Web Letters: Say No to Africom

Given the bloody record of maverick private security companies in Iraq, namely, Blackwater, maybe we should think twice about telling corporations to provide their own security forces. I do agree with you, however, in that Africom, a military base, providing a locus for an arm of American government that has the inalienable right to exact violent measures if needed, cannot possibly be a necessary vehicle to increase peace in Africa, a nation of Africans. The fine lady from Washington who commented, since you claim to have done more reading on the issue than Danny Glover and Nicole Lee, can you please bestow upon us the reason the Bush Administration does not support a peaceful agency, NGO or institution rather than erecting another military base as a buffer against Chinese interests. Is this about China? Or is this about Africa?

I, for one, am tired of under-the-table, tongue-in-cheek, behind-the-curtain, secretive, veiled checks, and muscle-flexing displays by the major world players. If this is supposed to put a stick in the spokes in the imperial intentions of other (neocolonial) powers, then why are the major governments too timid to talk out their intentions on the world stage in front of everyone? Why? Because they are not bold enough to confront their own people. They are not bold enough to risk the loss of power that they think a loss of public dignity or military might entail.

Austin Purnell

Washington, DC

Has Glover even bothered to do his homework about AFRICOM? The Department of Defense is straying from its usual J-type structure to make this command a joint venture with the State Department, in order to ensure that the African nations are not controlled by the US military but are working closely together to solve regional problems like disease, poverty, hunger, civil unrest etc. It is no secret that the presence of China is a concern and that monitoring the petroleum issues is part of the US's desire to be present in Africa, but the general idea behind AFRICOM is to provide humanitarian and logistics support to the African Union and its member nations. If Glover had bothered to read anything of note, he would have learned that AFRICOM will be comprised of only about a thousand military personnel, many of whom are civilians, who will be spread out all over the continent to work with the State Department as a non-combat force to aid Africans is creating security for their people while building their regional economies. Several nations have expressed a desire to allow the US to work within their borders as part of the initative.

First we aren't doing enough for the people of Africa, and now we have no business there. Sounds like someone isn't sure where he stands. Do a little more reading, Danny. You might find that the US isn't all about power and politics.

Melissa Kirkner

Washington, DC

Why don't we just send Hugo Chávez to Africa? He will increase freedom and economic well-being for everyone.

Then Danny Glover can go visit Hugo in Africa. This will be so uplifting for the African people. Danny can move there and demonstrate how well off everyone will be without the good old U.S. of A. The people love communism.

Please, Danny, why are we always the bad guys? African history is filled with violence and tribalism. We have been criticized as racists for not doing more. Now we are just opportunists.

What do you want?

Russell Rasche

Naperville, IL

I agree that building bases and stationing American troops in Africa is a bad idea, considering this country's history of racism. The authority for the US to do so is easily obtained, by bribing officials necessary to approve these bases. To think that this is not how things happen, especially in Africa and the Middle East, eastern Europe, central Asia, is naïve, as it also happens here in the US.

The purpose of these bases is an American taxpayer subsidy for the protections of corporations that will exploit Africa's resources with little benefit going to the peoples of the occupied countries. The bases themselves will be surrounded by bars and male and female prostitutes (male prostitutes seem to congregate around American embassies).The corporations should provide their own protection at their own expense, because for the American taxpayer to pay for it is communism. But then America is about socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The bribery of foreign officials is best known as foreign aid, which is why foreign aid should be discontinued. It's how the "coalition of the willing" was acquired for Iraq, with Colin Powell and Condi Rice going around the world announcing foreign aid, bribery, to countries. The American troops stationed in foreign countries are generally immune to prosecution of crimes committed there, rape being a common crime. What about the babies of servicemen? The so-called foreign aid--bribery--does not and is not meant to help the populations of those countries that are bribed.

Ken Lusk

Clayton, GA