Why is AFRICOM so vital to US interests?

“…while the US military/industrial complex, along with Big Oil, benefits from using taxpayer dollars to fill their coffers, how does that justify cuts in education and social services, for instance?”
Dear friends,

In an article thta appeared in Foreign Policy magazine last year, author Robert Moeller insists: One of the most serious criticisms leveled at Africom is that the organization represents a U.S. military takeover of the foreign-policy process. Huh?

What about the longtime push by a number of African nations to unify and declare a United States of Africa? Does AFRICOM agree with that perspective, and will it not try to influence the possibility of a united Africa?

Initially alleging that the issue was about the “war on terror", it became clear that the interests of "Big Oil", not "national security" were behind the whole existence of AFRICOM. Started by George W. Bush, Robert Gates was put in charge of the AFRICOM operation. Then yet another convenience for Big Business, Barack Obama kept Gates at his post after he won the presidency.

Nevertheless, the author continues: Let there be no mistake. Africom’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests. That is what nations and militaries do. But we also have found that our own national interest in a stable and prosperous Africa is shared strongly by our African partners.

Of course, Moeller's assertion is contradicted in a recent article in The Nation, by Katrina vanden Heuvel called, "Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security". She writes, “The AFRICOM headquarters alone costs almost $300 million for operation and maintenance, with an additional $263 million for support and $200 million for the Camp Lemonier base with 1,800 US troops in Djibouti. Based on the FY 2010 budget requests, AFRICOM would receive approximately $1.4 billion...IPS took the lead in organizing the Africa Human Security Group, a coalition of faith-based and youth groups, African Diaspora groups, academics and Africa-based allies opposed to the development of the new US Africa Command. In general, African civil society is strongly opposed to AFRICOM and US military involvement on the continent. In large part due to widespread African criticisms, the US was unable to headquarter the command on the continent. It is located instead outside of Stuttgart, Germany.”

In any case, why is it so important to the “national interest” of this country to be concerned about what is going on in Africa, at the expense of the well-being of American citizens who need more funds directed towards moving millions of citizens forward?

After all, while the US military/industrial complex, along with Big Oil, benefits from using taxpayer dollars to fill their coffers, how does that justify cuts in education and social services, for instance?

Finally, Moeller’s mention of the USAID begs for the question, "What has been the real history of USAID in helping other countries?" For example, the African nation of Eritrea refuses aid from USAID or any other American group. Why is that? Because such "aid" alway comes with conditions.

On the link below, is the article by Robert Moeller that claims AFRICOM is good for Africa. What do you think?

"Liberation!" - Dr. Barbara Love

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/21/the_truth_about_africom