The Trump administration's latest moves on the continent of Africa signal a significant shift in US military priorities, with experts warning that the country is about to repeat its mistakes in West Africa.
The US has long been committed to countering terrorism and instability in Africa, but its efforts have consistently failed to achieve lasting success, with rising numbers of fatalities and destabilization in several countries including Somalia and Mali.
Under President Trump's National Security Strategy, which emphasizes power projection in the Western Hemisphere, the US military is being reoriented towards a more aggressive and interventionist approach, with plans to reduce the number of geographic combatant commands in Africa and merge them into smaller regional commands.
While some proponents of this strategy claim that it will help to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations, critics argue that it is based on flawed assumptions about the root causes of terrorism and ignores the need for more nuanced and sustainable approaches to counterextremism.
"This is a recipe for disaster," said Stephanie Savell, director of Brown University's Costs of War Project. "We're talking about a region where extremist groups are increasingly linked to organized crime networks and have access to sophisticated military equipment. We can't just blow them up and expect them to go away."
The US has already faced criticism for its approach in Africa, with some accusing it of perpetuating the very problems it claims to be trying to solve.
"The experience in West Africa holds an essential lesson for U.S. actions in the Western Hemisphere," said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy. "Waging war against so-called 'narco-terrorists' will cost many human lives and taxpayer dollars, with no strategic benefit."
In addition to its failed counterterrorism efforts, the US has also been criticized for its support of authoritarian regimes in Africa, which often perpetuate instability and corruption.
"The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world," said Ben Moss, editor-in-chief of The Intercept. "We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy."
As the US continues to shift its military priorities towards Africa, it is likely that experts will continue to sound the alarm about the risks of another failed intervention.
In the short term, however, the Trump administration's plans for a new regional command in West Africa are already underway, with several major African nations and regional organizations expressing skepticism about the US approach.
The US has long been committed to countering terrorism and instability in Africa, but its efforts have consistently failed to achieve lasting success, with rising numbers of fatalities and destabilization in several countries including Somalia and Mali.
Under President Trump's National Security Strategy, which emphasizes power projection in the Western Hemisphere, the US military is being reoriented towards a more aggressive and interventionist approach, with plans to reduce the number of geographic combatant commands in Africa and merge them into smaller regional commands.
While some proponents of this strategy claim that it will help to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations, critics argue that it is based on flawed assumptions about the root causes of terrorism and ignores the need for more nuanced and sustainable approaches to counterextremism.
"This is a recipe for disaster," said Stephanie Savell, director of Brown University's Costs of War Project. "We're talking about a region where extremist groups are increasingly linked to organized crime networks and have access to sophisticated military equipment. We can't just blow them up and expect them to go away."
The US has already faced criticism for its approach in Africa, with some accusing it of perpetuating the very problems it claims to be trying to solve.
"The experience in West Africa holds an essential lesson for U.S. actions in the Western Hemisphere," said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy. "Waging war against so-called 'narco-terrorists' will cost many human lives and taxpayer dollars, with no strategic benefit."
In addition to its failed counterterrorism efforts, the US has also been criticized for its support of authoritarian regimes in Africa, which often perpetuate instability and corruption.
"The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world," said Ben Moss, editor-in-chief of The Intercept. "We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy."
As the US continues to shift its military priorities towards Africa, it is likely that experts will continue to sound the alarm about the risks of another failed intervention.
In the short term, however, the Trump administration's plans for a new regional command in West Africa are already underway, with several major African nations and regional organizations expressing skepticism about the US approach.
The way the US is reorienting its military priorities in Africa feels like they're ignoring the elephant in the room – corruption and instability that's been festering for years. They keep trying to tackle terrorism, but it's like they think you can just blow away the root causes with a bomb 
. Meanwhile, these regions are all about complex issues and nuanced approaches 
. The US needs to get a better understanding of what's really going on on the ground before making any drastic changes 
.
I'm getting so sick of these US politics threads always being about military interventions and imperialism... 
Like, can't we talk about something else for once? 
And what's with all the doom and gloom predictions from "experts"? It's always "this is a recipe for disaster" or "we're going to repeat our mistakes". Can't they just have a constructive conversation for once? 
... they're basically putting all their eggs in one basket and hoping it doesn't crack 
... I mean, we've seen time and time again how interventionism in West Africa just leads to more chaos and instability 
... it's like they think blowing away extremist groups is going to magically solve the problem 
... newsflash: it doesn't work that way 
... we need a smarter approach, not just some hotshot military solution 
... what's really driving these decisions, anyway? Is it about power projection or actually helping people on the ground? 
The idea of reducing geographic combatant commands and merging them into smaller regional commands makes sense to me, it could be a more efficient way of addressing the root causes of instability and terrorism 
It's not gonna be easy, but if we learn from our mistakes in West Africa and West Asia, we might actually get it right this time 