Morocco Moroccan Armed Forces

[Latebra Factum]

Moroccan Sherpa Scout

 

[Latebra Factum]

Koral (50 million USD) + TB-2 (109 million USD) in 2021 only

​

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Pictures taken during flintlock shooting exercises together with the American airborne special group 3rd group, as well as Norwegian special force soldiers.


Components from the Moroccan gendarmerie, commando units of the second infantry paratrooper brigade, and M-SOF were present with either soldiers or instructors.

 

[Latebra Factum]

Locally produced Kavro ACH-7/Plate carriers used by paratroopers

​

 

[Latebra Factum]

GSIGR

​

 

[Latebra Factum]

GIMR , Flintlock 2024

​

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Scenes published by the newly created official social media account of the royal armed forces. The Moroccan military establishment seems to keep learning from military conflicts that are taking place around the globe. In this regard, it seems like the Moroccan army has created a special unit trained for tunnel warfare that could used by militias, and other terrorist groups.

The training end with some shooting exercises

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

There has been some news circulating for the past year regarding the interest of the Americans to move their AFRICOM headquarters to Morocco. During the African lion exercise that lasted from 20 may to the 31st May, many members of the congress, as well as AFRICOM commanders attended.

Morocco has in the past always rejected foreign bases in its territory, and the rumors are giving Moroccans mixed feelings due to its nature of sovereignty, and independence.

My question arises, how would such a move affect Morocco militarily, and economically speaking? Pros vs cons?


@Anmdt @BaburKhan @Afif @Kartal1 @TR_123456 @Kartal1 @Bogeyman @Yasar_TR @Saithan @Gary @dBSPL , and the rest of the respected brothers in the forum.

 

[BaburKhan]

Morocco is allways a important Ally in the Region for the US. The US will likely move to Morocco because it lost it's Base in Niger. Without any Presence, the US can't do anything if a Development goes not in Line with their Interests.


Maybe Morocco can get F-35 or F-15 EX in Exchange for the Base.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Morocco is allways a important Ally in the Region for the US. The US will likely move to Morocco because it lost it's Base in Niger. Without any Presence, the US can't do anything if a Development goes not in Line with their Interests.


Maybe Morocco can get F-35 or F-15 EX in Exchange for the Base.

Such a move would be only taken based on the long relationship between the two states, and the capability that Morocco possesses in the African continent from not only a military standpoint but also economy, and diplomacy. These developments have long been on the agenda even before the expulsion of the American troops stationed in Niger. Morocco on the other hand has excellent ties with the new Sahel block, and Morocco is countering the French reach in its near proximity.

The Americans on the other hand need a strong ally in the continent where common interests can be met, and we also see that Turkey, China, Russia, Iran, and the Gulf states are also involved in the continent.

Maybe Morocco can get F-35 or F-15 EX in Exchange for the Base.

With all respect to you brother, Morocco is not that cheap. If Morocco accepts such a proposal from the Americans to move its headquarters to Morocco then it means a new huge dimensional cooperation that will most likely involve the economic aspect, as well as the defense industry, and procurement. On the other hand, such a huge decision could indeed make it easier for Morocco to obtain the F-35, even if I belive such a procurement could be open for discussion without any HQ in Morocco.

 

[Gary]

There has been some news circulating for the past year regarding the interest of the Americans to move their AFRICOM headquarters to Morocco. During the African lion exercise that lasted from 20 may to the 31st May, many members of the congress, as well as AFRICOM commanders attended.

Morocco has in the past always rejected foreign bases in its territory, and the rumors are giving Moroccans mixed feelings due to its nature of sovereignty, and independence.

My question arises, how would such a move affect Morocco militarily, and economically speaking? Pros vs cons?


@Anmdt @BaburKhan @Afif @Kartal1 @TR_123456 @Kartal1 @Bogeyman @Yasar_TR @Saithan @Gary @dBSPL , and the rest of the respected brothers in the forum.

