Back in February, President Bush announced that the Pentagon would give new priority to Africa. By September 2008, the African Command ("Africom") is scheduled to be in full operation, and will help "promote peace and security and respond to crisis on the continent."

On the surface, this seems a legitimate goal. Indeed, Africa is in dire crisis, with countries that have been ravaged by poverty, disease and conflict.

But where the West has been largely ineffective in helping in those areas, Islamic fundamentalist groups are attempting to fill the void, leaving some African countries vulnerable to terrorists. Just a month before Bush's announcement of the African Command, the U.S. military blasted suspected al-Qaida hideouts in Somalia.

Clearly, Africa can use the help of U.S. resources. But creating a military presence throughout the continent is unsettling, at best. Salim Lone, a columnist in Nairobi, Kenya, wrote: "Africom will militarize U.S. relations with Africa and militarize numerous African countries. It will tilt these countries' policies towards the use of force. And it will inflame Muslim passions and create more angry militants opposed to U.S. presence in their country or region."

Critics in Africa also remain skeptical about the true motive, citing that creation of the command may provide America with some control over the continent's oil.

This is a legitimate concern, considering statements in the president's Africom proposal: "The U.S., the world's biggest energy consumer, also hopes the Gulf of Guinea region in West Africa will provide up to a quarter of its oil imports within a decade."

Security for both America and Africa in this global war on terror are worthy goals, as is providing resources to the impoverished countries.

But creating a military presence in countries already embroiled in regional conflicts would cause far more harm than good.