AFRICOM swapped in for JFCOM?
Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 9:42AM 
In Great Powers, I wrote about making AFRICOM's headquarters in Virginia because I thought it would make sense, given the "3D" goals (the merging of defense, diplomacy and development) being pioneered there, that it shouldn't be overseas but close enough for the home bases of those agencies/departments to be able to reach out to each other more easily.
Well, Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia (or Norfolk in this instance) is now pushing hard to get AFRICOM to settle its new headquarters down there to fill in for the departing Joint Forces Command.
I had imagined more Northern VA, but I think it's a good idea. Virginia is a big military state and it's on the right U.S. coast as far as Africa is concerned. As I noted in the book, every US combatant command is now located in the U.S. except for European Command. AFRICOM has been bunking there because, before its creation, EUCOM owned almost all of Africa, with the Horn going to CENTCOM. I don't ever see EUCOM coming home because of the NATO bond and the sheer size of Stuttgart Air Force Base Ramstein and other legacy facilities, but I have to support Webb on this one. Norfolk deserves some relief, it's a good spot for AFRICOM, and AFRICOM really shouldn't (and won't) be located anywhere in Africa. It's a SOUTHCOM-like, very SysAdmin'y command and should stay that way.
Having said all that, see some excellent countering points (e.g., time zone, air connectivity) below in a comment from a person who works at AFRICOM. Having flown now to Africa a bunch of time through Germany, I yield somewhat to this guy's practical logic.
But that NVA congressional delegation is powerful when it comes to national security . . ..
Reader Comments (20)
A few of points:
-- There's no such thing as the Stuttgart Air Force Base you referred to, nor do any of the U.S. military facilities in Stuttgart have the "sheer size" you suggested. U.S. European Command occupies a small, densely populated installation known as Patch Barracks.
-- It's not a given that being in Norfolk would facilitate integration into the interagency process. Norfolk is 200 miles and a tough 3.5-hour drive from D.C. Given the hassle of commercial aviation these days, it's not clear that daytrip visits would be feasible.
-- Much of the day-to-day U.S. Africa Command integration takes the form of daily interaction with U.S. Embassies and Diplomatic Missions in Africa. It's extremely helpful being in the same time zone.
-- An advantage SOUTHCOM has in Miami is that southern Florida is a major travel/transport/cultural hub for much of Latin America. Western Europe has a similar transport/cultural relationship with Africa. Stuttgart is a short connecting flight (usually less than an hour) from western European capitals that offer direct flights to nearly every African capital. Most of the staff travels via commercial air, and the geography allows regular visits to Africa for a few days at a time with no jet lag.
Yes , I work at AFRICOM. There actually would be significant personal advantages to being on the East Coast, especially in Norfolk. Most of our civilian staff is fairly senior, so we'd be able to afford nice homes, much closer to family, instead of enduring a difficult, intensely competitive German rental housing market. Also, most civilian DoD employees overseas are required by policy to transfer back to the States after five years, so job security in the U.S. would be significantly better. But it's not clear how this would help the mission of engagement and building familiarity with Africa. Having the staff live overseas helps to accustom them to being guests in a host nation, and to realizing that there are other international perspectives. This is intangible but valuable. Currently, too, the Stuttgart location attracts people with international work backgrounds for key positions related to interacting with African counterparts. This includes former State Department employees and former Defense Attaches, and several dozen interagency staff members. It's unclear whether Norfolk would attract these kinds of people. Washington D.C. or northern Virginia, yes, but perhaps not Norfolk.
My mistake. In my haste this a.m. I was thinking Ramstein.
All good points and info--thanks.
You're right on the long haul/drive to Norfolk, and that is one tiny and not great airport (only place I've lost luggage repeatedly--in the world!). That's why I favored NVA in my book.
Having said all that, it's hard to say no to the VA congressional delegation on national defense. . .
I agree: "Having the staff live overseas helps to accustom them to being guests in a host nation, and to realizing that there are other international perspectives. This is intangible but valuable."
To engage and build familiarity with Africa, why not Lisbon, Portugal?
The Portuguese had a great cultural impact on their colonies in Africa. Many African nations still speak Portuguese as their official language including Angola, Mozambique, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome, Cape Verde Islands and a few more.
