Several recent reports have raised concerns over the balance between military and civilian roles at U.S. Africa Command, highlighting fears about a potential militarization of American aid to the continent.

A Refugees International report suggests the Pentagon could overstep its authority with AFRICOM, while the Center for American Progress argued U.S. national security strategy should reject the trend toward militarizing foreign policy.

Critics of AFRICOM say the U.S. military should remain focused on training African security forces and peacekeeping operations, leaving the larger humanitarian role to the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in concert with the United Nations and international aid organizations.

AFRICOM was announced in 2006 by U.S. President George W. Bush and top military commanders in an effort to address Africa's growing importance as a region of strategic interest in the global war on terror.

Previously, operational responsibility on the African continent was divided between U.S. Central Command, U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. European Command. Egypt and Yemen remain part of the U.S. Central Command's so-called Area of Responsibility.

Officials have sought to strike a balance between a military and civilian presence at AFRICOM. But they have failed, according to Refugees International.

"What was supposed to be this well-balanced command (shows) a lack of capacity within the State Department and AID to provide the personnel and dispatch them to AFRICOM," said Mark Malan, Refugees International peace-building program manager.

His report, "U.S. Civil-Military Imbalance for Global Engagement: Lessons from the Operational Level in Africa," was published last week.

"Until the structural imbalance within the State Department to use instruments of international engagement can be addressed, then AFRICOM can never be a balanced civil/military command," he concludes.

Early drafts of AFRICOM's mission included language taken directly from the aid community, including concepts like humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Applied to what is viewed as a military mission, use of this style of language sparked concerns about the potential of using the military in a direct humanitarian capacity.

Surveys taken by Malan in Africa of local leaders and journalists, among others, produced suspicions that U.S. intentions with AFRICOM are to protect oil interests and "re-assert American power and hegemony globally," the report says.

While the language has since changed, Malan's report suggests the Pentagon refrain from using AFRICOM for "hunting terror suspects under a thin mantle of humanitarianism."

AFRICOM has been beleaguered by resistance from several African countries. It is scheduled to become fully operational in October in Stuttgart, Germany, because no African country granted permission for the construction of a permanent U.S. military base.

U.S. defense officials say they are still planning to eventually locate AFRICOM in Africa but will operate out of Germany until circumstances change.

One of the concerns about a permanent U.S. military base in Africa is that the United States is planning a heavy military presence in Africa and that AFRICOM is a U.S. foreign policy move to militarize the ongoing humanitarian mission across the continent.

Army Gen. William Ward, AFRICOM commander, in March addressed the U.S.-African Defense Policy Dialogue meeting and said the new command is designed to address security concerns that have developed in Africa and to work with African nations to assist in dealing with potential threats.

Ward added that AFRICOM will maintain a light footprint in Africa.

Despite Ward's assurances, criticism over what exactly AFRICOM's mission will be has escalated recently.

In recent testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, seconded Ward, saying AFRICOM will work in partnership with African nations and aid organizations to further issues concerning stability and threats from terrorism.

"(AFRICOM) represents an opportunity to strengthen and expand U.S. and African security relationships in such a way that our combined efforts can help generate more indigenous and therefore more sustainable peace and stability on the continent," Whelan said in a statement.

The recently published Center for American Progress report, "Humanity as a Weapon of War: Sustainable Security and the Role of the U.S. Military," argues that American foreign policy would greatly benefit from increased attention to issues concerning poverty.

The report, authored by Reuben Brigety, Center for American Progress Sustainable Security Program director, suggests the radicalization of groups in Africa suffering from poverty, environmental degradation and poor governance are greater threats to U.S. national security than what the current U.S. foreign policy objectives are attempting to address.

Brigety says while the U.S. military is vitally important for enhancing American strategic objectives, it should not replace efforts to fight global poverty. He argues for a new approach to American foreign policy emphasizing humanitarian aid.

"To keep our country safe, it is no longer enough for America to destroy its enemies," Brigety writes. "We must also care for our friends, whether they be powerful states or impoverished people."