Counterterror Efforts Stumble in North Africa

Counterterror Efforts Stumble in North Africa

With recent reports of al Qaeda efforts to establish a foothold in the vast ungoverned territory of Northwest Africa and the Sahara desert region you would think counterterrorism efforts in the region would be a pretty high priority.

Not so, according to a new report from the watchdogs over at GAO, who found that the Trans Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), is hampered by the lack of any real plan, inadequate funding and bickering between participating agencies.

The countries included in the TSCTP are not exactly terrorism backwaters. The State Department said in its 2007 report on terrorism that al Qaeda in the Maghreb, AQIM, had formed an alliance with an Algerian extremist group and was using the Trans-Sahara region as a training base. Nigeria has long battled a list of insurgent and terrorist groups that routinely shut down the flow of oil from the West African nation. The Pentagon provides training, such as marksmanship and small unit operations; provides vehicles; constructs target ranges; provides intelligence training; and does a range of humanitarian assistance including digging wells and building schools. The military is also engaged in various information operations in the area designed to counter extremist propaganda.


But U.S. efforts to forge partnerships with Northwest African nations are plagued by an astounding lack of coordination. This far into the “long war” against extremist groups and the lead federal agencies in counterterrorism still appear unable to work together. Country teams are supposed to be led by and operate under the authority of the ambassador. But State and DOD cannot agree on who should run the show in the countries covered by the TSCTP, designed from the outset to be an interagency program. There are ongoing arguments about whether military personnel should answer to the country ambassador or to the EUCOM commander while on temporary assignment in African countries. After the ambassador to Niger limited the number of military personnel allowed in the country because of political sensitivities to American boots-on-the-ground, EUCOM pulled their people and suspended operations there. In Chad, the ambassador called a halt to DOD activities because there weren’t enough embassy personnel to provide support.

Another problem with the whole effort is that funding for TSCTP is not directed by Congress, rather the amounts spent are entirely at the discretion of the agencies themselves. That’s a problem right there. Evidence: for 2008 DOD, State and USAID committed $123 million to the entire North African counter terror effort; the vast bulk of the money has been provided by DOD.

GAO recommended that State take the lead and lay out clear goals and objectives for the initiative and specify the needed resources. The government auditors also suggested that State and DOD issue some sort of joint guidance on who is in charge of military personnel operating in the region. Counter terror efforts in Trans-Sahara appear desperately in need of direct attention from Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has spent the past year or so calling for greater use of “soft power” and for other government agencies to take a greater role in fostering closer cooperation with foreign governments.

Join the Conversation

That was a very good report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) covering defeating Terrorism in Sub Sahara Africa.

I would like to add some thoughts.

To address the issue of no Long Term Strategic Plan maybe we should research having a third party (to be announced) organization develops the Long Term Strategic Plan for the Region.

I agree with the State Department that Embassies within the respected Countries seem logical to have them as the Command Center/Point of Contact.

I would also recommend that (within the plan) we create a position working out of the Embassy (example: Director of State Department – DOD liaison).

The role of this entity will be to work between (facilitator) the State Department and the Department of Defense to assist with implementing our strategies, etc.

Other then that I think it is very manageable since we are slightly ahead of the curve and we can collectively pull from lessons already learned from history.

Liason with the credentials,comms and action teams. This is a critical effort at hedging undue enemy influence. If the Liason cannot do
a GO/NOGO then, it might as well be the UN. Embassies are the logical point of control as Mr.Cryer has stated, but normal OPS out of a embassy are anything but timely.
Where best are our efforts effective? I will bet that a proactive plan best utilizes our available resources,“ahead of the curve.”

Long term stategy assessment might simply be,
cooperation with African mililtary units to better facilitate understanding, trust and a unique ability to work together under short term notice in joint OPS.

Gentlemen, we must put our heads into this new century. What opportunities await us to develop altruistic alliances. An example of what should not happen is in Iraq. We fight and Europe gets the alliances for oil? We cannot afford to view this as a sideline issue. This horse is about to gallop and only likes the rider who trained it. Did you ever see a race horse throw a rider in practice and gallop back to the barn?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement