{"id":353995,"date":"2018-03-26T22:32:49","date_gmt":"2018-03-26T21:32:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/for-wapo-what-next-in-africa-doesnt-include-us-getting-out\/"},"modified":"2018-03-26T22:32:49","modified_gmt":"2018-03-26T21:32:49","slug":"for-wapo-what-next-in-africa-doesnt-include-us-getting-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/for-wapo-what-next-in-africa-doesnt-include-us-getting-out\/","title":{"rendered":"For WaPo, \u2018What Next in Africa?\u2019 Doesn\u2019t Include US Getting Out"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Washington<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/strong> (3\/19\/18<\/a>) thinks the question is thorny, so it makes sure to prune the answers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cPentagon Grapples With a Thorny Question After Niger Ambush,\u201d a recent Washington Post<\/b> headline (3\/19\/18<\/a>) read: \u201cWhat Next in Africa?\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the possible answers not considered by the Post<\/b> article: “Close US military bases,” “End US drone strikes” or “Stop US special forces raids.”<\/p>\n

While the question of US military intervention in Africa is one that deserves deep interrogation and investigation by journalists, the Post<\/b> approaches it by assuming the benevolence of America\u2019s aims on the continent, and fails to question the strategic value of endless war.<\/p>\n

Post<\/b> national security reporter Dan Lamothe reports that the four US Green Berets killed in Niger last October \u201cdid not have air support for an hour after calling for help, leaving it vulnerable as a larger force of about 50 militants attacked with rifles and machine guns.\u201d According to the Post<\/b>, the ambush \u201cunderscores the danger of dispersing small teams across a vast continent where the Pentagon does not have the same level of support for its service members as it does in a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan,\u201d where US forces \u201chave a more robust network of fire support, aerial surveillance, medical help and quick-reaction rescue units when a crisis erupts.\u201d<\/p>\n

By juxtaposing the US military presence in \u201chot battlefields\u201d like Iraq and Afghanistan with its role in places like Niger and Somalia\u2014sometimes referred to as being outside of \u201careas of active hostilities\u201d\u2014the implied answer to the question \u201cWhat next in Africa?\u201d is something along the lines of, \u201cExpand US military infrastructure in Africa to protect and provide support for US special forces who will inevitably engage in hostilities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The goal is not to prevent US casualties\u2014and, more importantly, the devastation inevitably wreaked by the most powerful military in the world\u2014by, for example, withdrawing US forces from the continent. For the Washington Post<\/b>, US military presence in Africa is assumed\u2014not challenged or questioned in any meaningful way.<\/p>\n

For comment, the Post<\/b> consults Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM from 2011 to 2013:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSometimes, the knee-jerk reaction when something bad happens of, \u2018Get them out of there,\u2019 that\u2019s not a particularly good response,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What\u2019s wrong with that response? The Post<\/b> doesn\u2019t ask.<\/p>\n

The only space the Post<\/b> gives to dissent in this case is to Erik Goepner, a visiting research fellow at the Cato Institute and the last person quoted in the article:<\/p>\n

\n

I think American citizens should rightfully ask, \u201cHow do we define this mission set?\u201d\u2009Is it building up indigenous forces, and is that the extent of it? If so, great. Or are we doing kill-capture missions? Because if we\u2019re doing kill-capture missions, the horror of war is that you\u2019ll always kill the wrong guy in some numbers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Post<\/b> doesn\u2019t follow up on the questions Goepner raises about how the US will intervene militarily in Africa. But left completely out of the discussion is anyone who thinks the US military shouldn\u2019t be intervening in Africa at all. That ensures that the answer to \u201cwhat next in Africa?\u201d will always involve endless war.<\/p>\n

\n

Messages can be sent to the Washington Post <\/strong>at letters@washpost.com<\/a>, or via Twitter<\/strong> @washingtonpost<\/a>. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span>