# AFRICOM returns to Libya amidst controversy

- Link: https://www.military.africa/2019/08/africom-returns-to-libya-amidst-controversy/
- Published: 2019-08-25T18:37:00+01:00
- Author: Military Africa

```wp-block-verse
    More than 6,000 American troops are currently scattered across the African continent. 
    ```

The spokesman of Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous coalition Mohammed Al-Ghasri confirmed in 
an interview to a Libyan media outlet “_Ain Libya_” that U.S. African Command team
arrived at Air Defense College airbase located in Libyan port city of Misurata on
July 22.

He said that USAF aircraft carrying American military came to Libya in a framework
of cooperation with the UN-backed Government of National Accord Presidential Council
in the field of combating the Islamic State. “We welcome any kind of cooperation
in this sphere,” added Mohamed Al-Ghasri.

Previous report also claims that the USAF C17-A Globemaster III, a large military
transport aircraft (10-0222) callsign **RCH157**, left the Aqaba airport, Jordan,
for Misurata.

This is the first statement made by officials of both Libya and the United States,
concerning the return of U.S. troops to Libya since the AFRICOM announced last April
a temporary relocation of all security personnel from this country. The move caused
by the «increase of unrest» subsequent to the launch of a military operation to 
capture Tripoli by the Libyan commander [Khalifa Haftar](https://www.military.africa/2019/08/africom-returns-to-libya-amidst-controversy/military.africa/2019/04/libya-rebels-and-haftar).

> _“The command is making the personnel adjustments in response to the evolving 
> security situation. U.S. Africa Command will continue to monitor conditions on
> the ground in Libya, and assess the feasibility for renewed U.S. military presence,
> as appropriate,” _
>  the US AFRICOM said in an April statement.

## Contradicting statements

Given the promises to re-establish the military presence in Libya, a report on the
arrival of the American military doesn’t come as a surprise.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, on July 25 the U.S. AFRICOM spokeswoman Becky Farmer stirred things up 
by saying to the London-based _Ashark Al-Awsat_ newspaper that no force was sent
to Misurata.

Thus, the official version announced by the U.S. mouthpiece appeared to be completely
at odds with what Mohammed Al-Ghasri stated. The Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous alliance –
made up basically of armed groups and Islamist factions from Misurata – was formed
in 2016 and took a leading part in cooperation with the US in eradicating the ISIS
terrorists in the city of Sirte. Seems that this time they failed to coordinate 
moves.

ADVERTISEMENT

Such discrepancies contained in those statements conveyed an impression that Washington
still officially attempts to maintain a cautious position on Libya and was reluctant
to help escalate confrontation between the Government of National Accord and the
Libyan National Army led by commander Khalifa Haftar.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many analysts consider that the United States has no clear and unified approach 
to resolving the long-standing conflict in North African country and continues to
be confronted with the dilemma which of two warring parties they should support.

## The U.S. shift to the Tripoli’s unity government and the city-state of Misurata

It’s important to point out that Misurata remains the main bastion of the anti-Haftar
military forces, the bulk of them Islamist.

In this context, the decision to dispatch the U.S. troops namely to Misurata might
have become a marker for a major shift in policies and modus operandi of the United
States toward the oil-rich country. This shift can mean that Americans took a side
of the GNA that has been long relying on a wide range of influential militias in
domestic affairs, and on the backing of Qatar and Turkey in external.

In addition, it’s worth noting that to date no official response has been released
neither on the AFRICOM website nor its Twitter. Neglecting these discrediting claims
circulated by the GNA high-ranking military official seems suspicious as it used
to pay close attention to the image of its military mission in Libya as well as 
the public perception of its tasks performed. AFRICOM also hardly worked on preventing
its actions in Libya to be misinterpreted.

On this occasion, silence had precisely the opposite effect and put an apparently
feeble attempt to obscure yet uncertain involvement of the American military in 
the Libyan conflict in the spotlight. If it’s true, this might jeopardize the reputation
of the US as a neutral and «uniquely qualified external actor» capable of exerting
influence on the rival parties and broker the peace.

Beyond that, any involvement in malicious activities in one of the pivotal countries
in Northern Africa isn’t a good advertisement for the AFRICOM and its newly appointed
commander of U.S. Army General Stephen Townsend. On one hand, the renewal of the
American military presence in Libya could serve as an effective starting point for
the career development of the new commander, who previously advocated for a more
proactive role of the US in the region amid the growing foreign interference there.
But on the other, Washington, in this case, will no longer be able to act as a neutral
international mediator in the Libyan crisis.

### _Related_