|
Kip's Folly A Black Commander for U.S. Forces in Africa
By Mark P.
Fancher
Army General
William E. "Kip" Ward stands tall as imperialism's
shining black prince. He has been anointed to head
Africom, a rapidly unfolding plan to establish an
expanded western military presence in Africa for the
purpose of securing domination of the continent's oil
and other natural resources. (Okay, okay - so they claim
Africom is designed to quell internal strife and fight
terrorism. But none of us believe that.)
Although Africom
has triggered a wave of grumbling across the breadth of
the African continent and into many corners of the
African Diaspora, it's a pretty good bet that from the
oil company executive suites, to the oval office, to the
Pentagon, and on down to the fellas who hang out in the
officer's club at the local Army base, General Ward is
the man of the hour. Even his nickname has been made to
order. Can't you hear the comments? "That Kip is a
credit to his country, the armed forces and his race."
"Why can't they all be more like Kip?"
With degrees from
Morgan State University and Pennsylvania State
University followed by 36 years of military service in
Korea, Egypt, Somalia, Bosnia, Israel, Germany, Alaska
and Hawaii, how can you beat this guy? He certainly must
have been the kind of person retired generals had in
mind when, during the last big affirmative action case
to come before the Supreme Court the generals said:
''... the military cannot achieve an officer corps that
is both highly qualified and racially diverse'' without
race-conscious remedies. And if the military can't do
that, whose black faces can be used to give credibility
to U.S. military operations in Africa?
It is certainly
possible that General Ward is a dedicated career
military man who, with great sincerity, welcomes the
opportunity to cap his long career with service to the
continent of his ancestral origins. If so, that is
precisely the problem. He and so many Africans born in
America who have distinguished themselves professionally
within corporate and government structures either
naively miss, or deliberately ignore, their drift into
roles that require them to work against the interests of
their people.
In the case of
Africom, this project is not divorced from a long
history of efforts by Africa's people to wrest control
of unquantifiable natural wealth, first from western
governments that colonized the continent and more
recently from multi-national corporations that exploit
Africa with the assistance of black neo-colonial heads
of African states. It has been necessary for many of
these people's struggles to be carried out with arms in
places like Angola, Guinea Bissau, Congo, Mozambique and
Zimbabwe. Given the determination of exploiters to
maintain their iron grip on valuable natural resources,
even while Africa's people suffer and starve, it is
certainly likely that armed struggle by genuine
revolutionaries will occur again in other parts of the
continent. When that happens, we can safely bet that the
Pentagon will label the African freedom fighters as
terrorists and order good ole Kip to "suppress the
restless natives."
General Ward is not
alone in his willingness to play the role of imperialist
lackey. Barack Obama enthusiastically embraces the
Africom concept. He uttered the following nonsense:
"There will be situations that require the United States
to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism
with lethal force. Having a unified command operating in
Africa will facilitate this action." If Ward and Obama
were to rationalize their compromises with the tired
excuse that Africom can't be stopped and "at least it
will be under the control of a brother," we would be
compelled to respond that our people's history shows
that it doesn't have to be that way.
At the dawn of the
20th Century, when Buffalo Soldiers were directed by
racist white commanders to suppress a rebellion by
brown-skinned Filipinos, conscience prevented a number
of these Africans from following those orders. During
the Vietnam War, some of the brothers in the U.S.
military did the same thing. In fact, Muhammad Ali,
while at the peak of his career, was moved by conscience
to bravely refuse to fight in Vietnam. He lost almost
everything as a consequence. We must remember the 43
brothers stationed at Fort Hood, Texas who were
prosecuted for refusing to attack anti-war protesters at
the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
This tradition of
refusing to participate in unconscionable U.S. military
missions is alive even today. Consider that until the
year 2000, U.S.-born Africans accounted for nearly 25
percent of Army personnel. By 2004, less than 16 percent
of Army recruits were Africans. That percentage
continues to decline. An Army study concluded that the
attitudes of black youth were significantly shaped by
their community, and the widespread opposition to the
Iraq War in that community led to a rejection of
military service. According to a Gallup Poll, 78 percent
of whites supported the Iraq war, and 72 percent of
blacks opposed it in 2003.
Is it fair to
demand that Ward commit career suicide by opposing
Africom, or at least refusing to lead it? The short
answer is yes. Since our arrival on U.S. shores,
Africans have never had the convenient option of
declining heroism. Unlike the majority demographic in
this country whose individual decisions often have
implications only for the individuals who make them,
whenever we Africans take the easy road paved by an
oppressive system, large numbers of our people are
injured or killed as a consequence.
Contemplate for
only a moment the incredible number of lives of
oppressed people and people of color that have been
ruined or lost because of the opportunistic,
self-centered careers of Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza
Rice, and other lesser-known individuals of that ilk.
General Ward stands poised to preside over an operation
that possibly poses the most lethal threat to Africa and
African people in the modern era. If on the question of
whether to go forward as Africom's commander, Ward is to
be guided by morality and his people's history, he has
but one clear choice.
Mark P. Fancher
is a human rights lawyer, essayist and activist. He can
be contacted at
mfancher@comcast.net
Source:
BlackAgendaReport
* *
* * *
Africom: The new US military command for Africa—A
series of consultations with the governments of a number
of African countries—including Morocco, Algeria,
Libya, Egypt, Djibouti, Kenya—following the
announcement of Africom found than none of them were
willing to commit to hosting the new command. As a
result, the Pentagon has been forced to reconsider its
plans and in June 2007 Ryan Henry, the Principal Deputy
Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy told reporters
that the Bush administration now intended to establish
what he called “a distributed command” that would be
“networked” in several countries in different regions of
the continent. Under questioning before the Senate
Africa Subcommittee on 1 August 2007, Assistant
Secretary Whelan said that Liberia, Botswana,
Senegal, and Djibouti were among the countries that
had expressed support for Africom—although only Liberia
has publicly expressed a willingness to play host to
Africom personnel—which clearly suggests that these
countries are likely to accommodate elements of
Africom’s headquarters staff when they eventually
establish a presence on the continent sometime after
October 2008.
Pambazuka
* *
* * *
Say No to Africom—With
little scrutiny from Democrats in Congress
and nary a whimper of protest from the
liberal establishment, the United States
will soon establish permanent military bases
in sub-Saharan Africa. An alarming step
forward in the militarization of the African
continent, the US Africa Command (Africom)
will oversee all US military and security
interests throughout the region, excluding
Egypt. Africom is set to launch by September
2008 and the Senate recently confirmed Gen.
William "Kip" Ward as its first commander.
Danny Glover & Nicole Lee.
The Nation /
* *
* * *
Charlie Rose:
A conversation with Gen. William "Kip"
Ward, U.S. Africa Command
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
posted 17 November 2007 |
