Why does United States use different policy in Mid East than in Africa??

Question

The United States (and much of Europe) have a very different personnel mission in Mid East as opposed to Africa. In the Mid-East we are willing to put U.S. soldiers on the front lines, while in Africa, we seem not to be willing to do this. is the reason:

a) Americans aren't willing to see U.S. soldiers hurt in Africa.
b) U.S. isn't willing to invest the same $$ in Africa as in Mid East.
c) It's much cheaper for U.S. to put guns in the hands of certain Africans and let them fend for themselves while backing such types of groups in Mid East has less "favorable outcomes"?
d) Other reason I'm unaware of.

Thanks

Answer 1

well first of all i dont want to be seen as an 'America basher' (there are enough of those with loud enough voices) so we will say the developed west and include, as you say, much of Europe.

i think you have a point with all of your suggested answers but the bottom line is that africa does not represent a good investment in terms of money or casualties. what i mean is a) the situation is so out of control in africa it would take a huge,concerted effort over a long period of time to have any impact at all, let alone achieve stability and b) assuming stability is achieved, there is very little there of value to the west. the exception is diamonds and minerals mining but the first is being quite effiiciently exported by the courrupt reigemes already in control and the second is not lucritive enough to justify a continent wide action. so, because african countries are poor and have few exploitable resources there instability is of little conciquence to the west.
the middle east by comparison has vast reserves of arguably the most valuabe resourse on the planet right now. due to its oil exports middle eastern countries are rich and well developed. western economies are directly tied to the aquisition of its principle fuel and so instability in these coulntries are of great concern to the west. reigimes such as the Taliban in afghanistan and Saddam Hussain in Iraq were therefore appointed, armed and supported by the west to ensure stabiility in the face of threats from the soviets in the former case and the islamic state of Iran in the latter. there is little to be gained from investing such energy in africa.
so, in simple terms it doesnt change a damn thing in the lives of the avarage westerner if 1000 africans are murdered or one tyrant overthrows another but if investors get jumpy about the state of the middle east it can have instant and massive implications from the price of gas to intrest rates, to waving your son off to war.

Answer 2

The United States.... oh wait let me REPHRASE this to show the absolute TRUTH of this- - - GEORGE W BUSH got the American people into the Iraq situation ---first through his LIES about weapons of mass destruction and of COURSE, I don't think there is a sane person IN the US that doesn't KNOW the main purpose of being in IRAQ is OIL... both Bush AND Cheney are big texas oil men.. BUT, the rest of the people in the United States are NOT big oil men (or women).. an overwelming percent of the US population does not WANT our soldiers in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east. However, due to the military presense and conflicts in the middle east, there just isn't the manpower AT THE MOMENT to go into Africa as well.... As for $$$$$ the USA has poured BILLIONS of dollars into Africa for DECADES.....and still manage to squeek out MORE funds to our supporters in Africa... but until things finish in Iraq ---IF THEY EVER DO, the concentration must stay in the middle east for now.

Answer 3

There's no oil in Africa; bringing Democracy to the world only applies to countries that you guys can rape and steal from when the war is over.

Answer 4

sure there are. yet a much better description might desire to be greater effective Nazi-like than the organic Nazi's of the third Reich of Germany 1932-1945. There are a small quantity of them left, notwithstanding lots do not look public of their fairly debatable previous. We see examples of Nazi like companies corresponding to: Ari-en usa, greater effective than one "dermis-Head companies and a number of of others..and in modern-day day liberalism that could desire to be very Nazi-like. A properly occasion is to very own a delegated view ingredient and have little or no tolerance for an opposing view ingredient. In enterprise lots people have have professors that have been Nazi-like...they have a view and you do not dare to oppose them out of difficulty of public humiliation...they may well be Nazi-like. thank you a properly good fortune!

Answer 5

Some will say oil which is a partial answer and is correct. However the truth of the matter is that Israel is the ONLY democracy in the Middle East and thus a place we can use.

Answer 6

No oil in Africa

Like it or not, religious groups have a lot of political sway in Congress. Some of them are making it about spreading Christianity. A lot of articles on it in Newsweek, Time, etc

I believe there's a certainly amount of racism and anti-Islam mentality involved

Africa doesn't really breed that many anti-American terrorists. Almost everyone in the Middle East hates us - not like current policies are helping

Answer 7

D) Malaria
E) What happened in Somalia and Ethiopia????
F) Africa is much much bigger.

and especially "C".

And Africa has tons of oil. Nigeria is #6 exporter. and it is 1/3 of Cameroon's economy.

Answer 8

Oil

Answer 9

We can't fight with a bunch of black people. The liberals would call us racists. We need to stick to white or nearly white people to fight.
And if they invade or country, hijack airplanes full of passengers and use them to murder 3,000 people, well it's not a real good excuse but we can squeak by with it.

Answer 10

There is nothing in Africa we want.

If we did I imagine we would come and take it.

Africa does not amount to much