Wafula Okumu, of South Africa?s Institute for Security Studies, is just one of many observers of the AFRICOM process who describe it as a ?public relations catastrophe? for Washington.
General James Jamerson, the former deputy commander of American forces in Europe, says the key to AFRICOM is obviously its acceptance in Africa itself.
?We have to be on the ground (in Africa), working from the bottom up, talking to Africans about this concept. I think we just don?t do this well. But it?s a recoverable kind of thing ? if we just get out there and do it,? he says.
But the US, says Stewart Patrick who leads a project on weak states at Washington?s Center for Global Development, has so far failed to ?sell? AFRICOM ? primarily because of ?bad communication.?
Instead of being ?direct? and acknowledging that the primary motivation behind AFRICOM is the protection of US interests in Africa ? such as oil supplies and its war on terror - says Okumu, American officials have instead concentrated on insisting that the command will promote ?good governance? and boost human development in Africa.
If Africans consider AFRICOM to be a threat to their sovereignty, and a political threat, the initiative will fail, Okumu maintains.
Patrick says: ?The heads of the AFRICOM transition team, US diplomats and also folks at the Department of Defense have actually not been particularly good at explaining why AFRICOM is needed, and how its mission will affect the other streams of US engagement on the continent.?
In order to ensure that Africans accept the command, he says, the US will have to do a ?much better job? of explaining its mission.
?I have been struck, in Washington, despite having attended multiple discussions about AFRICOM ? including with officials from the Department of Defense, State Department and elsewhere in government ? at the lack of clarity as to what practical difference it will actually make (in Africa) on a day-to-day basis,? Patrick comments.
But observers agree that there?ve been notable improvements in the public relations skills of AFRICOM officials in recent times. Those tasked with presenting the command to the world have appeared far more relaxed in public, and far more candid in their public addresses.
Theresa Whelan, a key planner of AFRICOM and US deputy secretary for African affairs at the Department of Defense, recently told a forum at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington: ?I think it?s important for everyone to understand that we do not believe that we?ve gotten this right. We are firmly convinced that we?ve probably screwed it up somehow ? but we?re not quite sure exactly how.?
Frankness such as this, says Okumu, is essential to AFRICOM?s acceptance in Africa.
Kurt Shillinger, of the South African Institute of International Affairs, says the ?critical element? is ?local buy-in. In building a case for AFRICOM by African states, Washington is its own predecessor ? and in some cases, its own greatest obstacle.?
He?s convinced, though, that better US public relations won?t necessarily result in Africans embracing the new command.
?Given the nature of the suspicion and the prevailing distrust of the US in Africa, it?s unlikely that any amount of public relations will fully quench anti-imperialist concerns that AFRICOM is fundamentally an attempt to create a bulwark in Africa against transnational terrorism, or China?s appetite for Africa?s oil, minerals and timber,? Shillinger explains.
He does, however, expect that the ?dust will settle. The proposed structure of AFRICOM, consisting of four to five relatively small bases with no force deployments, means that these will be largely invisible ? even in their host countries and societies. That bodes well for viability.?
Analysts say the command stands a much better chance of acceptance if Africans are convinced that AFRICOM ? as its officials have stated repeatedly - won?t result in deployments of thousands of US troops to the continent.
Patrick says the US will have to go to ?great lengths? to try to make sure that the creation of AFRICOM does not result in a ?very large military footprint? on Africa.
?One way to do that would be to devote less energy to creating actual standing military installations on the continent, and instead go in the direction of negotiating a number of arrangements that would allow US forces to deploy in existing installations under the control of African governments in crises ? dependent on the approval of the host government,? he counsels.
If concessions such as these are given to Africans, says Patrick, it could ease their fear that AFRICOM will result in terrorists increasingly targeting Africa.