I've done day trips from DC area to Norfolk. It's a -long- day trip (particularly when I-95 is hosed.) The proposal for high-speed rail to Richmond could make a big difference here. I have a friend who's commuting to the Pentagon from Petersburg, VA. He drives to the train in Richmond (i think), sleeps on the train in the morning and does homework for his PhD going home. (Me, I'm -way- too old to do that commute:-)
@Jose,
Lisbon would be interesting (certainly nicer weather and, I believe, affordable housing). Certainly Lisbon has nothing like Germany's divesity of transport (Kelley Barracks is less than 10 mins from Stuttgart airport, with dozens of daily connecting flights to all of Europe; in addition, high speed rail provides a 70-minute connection between Stuttgart and Frankfurt am Main airport, one of Europe's main hubs; high speed rail also connects to Paris in less than four hours. For the most part, flights to the Grand Continent ((I hate the colonial-era "Dark Continent")) take place via Frankfurt, Paris, London, Amsterdam or Brussels, and Stuttgart offers several flights a day to each.
There are language and cultural advantages to Africa's former colonial capitals, but also a lot of historic baggage. Government and civic leadership in several African nations have cautioned us against too close a relationship with former colonial powers. Germany, too, has colonial history in Africa, but it ended more than 90 years ago and was not related to the independence movements. Interestingly, I've had Cameroonians tell me that much of the century-old German infrastructure still workds and that they use the slang word "German" for something that is sturdy and long-lasting, as in "he's my German friend."
Mr Emery raises an excellent point -- if the local, state and federal powers that be do a little collaboration, a high speed rail from DC to Richmond to Norfolk abeam I95/I64 would accomplish a # of long range positives.
- Aiding the shift from JFCOM to AFRICOM
- Moving some of the commuting clogs /COGs out of NoVa and towards a less expensive Richmond/Norfolk
- Tapping two more universities (Richmond and Old Dominion) with room to grow and places to put AFRICOM-type policy institutes
- A rail extension to the Research Triangle would tap some of that talent also
"But that NVA congressional delegation..."
And who could have foreseen, back in 1969, that the NVA would even have a congressional delegation?
@Vince,
No doubt Germany has the advantage of the transport links. Not so sure about the «historic baggage»: the expression «scramble for Africa» was coined in 1884, not in Lisbon but in Berlin. The partition phase of Africa begins around 1876 and ends around 1912, close to the date when the Portuguese created for the first time their «Colonial Department» in the Government, imitating the other Europeans. Their «colonial attitude» was very superficial. By the way, you can't find in Portugal anything similar to the «Ishtar Gate» (in a Berlin museum).
These arguments could have been made back in the early '80s against standing up US Central Command in Tampa!!! What does Florida have in common with the Middle East? The drive to DC from Norfolk is another specious argument. USJFCOM is primarily the Joint Staff South. Many people at JFCOM drive the 3.5 to 4 hours (myself included) up to the Pentagon on a routine basis. I don't blame my collegues not wanting to leave Europe. I left San Diego for Norfolk, so I understand culturally it's no bargain compared to DC. But today's electronic networking and modern air travel capabilities plus Naval Air Station Norfolk a primary AMC Terminal with flights into/out of Africa and the Middle East constantly and the COCOM infrastructure already in place and paid for by the American taxpayer (remember him/her?) a swap out of JFCOM for AFRICOM makes perfect sense.
What about Fort Bragg? JFK School is there, FORSCOM & USARC are BRACcing over from GA, and a little too far for those soul-sucking all-day daytrips.
I'm not really convinced, just thinking out loud. There's really no African counterpart to Miami, is there?
@Vince
During Unified Assistance I heard some Acehnese use 'Dutch' in the same fashion. I didn't think I could use it that way without offending at least some people.
Tbd; see some logic to it as well; but then again the lobbying is due to the loss of the other command -joint forces command which is based in Va and put on the chopping block. Politics and yes IMBYS-in my backyard syndrome kicks in (not NIMBYS-Not In My Backyard Syndrome-for economic replacement for potential loss of Joint Forces Command, and yes Va is big military). Warner and Webb are both Dems, but even when Va had one flavor each, one dem and one republican senator, they voted in unison on defense issues. See just how strong the Virginians are in the replacement effort vs. the defense of a time zone command based in Germany for African theater issues. I have some knowledge of AFRICOM which has had an interesting and expensive startup and is scheduled to be in search of an alternate location given that few African countries have a willingness to place a target in their midst and calls to have combattant commands in geo-proximity have been made. Some observors have named other locales such as GA-Atlanta, NC, SC, and others. Lots of political machinations will take place.
I am a US Army officer serving in Sub-Saharan Africa as a Foreign Area Officer. I appreciate all the the nuances expressed by the multitudes of constituencies on the issue of Africom's HQs and if/when/where it might move to the in future.
Norfolk is a poor choice based upon the difficulty of links to international travel via Europe to Africa. Also, any such events such as the Africom Theater Security Cooperation Conference, if held in CONUS, would require 28 hours of air travel for me instead of the mere 12-13 based upon layovers and multiple connections due to the low numbers of US-Africa air routes. This is particularly true in Southern, Eastern, and Central Africa.
For all of these same reasons Africom's location is not feasible in Africa itself. I recently endured 21 hours of travel from east to west Africa which only included 9.5 hours of flying.
While I would love to one day live in Lisbon as a staff officer I think that if we look at the colonial legacy of the Portuguese in Africa it quickly becomes apparent this idea is probably a non-starter. While it is not an issue for Americans our former Portuguese colonies who are now African Partners would probably question our judgement. Long, bloody, and repressive civil wars in Mozambique and Angola did not end that long ago.
Central Europe, while perhaps not the ideal choice, is the best we have at the moment. Like Mr. Barnett points out the NOVA delegation is powerful.
I'm a DoD person who isn't in AFRICOM, but is pretty familiar with it, and there is yet another reason it makes some strategic sense to stay in Europe: unlike SOUTHCOM and LatAm, where the US is by far the largest player, the EU is a bigger partner for Africa both economically and militarily than is the United States. The EU is way ahead of the US in engaging with the AU and bilaterally with most African nations (there are exceptions), and European militaries are playing just as large a role in training and assisting African militaries and the development of the AU's "standby brigades". Being located in Europe faciliates coordination between our efforts and EU efforts, and allows us to capitalize on African pol/mil people visiting partners in Europe vs having to visit both Europe and Virginia.
Now, Stuttgart isn't ideal. Brussels or Paris, with London behind them, would be better if you got to pick your favorite, but the EU location for AFRICOM does have some utility beyond just being in the same time zone.
Gentlemen; Being there is about being there.
Pick a West Coast African Nation and build the HQs.
Quality of Life issues for my peers or our State and NGO careerists co-workers? You're not serious about the mission.
Shrink. the. Gap.
@JEOglethorpe,
It's been pointed out by several people that if you are in one African country, there are more than 50 countries you are not in. And traveling from one African country to another is extremely extremely challenging. Being "in Africa" doesn't suddenly give you a continental perspective. It gives you a bilateral relationship with the country you are in, combined with inheriting all the issues that county has with its neighbors, its region and the continent. Dept of State's Regional Services office for Africa is in Paris, not an African nation. I've been with AFRICOM 3 1/2 years now, and got hired in part because, unlike others who interviewed for the position, I was determined to live in Africa and strongly wanted to move my family to an African country. For me, personally, that would be the best option. But it doesn't necessarily make a lot of strategic sense.
This summer I worked on an AFRICOM project in the DRC. The time zone between our project and HQ in Stuttgart was identical, making coms and logs incredibly easy. On the other hand, dealing with routine business Stateside was a nightmare due to the 7 hour time difference. I would agree with those who put forth staying in EU based on this log issue, as well as, the ease of travel from EU hub airports to almost any location in SSA and the limited jet lag.
What I would caution as well is the movement of AFRICOM HQ to a former colonial powerhouse. As a African scholar and someone who has spent time in 5 African countries from 4 different colonial legacies - moving HQ to Brussels, Lisbon, Paris, or London would send a strong signal to African leaders that the US endorses - and AFRICOM is engaged in- neocolonialism. (P.S> Jose, Senegal was never colonized by Portugal. They were colonized by the French)
While moving HQ to Africa itself sounds like a grand idea - the location would have to have access to the types of transcontinental and intercontinental flights necessary to reach all parts of SSA, EU, and the US. The location would also require certain amenities to attract senior staff to postings there. Only one place comes to mind that fits this bill - and it is highly unlikely that South Africa would agree to a major US military installation given our present friendly, yet combative relationship.
I live in Stuttgart and work with Africom. Being in the time zone is a quality of life issue. I deal on a daily basis with various African embassies and around 1300 start dealing with the East Coast bureaucracy. There is a huge infrastructure issue with the growth of Africom. If Africom has to move there are more than enough down sized bases to accommodate 1200 personnel and their families. Sigonella, Sicily would be perfect.
To be clear, I work with AFRICOM and while not an officer, I understand the politics of what is being discussed and more importantly the human aspect of the issue. I have heard many discussions since coming to the command pertaining to why we aren't on American soil.