It makes sense, Morocco is the closest to the Sahel and happens to be one of the few remaining 'friendlies' in Northern Africa to the US. The U.S ain't stop fighting AQ and IS just because the Sahelian African states rejected their presence because they know none of those states are capable on their own.

In regards to rejecting foreign territory. Morocco is the same country that normalizes with Israel, so merely accommodating foreign bases is not a big deal. It'll be easier to convince the population about the pros of having American military infrastructure in your land than for the Moroccan government to convince Moroccans to accept normalization.

My opinion about hosting American bases is it kills the sense of self-sufficiency in the long run, sure you will be rewarded initially. But countries that hosted U.S bases has a historical record of either :

1. Failing when the U.S. decided to retrograde its presence (S.Vietnam, Afghanistan)
2. Lose the purpose of having a capable army (like the Philippines)

Anyway its the choice of the Moroccan ruler, which the Moroccan people have to bear the consequence.

 

[Bogeyman]

Such a move would be only taken based on the long relationship between the two states, and the capability that Morocco possesses in the African continent from not only a military standpoint but also economy, and diplomacy. These developments have long been on the agenda even with the expulsion of the American troops stationed in Niger. Morocco on the other hand has excellent ties with the new Sahel block, and Morocco is countering the French reach in its near proximity.

The Americans on the other hand need a strong ally in the continent where common interests can be met, and we also see that Turkey, China, Russia, Iran, and the Gulf states are also involved in the continent.



With all respect to you brother, Morocco is not that cheap. If Morocco accepts such a proposal from the Americans to move its headquarters to Morocco then it means a new huge dimensional cooperation that will most likely involve the economic aspect, as well as the defense industry, and procurement. On the other hand, such a huge decision could indeed make it easier for Morocco to obtain the F-35, even if I belive such a procurement could be open for discussion without any HQ in Morocco.

The US may make sweet promises to Morocco in the short term. However, in the medium and long term, the US has always been an unreliable ally. Morocco giving a military base to the US will cause your relations with Algeria to become even more strained. And it will increase the possibility of seeing Russian military bases next to you one day. This tension will never bring you peace as a result, on the contrary, it may cause you to become a front line in the Russian-US camp. The US's habit of leaving its allies alone after putting them in a difficult situation will only bring you destruction.

 

[Saithan]

I don’t think there is any need to rush this. It’s better to keep status quo than rush into something like allowing US to have bases.

Many has already pointed out several reasons that seems sound.

I think Morocco should see how things goes.

I don’t know how the trade balance is but I’d keep an eye on it and see if the economy gets squeezed. Then you’ll know what kind of allies you have.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

It makes sense, Morocco is the closest to the Sahel and happens to be one of the few remaining 'friendlies' in Northern Africa to the US. The U.S ain't stop fighting AQ and IS just because the Sahelian African states rejected their presence because they know none of those states are capable on their own.

In regards to rejecting foreign territory. Morocco is the same country that normalizes with Israel, so merely accommodating foreign bases is not a big deal. It'll be easier to convince the population about the pros of having American military infrastructure in your land than for the Moroccan government to convince Moroccans to accept normalization.

My opinion about hosting American bases is it kills the sense of self-sufficiency in the long run, sure you will be rewarded initially. But countries that hosted U.S bases has a historical record of either :

1. Failing when the U.S. decided to retrograde its presence (S.Vietnam, Afghanistan)
2. Lose the purpose of having a capable army (like the Philippines)

Anyway its the choice of the Moroccan ruler, which the Moroccan people have to bear the consequence.

Normalizing relations with a state, and hosting foreign bases is a huge difference that holds different weights. It's not about convincing the Moroccan population but more about what the cons would be, I'm sure that the pros would be enormous if such a deal is implemented due to the nature of the Moroccan state, and its people.

Interesting points, regarding point nr 1 I think that such a step would allow Morocco to evolve itself into a regional power both militarily, and economically speaking. These are the only suggestions I have right now that I can think of.

