cop? No. Bribing a senator? Sure that normal.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    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.

ryanmarsh 9y ago

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 9y ago
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
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  I don't believe the 3% number. 3% of which command. LOL
- ikeyany 9y ago
  What are the raw numbers? How do we know the percentage increase isn't mostly due to other commandos coming back home?
burntrelish1273 9y ago
Somaliland is slightly better-off now, but remaining Somalia is still mostly a de-facto failed state with warlord-of-the-day management. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-hedge-fund-manager-founds-school-in-somaliland/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-hedge-fund-manager-founds-sch...

nickik 9y ago

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.