This BBC clip reinforces my arguments. With all the “welcoming” Africom received, why isn’t there a base yet? Because, simply, its not about where Africom is “welcomed” its about where the Pentagon wants to base it.

But since even Barrack Obama supports Africom, I am beginning to think that “insiders” are holding back some critical information that would make it seem as though it is, indeed, necessary for the US to have some sort of military presence in Africa.

@Bobby – I completely agree when you say The sad thing about it is that the people who make the US foreign policies always seem to dismiss the interests of those foreign countries as though it won’t hurt the US in the long term. It does so much damage to the US, as well as the tremendous harm it does around the world. It would be so much cheaper, and do so much more good to engage as friends, in business, education, civil society, responsive government, urban planning, transportation, all the thing that add value to life anywhere in the world.

The sad thing about it is that the people who make the US foreign policies always seem to dismiss the interests of those foreign countries as though it won’t hurt the US in the long term.

The Bush intention with AFRICOM has been to use mercenaries, to train African militaries to act as surrogate. And by “partnering” and training, get to know their strengths and weaknesses, in case of fighting with, or against them in the future. They don’t need an HQ on the continent to do this.

The question in my mind is will an Obama or Clinton presidency make a difference? I’m hoping it will and one of them wins. McCain is promising endless war. Traditionally US foreign policy has not changed too much from president to president. But Bush made radical changes. I’m hoping he has a democratic successor who will turn back to the constitutional principles of American democracy.