Military Review English Edition November December 2016 | Page 72

tribe; regular soldiers killing women and children execution-style in Rwanda.9
These vignettes suggest a fundamentally different set
of leader dynamics facing African militaries, dynamics
that are not easily addressed with the French or U.S. military leadership models. As Boré concludes from his time
in Africa, a fresh way of thinking was essential when endeavoring to enter any new country, noting, “Altogether,
we were deeply aware that cultural adjustments were
vital to mission accomplishment.”10

Meeting the Mark: Plan Ahead
Many other considerations exist at the operational
and strategic levels. If the first step in constructing leader
engagements is recognizing the cultural divide, the next
step must be integrating this knowledge into the broader
aspects of our interactions with our African partners. Aid
organizations often speak of the risk of oversaturation in
developing areas of Africa, or the introduction of assistance beyond what a community can reasonably manage.
A similar risk exists for the U.S. military with dropping
a heavily resourced, exhaustively researched, technology-facilitated system of leading troops like mission command on a partner military with neither the resources
nor the cultural orientation necessary to make it work.
In addition to the differing cultural leadership styles
previously mentioned, the spectrum of cultural comfort
70

U.S. military members from the Defense Medical Readiness Training
Institute and infantrymen from 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment,
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, join with soldiers
from the Gabonese Armed Forces for a huddle during a tactical combat casualty care course 17 June 2016 while participating in Central
Accord 2016 in Libreville, Gabon. U.S. Army Africa conducts the exercise annually with joint and multinational partners to practice and
demonstrate proficiency in conducting peacekeeping operations.
(Photo by Tech Sgt. Brian Kimball, U.S. Army Africa)

with decentralized decision-making demands close
attention. One cause of the disinclination to empower
subordinates is the very different focus of U.S. and African
organizations, given their entirely different threat orientations. Whereas the United States looks outward with
an expeditionary mindset, threats facing African militaries skew internally.11 For domestically focused African
militaries often closely tied to political leadership, ceding
control to lower echelons might seem excessively risky.
Thus, mission command, while a suitable approach for a
large and complex expeditionary organization like the U.S.
military, might not be the ideal fit for African militaries.
If U.S. leaders determine an alternate command-and-control model is indeed appropriate, a
study of African national leadership competencies can
be a helpful guide. A Center for Creative Leadership
study illustrates some fascinating points concerning
the comparative strengths and weaknesses of African
November-December 2016  MILITARY REVIEW