From: Biniam Haile \(SWE\) (eritrea.lave@comhem.se)
Date: Sat Aug 15 2009 - 23:04:09 EDT
Africa: U.S. Military Holds War Games on Nigeria, Somalia
by Daniel Volman
Global Research, August 15, 2009
-In addition to U.S. military officers and intelligence officers,
"Unified Quest 2008" brought together participants from the State
Department and other U.S. government agencies, academics, journalists,
and foreign military officers (including military representatives from
several NATO countries, Australia, and Israel), along with the private
military contractors who helped run the war games: the Rand Corporation
and Booz-Allen.
-The list of options for the Nigeria scenario ranged from diplomatic
pressure to military action, with or without the aid of European and
African nations. One participant, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel
Mark Stanovich, drew up a plan that called for the deployment of
thousands of U.S. troops within 60 days....
-Among scenarios examined during the game were the possibility of direct
American military intervention involving some 20,000 U.S. troops in
order to "secure the oil," and the question of how to handle possible
splits between factions within the Nigerian government. The game ended
without military intervention because one of the rival factions executed
a successful coup and formed a new government that sought stability.
-[W]hen General Ward appeared before the House Armed Services Committee
on March 13, 2008, he cited America's growing dependence on African oil
as a priority issue for Africom and went on to proclaim that combating
terrorism would be "Africom's number one theater-wide goal." He barely
mentioned development, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping or conflict
resolution.
In May 2008, the United States Army War College in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, hosted "Unified Quest 2008," the army's annual war games
to test the American military's ability to deal with the kind of crises
that it might face in the near future. "Unified Quest 2008" was
especially noteworthy because it was the first time the war games
included African scenarios as part of the Pentagon's plan to create a
new military command for the continent: the Africa Command or Africom.
No representatives of Africom were at the war games, but Africom
officers were in close communication throughout the event.
The five-day war games were designed to look at what crises might erupt
in different parts of the world in five to 25 years and how the United
States might handle them. In addition to U.S. military officers and
intelligence officers, "Unified Quest 2008" brought together
participants from the State Department and other U.S. government
agencies, academics, journalists, and foreign military officers
(including military representatives from several NATO countries,
Australia, and Israel), along with the private military contractors who
helped run the war games: the Rand Corporation and Booz-Allen.
One of the four scenarios that were war-gamed was a test of how Africom
could respond to a crisis in Somalia - set in 2025 - caused by
escalating insurgency and piracy. Unfortunately, no information on the
details of the scenario is available.
Far more information is available on the other scenario - set in 2013 -
which was a test of how Africom could respond to a crisis in Nigeria in
which the Nigerian government is near collapse, and rival factions and
rebels are fighting for control of the oil fields of the Niger Delta and
vying for power in the country which is the sixth largest supplier of
America's oil imports.
The list of options for the Nigeria scenario ranged from diplomatic
pressure to military action, with or without the aid of European and
African nations. One participant, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel
Mark Stanovich, drew up a plan that called for the deployment of
thousands of U.S. troops within 60 days, which even he thought was
undesirable....
As the game progressed, according to former U.S. ambassador David Lyon,
it became clear that the government of Nigeria was a large part of the
problem. As he put it, "we have a circle of elites [the government of
Nigeria] who have seized resources and are trying to perpetuate
themselves. Their interests are not exactly those of the people."
Furthermore, according to U.S. Army Major Robert Thornton, an officer
with the Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, "it became apparent that it was actually green
(the host nation government) which had the initiative, and that any blue
[the U.S. government and its allies] actions within the frame were
contingent upon what green was willing to tolerate and accommodate."
Among scenarios examined during the game were the possibility of direct
American military intervention involving some 20,000 U.S. troops in
order to "secure the oil," and the question of how to handle possible
splits between factions within the Nigerian government. The game ended
without military intervention because one of the rival factions executed
a successful coup and formed a new government that sought stability.
The recommendations which the participants drew up for the Army's Chief
of Staff, General George Casey, do not appear to be publicly available,
so we don't know exactly what the participants finally concluded. But we
do know that since the war games took place in the midst of the
presidential election campaign, General Casey decided to brief both John
McCain and Barack Obama on its results.
The African Security Research Project has prepared reports providing
detailed information on the creation, missions, and activities of
Africom. In particular, they reveal that neither the commander of
Africom, General William Ward, nor his deputy, Vice Admiral Robert
Moeller, are under any illusions about the purpose of the new command.
Thus, when General Ward appeared before the House Armed Services
Committee on March 13, 2008, he cited America's growing dependence on
African oil as a priority issue for Africom and went on to proclaim that
combating terrorism would be "Africom's number one theater-wide goal."
He barely mentioned development, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping or
conflict resolution.
And in a presentation by Vice Admiral Moeller at an Africom conference
held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008 and subsequently posted on the
web by the Pentagon, he declared that protecting "the free flow of
natural resources from Africa to the global market" was one of Africom's
"guiding principles" and specifically cited "oil disruption,"
"terrorism," and the "growing influence" of China as major "challenges"
to U.S. interests in Africa.
Since then, as General Ward has demonstrated in an interview with
AllAfrica, he has become more adept at sticking to the U.S. government's
official public position on Africom's aims and on its escalating
military operations on the African continent.
These activities currently include supervising U.S. arms sales, military
training programs and military exercises; overseeing the growing
presence of U.S. naval forces in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea and off the
coast of Somalia; running the new U.S. base at Camp Lemonier in
Djibouti; and managing the array of African military bases to which the
United States has acquired access under agreements with the host
governments of African countries all over the continent. These countries
include Algeria, Botswana, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Namibia,
Sao Tome, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia.
....
President Obama has decided instead to expand the operations of Africom
throughout the continent. He has proposed a budget for financial year
2010 that will provide increased security assistance to repressive and
undemocratic governments in resource-rich countries like Nigeria, Niger,
Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and to countries that are key
military allies of the United States like Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti,
Rwanda and Uganda.
And he has actually chosen to escalate U.S. military intervention in
Africa, most conspicuously by providing arms and training to the
beleaguered Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, as part of his
effort to make Africa a central battlefield in the "global war on
terrorism." So it is clearly wishful thinking to believe that his
exposure to the real risks of such a strategy revealed by these
hypothetical scenarios gave him a better appreciation of the risks that
the strategy entails.
Daniel Volman is director of the African Security Research Project in
Washington, DC and a member of the board of directors of the Association
of Concerned Africa Scholars. He has been studying U.S. security policy
toward Africa and U.S. military activities in Africa for more than 30
years.
Global Research Articles by Daniel Volman
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst
=Daniel&authorName=Volman> &authorFirst=Daniel&authorName=Volman
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14783> &aid=14783
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/14783.jpg>
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----