The US may make sweet promises to Morocco in the short term. However, in the medium and long term, the US has always been an unreliable ally. Morocco giving a military base to the US will cause your relations with Algeria to become even more strained. And it will increase the possibility of seeing Russian military bases next to you one day. This tension will never bring you peace as a result, on the contrary, it may cause you to become a front line in the Russian-US camp. The US's habit of leaving its allies alone after putting them in a difficult situation will only bring you destruction.

Interesting! I think that Americans are in need of Morocco, and at the same time, Morocco can benefit hugely from these geopolitical changes that are taking place on the African continent. I remember reading about the Americans shifting their focus to Africa after redrawing from Afghanistan. Turkiye is a country that benefited hugely from the Americans because of the Cold War, and its close proximity to the Russians.


Regarding Algeria, I believe that the relations have hit rock bottom, and there is no way of returning our relations before a war takes place, or that Morocco gets the ability to overpower them militarily speaking. Actually there have been in the past many incidents, and reports claiming that Russian bases are present in Algeria, or let's say the "southern provinces" of Algeria. At the same time, we see that Wagner is present in Sahel countries, and we have also heard that Wagner is cooperating hand in hand with Iran, and Hezbollah in supporting the Polisario militia against Morocco.

The events I mentioned could be a reason why the Americans are willing to transfer their AFRICOM HQ from Germany to Morocco.

I don’t think there is any need to rush this. It’s better to keep status quo than rush into something like allowing US to have bases.

Many has already pointed out several reasons that seems sound.

I think Morocco should see how things goes.

I don’t know how the trade balance is but I’d keep an eye on it and see if the economy gets squeezed. Then you’ll know what kind of allies you have.

I hold the same opinion as you, I believe that the US needs to step up its economic trade with Morocco, investments, and military cooperation in the form of cooperation. I believe the Americans need Morocco as its close partner in the continent, similar to how the Americans are pushing Poland in Europe. Sooner or later it will be forced to have a strong, and reliable partner against the Europeans because the Europeans are really not happy with the American hegemony. Politics, politics..

 

[Bogeyman]

Normalizing relations with a state, and hosting foreign bases is a huge difference that holds different weights. It's not about convincing the Moroccan population but more about what the cons would be, I'm sure that the pros would be enormous if such a deal is implemented due to the nature of the Moroccan state, and its people.

Interesting points, regarding point nr 1 I think that such a step would allow Morocco to evolve itself into a regional power both militarily, and economically speaking. These are the only suggestions I have right now that I can think of.




Interesting! I think that Americans are in need of Morocco, and at the same time, Morocco can benefit hugely from these geopolitical changes that are taking place on the African continent. I remember reading about the Americans shifting their focus to Africa after redrawing from Afghanistan. Turkiye is a country that benefited hugely from the Americans because of the Cold War, and its close proximity to the Russians.


Regarding Algeria, I believe that the relations have hit rock bottom, and there is no way of returning our relations before a war takes place, or that Morocco gets the ability to overpower them militarily speaking. Actually there have been in the past many incidents, and reports claiming that Russian bases are present in Algeria, or let's say the "southern provinces" of Algeria. At the same time, we see that Wagner is present in Sahel countries, and we have also heard that Wagner is cooperating hand in hand with Iran, and Hezbollah in supporting the Polisario militia against Morocco.

The events I mentioned could be a reason why the Americans are willing to transfer their AFRICOM HQ from Germany to Morocco.




I hold the same opinion as you, I believe that the US needs to step up its economic trade with Morocco, investments, and military cooperation in the form of cooperation. I believe the Americans need Morocco as its close partner in the continent, similar to how the Americans are pushing Poland in Europe. Sooner or later it will be forced to have a strong, and reliable partner against the Europeans because the Europeans are really not happy with the American hegemony. Politics, politics..

I do not want Algeria and Morocco to be pawns of the US and Russia. Our close relations with the US have made us lose decades as much as they have made us gain. Our 40 years from the 1960s to the 2000s have completely evaporated. Because of the power struggles of the US and other superpowers through their pawns in Turkey. I don't want something similar to happen to Morocco.

