The United States of America (US) has been spending billions of dollars on arming and training African militaries for over 25 years. The US has also created a military regional command specifically for Africa, established operating military bases or deployed forces in West Africa, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Guinea, and provided both military and intelligence support for counterterrorism operations. The Times piece is lacking information; it does not cover Chad, Somalia, or Djibouti, countries in which the US military have been stationed and conducted operations for almost 20 years. All of these military operations have ostensibly been intended to improve African militaries’ capacity to stop and fight terrorism and, secondary, to establish or reinforce democratic government.

Ineffectiveness of current strategies

In addition to arming and training more terrorists and terrorist groups, US military troops have overthrown regimes. This year, those new leaders started to expel the French and American soldiers who had been stationed in their nations for years. The US military is dismantling its new $110 million operations facility in Niger, where it has been using drones to spy on and target terrorist organizations in the area. The US military should have only ever been a supporting role in US attempts to improve the government and the economy of these developing countries, or it should never have been present in the first place. Even yet, it’s unclear whether the US can “strengthen governance” in another nation or halt terrorists, much alone teach foreign forces to do so. There’s no way that we can do it with force. However, for more than 20 years, the US has centered its strategy in Africa around the use of military force. The security issue was greatly overmilitarized by the US. The US performs a poor job of arming and training its soldiers; at best, its military efficacy is inconsistent. Additionally, US initiatives have shown to be ineffective in promoting democratic government and combating terrorism. It’s time to end US security cooperation and support in Africa, not to change the policy.

Impact on local communities

 In a 2011 paper for the Stimson Center, Becky Williams and I came to the conclusion that the main problem with US security aid and cooperation initiatives, particularly in Africa, is that they are run by the Pentagon. The definition, objectives, and implementation of these policies and initiatives have been largely absorbed by the Defense Department and the US military within the last thirty years. Much of the power that it formerly held to supervise and assess security assistance programs has been relinquished by the State Department. The West African experience is a clear example of how putting “security first” really makes things more insecure. These countries’ militaries suck up an increasing amount of the national budget, depress their economy, and, via their actions, feed the exact threat that the military claims it is fighting. Too many of these military commanders, educated and backed by the US, take on political authority, which leads to further arbitrary tyranny. There will inevitably be less democracy and more terrorism. That is another way of stating that militaries that are too strong in countries with insufficiently strong governments endanger democracy and security and encourage increased terrorist activity and domestic turmoil.

Alternatives to military intervention

Such changes are not desperately needed across the world, particularly in Africa where corruption and authoritarianism are on the rise. Furthermore, it is abundantly evident that the Chinese and Russians will offer substantial support devoid of any conditions related to administration and reform. Furthermore, the US is already on the verge of becoming a failed democracy, making it scarcely a role model for other countries. Only from inside can there be true transformation. It would be undesirable if an outside force, France or Britain, for example tried to alter the broken US political system. The potential for change in Africa, like in the US, rests on the people’s understanding and desire to take charge of their own change processes, demand transparent and responsive government, and then look for the outside assistance they require to see those changes through to completion. Only then can outside assistance start to be beneficial and successful.

Political implications for the US

Eventually, he was appointed as President Obama’s point person on counterterrorism strategy, and the Wilson Center started a series of programs that are still going strong. Our first program, which we held on September 12, 2011, asked what the country should do in the next ten years and whether a clearer legal framework pertaining to domestic intelligence is necessary. The killing of Osama bin Laden in May of last year is unquestionably the decade’s biggest success story. The leading security officials in our nation were at the forefront of that endeavor. Right here in the first row, It observed Denis McDonough among the crowd, which undoubtedly included John Brennan and President Obama. They made the difficult decisions.