I understand that it made sense initially to have the command in Stuttgart, because it allowed for an easy transition of responsibility from EUCOM to AFRICOM. All the pieces, as well as personnel formerly working the African theatre, were here and made it easy to reach out and get answers while the command was in its infancy.
Also, I agree with the arguments that Europe is a good geographic location based on time zone, short travel distances, and less stops for our African partners (i.e. visiting EU partner nations and AFRICOM in the same trip is more productive). When you look at the countries of Africa, most are very poor and it is better for them to only have to travel to Europe on a regular basis as opposed to Europe and America. Their money is better spent on critical infrastructure and programs, instead of sending delegations around the world to learn how to implement effective procedures in their home countries.
In response to moving AFRICOM to the continent and "closing the gap", this has several negative repercussions that I believe have already been taken into account and this is why that idea isn't being considered now. While most people would believe that this would make the most sense and solve a lot of issues, there are several human factors that must be looked at to fully understand why this is such a bad idea. There are 53 individual countries on the continent that AFRICOM is responsible for maintaining a relationship with and only one AFRICOM. If you place the HQs in one country, then the remaining countries will almost immediately develop a "sour taste" in their mouths when it comes to our working relationship. Even if you look at the possibility of splitting the command among several key nations, you are still inevitably leaving the majority "out in the cold". Further disdain would come from AFRICOM-less countries toward any country we decide to reside in because of jealousy toward the economic benefit that country would receive just by virtue of having such a flux of Americans injecting revenue into their economy.
Even with all the arguments, the truth is that the NVA delegation will have a very loud voice and if we don't have equally loud voices for AFRICOM remaining in its current location or another nearby EU locale, then I believe that AFRICOM will soon see itself on American soil. Eventually, this could be beneficial to taxpayers, as we would not need much tax dollars to set up shop in the current JFCOM infrastructure and it would cost far less to PCS service members to the command. Also, you would get a better continuity of effort among civilian and military staff since both would be able to work longer tours due to the stateside assignment and there wouldn't be such a high turn-over of staff, which allows for a lot of gaps in such a young command that has so much on its plate right now.
Just my two cents really, but at the end of the day, whatever Congress decides will be what we all live with. I just hope the decision gets made soon, so we can all move on and focus on the real issues on the continent.
@Vince
That seems a long way of saying that you'd prefer not to be in Africa if it can be helped.
One can reasonably expect that the the Goal (not Mission) of something named USAFRICOM ought to be to change that perception.
Can we start by agreeing here, or do we still need to go back farther? Because I don't know what to say to "a lot of peope say"...
@Nick
That seems to be a long way of saying, "Let's talk about this whole 'shrink the gap' thing". I think that that's probably somebody else's website.
Can we start by agreeing that Africa is not a country - but seems to be branded that way (not by you or I)?
Long week at HQ - I'll check back in 2 days.
@JEOglethorpe
I think Vince and I are making similar statements in regards to moving AFRICOM to the continent. In reference to the perception of AFRICOM, I don't think the perception is that AFRICOM is too distant from the issues on the continent. The main perception, speaking strictly of negative perception, is that AFRICOM was created to implement a militarized approach to deal with issues in Africa and cut-out any diplomatic involvement that is currently being conducted. So to move AFRICOM to Africa would only serve to further divide Africans from engaging with AFRICOM as they would view this move as an affirmation to their fears that we want to turn Africa into another Iraq or Afghanistan. AFRICOM is able to maintain a good perspective on the continent by receiving a constant influx of updated information from the personnel that are down on the continent accomplishing the mission. Since AFRICOM is just the management piece to the units and personnel engaging with the local populations of the various countries, AFRICOM itself wouldn't enhance its capability simply by virtue of proximity to the continent. I think the main concern of location is based more on time zone and travel distance. As was pointed out previously, being located in one country within Africa, won't make it any easier to travel to the different countries.
I definitely agree that Africa is not a country and that far too many people see it that way. Which is why my comment pertaining to shrinking the gap was so lengthy. My intent was not so much to discuss the particular issue of shrinking the gap, but to point out the issues that will develop from only moving the command to one country on the continent, since we wouldn't be able to put the same presence in every country. If you look at it from the perspective of a mother who has two grown children who moved a relatively far distance from her and each other. If the mother moves to be closer to one child, the other one will undoubtedly become jealous of their relationship and feel that the mother loves the child she moved closer to more than the one she didn't. The child who feels left out would then begin to socially distance himself from the other child and mother and limit their engagements with one another. The same would hold true of moving AFRICOM to any one country in Africa. You can also take into account the long history African country's have with outside colonization, but that is definitely better left to a separate discussion.