 

[Saithan]

I think it’s important to look at history the past 50 years. But I don’t think it’ll be similar to what we went through, considering how technology has advanced. Remember when we couldn’t order spare parts during 70’s and gaddafi gave us what we needed for the planes.

But then Gaddafi had a fall out with the west and was sanctioned. Which is why it’s important to have an independent ecosystem for defence industry.

But I really don’t think there is any need to rush for Morocco.

I think investment and development is quite important for Morocco and you can get that even without having to accept hosting us bases.

It’ll come naturally when EU and US gets kicked out of every african country who’re tired of their arrogance. And as Turkey keeps supplying the african countries with low cost TB2 systems to battle rebels, terrorists and such.

 

[Kartal1]

No matter if in Morocco or not the US needs to be in Africa. Despite its numerous controversial operations, the US managed to coordinate the effort of the forces on the ground and showed good counter-terrorism results. While these efforts were not enough for the neutralizing of the various terrorist organization that are active in the region they were just enough to largely contain these groups. With the drop of US military operations in Africa and the decreased support and coordination due to the rising Russian influence all of the region is thrown into the flame. IS and Al-Qaeda are gaining territory and influence in all of the region and while Wagner provide some level of support, they are not as effective as the US forces. We even saw a peace agreement between Al-Qaeda and the IS which led in coordinated operations in some areas. The situation is concerning to say at least. The harsh reality is that we need the US in Africa until we develop a similar approach as Muslim countries so we can contain the terrorism threat and limit Russian and US influence in our favor. First of all we need stability.

 

[Gary]

Normalizing relations with a state, and hosting foreign bases is a huge difference that holds different weights. It's not about convincing the Moroccan population but more about what the cons would be, I'm sure that the pros would be enormous if such a deal is implemented due to the nature of the Moroccan state, and its people.

Not quite, it's not going to be the same on an apple-to-apple basis, but the underlying message is the same. If we (I mean the Morrocan government) could convince the population that normalization with israel is possible without provoking revolt, then it'll going to be easier to convince them that we will permit foreign bases on the land and not fear any revolt.

Interesting points, regarding point nr 1 I think that such a step would allow Morocco to evolve itself into a regional power both militarily, and economically speaking. These are the only suggestions I have right now that I can think of.

I have talked about this in Warkop Indonesia thread.

Basically, I argue that countries are either:

1. Leaders
2. Challengers
3. Followers

My opinion (with all due respect) in regards to the likes of Morocco is that it is a mere follower. Even if it has bigger nominal and decimals on paper, it will be of no worth in the grand scheme of things.

Because what makes a great/major power is not only something that is quantifiable (size of GDP, quality of life, income size, number of military personnel etc) but it has something to do with having a zeal of idea that this power wants to enforce all over its neighbor.

Think about the Americans forcing liberal democracy all over the world, the Soviet Union spreading communism, Iran exporting revolutionary ideology etc. That's what makes an entity a top dog.

Morocco has none of those (again with all due respect). So even if Morocco becomes powerful, that power will either be of no use to it, or worse, getting exploited by other to do their dirty job.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

I think it’s important to look at history the past 50 years. But I don’t think it’ll be similar to what we went through, considering how technology has advanced. Remember when we couldn’t order spare parts during 70’s and gaddafi gave us what we needed for the planes.

But then Gaddafi had a fall out with the west and was sanctioned. Which is why it’s important to have an independent ecosystem for defence industry.

But I really don’t think there is any need to rush for Morocco.

I think investment and development is quite important for Morocco and you can get that even without having to accept hosting us bases.

It’ll come naturally when EU and US gets kicked out of every african country who’re tired of their arrogance. And as Turkey keeps supplying the african countries with low cost TB2 systems to battle rebels, terrorists and such.

Indeed development and investment are already taking place, but my point was to give a suggestion or an idea of how such a step can benefit Morocco economically. I'm not referring to small investments here, and there.. I'm referring to huge investments from the Americans, as well as advising/suggesting the investors of their allied countries to choose Morocco as its next step. Look for example how the Americans recently started to shift their production lines from countries such as Taiwan, and China, making them settle in countries like Vietnam.


