The recent visit of General Michael Langley, Commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), to Kenya for the African Chief of Defence Conference has ignited a firestorm of controversy across the continent. Langley, an African American general, is widely recognized in Africa for his highly criticized and widely protested remarks against Burkina Faso’s President, Ibrahim Traoré, whom he accused of using the country’s gold reserves to benefit himself.
Advertisement
Despite the significant public outcry and the global demand for him to “get off African matters,” Langley has stood by his original statement, albeit clarifying that his comments were taken out of context and were intended as a “military perspective” or “cautionary tale.” He conceded, in an interview, that “Burkina Faso maintains their own sovereignty,” making their own decisions on resource use and military support. However, for many, his initial remarks were a blatant attempt to discredit an African leader who is actively challenging neo-colonial interests, leading to questions about AFRICOM’s true agenda on the continent.
AFRICOM’s Mandate: Perception vs. Reality
The organization General Langley commands is officially the United States Africa Command. However, it is primarily known by the acronym AFRICOM—a strategic naming choice that, by omitting “US” from the forefront, downplays its nature as an “American military watchdog for Africa.”
AFRICOM’s stated mandates in Africa include:
-
Training and equipping African soldiers.
-
Providing humanitarian aid.
-
Supporting peacekeeping missions.
-
Boosting regional security and tackling terrorism.
However, critics argue that the real reasons for AFRICOM’s presence and its underlying agenda are primarily focused on American interests in Africa:
-
Securing Natural Resources: Langley’s specific mention of Burkina Faso’s gold reserves highlights the strategic interest in Africa’s natural wealth.
-
Strategic Positioning: AFRICOM’s presence is seen as safeguarding American strategic interests and counteracting the influence of rivals like China and Russia.
For many Africans, General Langley’s initial remarks about Traoré’s use of gold perfectly exemplify this: What an African country does with its natural resources should be none of an American general’s business. The outrage shows a growing African political consciousness that rejects external interference and demands the right to self-determination.
The Questionable Success of US Military Training
A key part of AFRICOM’s mission is training African soldiers, yet this program has led to serious embarrassment and controversy for the US military establishment.
During a US Congressional hearing, General Langley was questioned about the number of African personnel trained by the US military—an estimated 50,000 soldiers over the last decade—and what percentage of them participate in coups or insurrections against their own governments.
Langley estimated the number to be “less than 1%”, but could not provide data to back up this claim. This lack of information appeared “clueless” to many, especially when contrasted with the general’s apparent detailed knowledge of President Traoré’s supposed gold use.
Advertisement
The most glaring example raised in the hearing was Colonel Mamady Doumbouya of Guinea , who led a successful coup in 2021 that overthrew the sitting president. Doumbouya had been trained and equipped by the US military, a fact that embarrassed Pentagon officials, who were “caught off guard,” despite the high level of surveillance and intelligence the US military possesses.
Langley’s non-answer when asked if they shared “core values” with Colonel Doumbouya, who went on to lead a coup, only intensified the criticism. Critics point out that such coups require extensive planning, equipment, and munitions, making it highly improbable that US intelligence was entirely unaware of the activities of their own trainees. The underlying question is: If US-trained soldiers lead successful coups, does the training program inadvertently or deliberately destabilize African nations?
AFRICOM’s Controversies and the “Enemy of Sovereignty”
AFRICOM’s activities have been linked to several high-profile incidents and controversies that fuel the belief that they prioritize secrecy and US national security over African stability:
-
Niger Ambush (2017): The incident where four US soldiers and five Nigerian soldiers were killed shocked the public, who were largely unaware that AFRICOM had a presence in Niger.
-
Secret Drone Bases: AFRICOM has been accused of maintaining secret drone bases in countries like Niger, Somalia, and Libya.
-
Libya Intervention (2011): While NATO led the campaign to remove Gaddafi, AFRICOM provided crucial intelligence and logistic support, demonstrating its direct role in conflicts often presented as multilateral efforts.
The presence of General Langley in Kenya, where he has met with high-level officials multiple times (including the President, former Deputy President, and late General Agola), has led to public concern that Kenya is becoming a strategic hub for US interests, particularly as AFRICOM faces increasing pushback and is “not working” in West Africa.
A Growing Wave of Consciousness
The widespread criticism of General Langley’s visit, particularly from African and African American commentators, reflects a growing wave of political consciousness across the continent. Key sentiments include:
-
Rejection of the “House Negro” Narrative: Many see Langley as a black man being used by the establishment to undermine another black man (Traoré) to maintain plausible deniability for imperialist aims.
-
American Dream is Not for Africans: The reminder that the “American dream is for the Americans” underscores the belief that US policy never truly factors in African benefit.
-
Africa is Not a Pawn: As one commentator noted, if Africa is so “unstable or undesirable,” its continued attraction for foreign military presence begs the question: Why are you all still here? The answer, most believe, is the exploitation of resources.
This generation of Africans is increasingly demanding sovereignty, transparency, and self-determination, signaling an end to the continent’s willingness to be a pawn in global power plays. The challenge now is for African leaders to stop “selling a cheap narrative” of a poor continent and to start building African-led solutions to security and development, including training their own soldiers, to avoid remaining puppets of external powers.