As you mentioned the Western world is losing its grip in Africa, even if France still has the ECOWAS countries, but the issue is that the Eastern powers are starting to gain their influence. This is a shift that the Western world is taking very seriously.

No matter if in Morocco or not the US needs to be in Africa. Despite its numerous controversial operations, the US managed to coordinate the effort of the forces on the ground and showed good counter-terrorism results. While these efforts were not enough for the neutralizing of the various terrorist organization that are active in the region they were just enough to largely contain these groups. With the drop of US military operations in Africa and the decreased support and coordination due to the rising Russian influence all of the region is thrown into the flame. IS and Al-Qaeda are gaining territory and influence in all of the region and while Wagner provide some level of support, they are not as effective as the US forces. We even saw a peace agreement between Al-Qaeda and the IS which led in coordinated operations in some areas. The situation is concerning to say at least. The harsh reality is that we need the US in Africa until we develop a similar approach as Muslim countries so we can contain the terrorism threat and limit Russian and US influence in our favor. First of all we need stability.

In addition to these militias, and terrorist groups we see that major geopolitical changes have been made, and the biggest loser is France. We are talking about countries such as the sahel block (Mali, Niger, Burkina faso), as well as countries such as Senegal, and Gabon. I think that if AFRICOM is moved to Morocco then I'm confident that its not because of these small groups, but rather bigger events that are taking place. As I mentioned earlier we Moroccans are aware of the activity of Iran in Algeria, and its well documented by the Moroccan intelligence services. On top of that Morocco was for the first time mentioned in the (DEFEND Act of 2022) which was introduced to assist GCC in defending themselves against Iranian ballistic, and cruise missiles

Not quite, it's not going to be the same on an apple-to-apple basis, but the underlying message is the same. If we (I mean the Morrocan government) could convince the population that normalization with israel is possible without provoking revolt, then it'll going to be easier to convince them that we will permit foreign bases on the land and not fear any revolt.


I have talked about this in Warkop Indonesia thread.

Basically, I argue that countries are either:

1. Leaders
2. Challengers
3. Followers

My opinion (with all due respect) in regards to the likes of Morocco is that it is a mere follower. Even if it has bigger nominal and decimals on paper, it will be of no worth in the grand scheme of things.

Because what makes a great/major power is not only something that is quantifiable (size of GDP, quality of life, income size, number of military personnel etc) but it has something to do with having a zeal of idea that this power wants to enforce all over its neighbor.

Think about the Americans forcing liberal democracy all over the world, the Soviet Union spreading communism, Iran exporting revolutionary ideology etc. That's what makes an entity a top dog.

Morocco has none of those (again with all due respect). So even if Morocco becomes powerful, that power will either be of no use to it, or worse, getting exploited by other to do their dirty job.

I suggest you read more about Moroccan history. I'm sure that it will give you a better idea of where we are heading. Morocco is already a regional power and a pioneer in several fields. Morocco is a country that is respected by its allies, and its enemies. Maybe you misunderstood me, the reason why I mention economy is because your power and economy go hand in hand in many cases. If Morocco wants to become a global power in weapon production then we need the necessary funds to fund these programs. On top of that, our armed forces will grow a lot in the upcoming years leading into 2030. The economy is important in this regard.

If Morocco was a follower then I'm sure that Morocco would be in a much stronger position on paper, but we are not due to the fact that we do not make concessions in certain areas. We made the world power America recognize our Sahara, we made the European powers bow their heads down after cutting our ties with them ( France, Germany, Spain). They came running back to us, while negotiations were still underway with the french. We did not support the arab league against Qatar and Turkey, and they punished us with cold ties and low investment. We condemned Israel for months, and the Americans seemed not to be happy with it. I could write many more events...


I leave you with one statement, one made by our rivals


Alan Julliet, Former number 2 of the DGSE ( French directorate general of external security):


"Morocco is a power which alone leads the race in its region". Morocco has become a country that counts, because it achieves real economic development, and weaves very important international links in all directions without limiting itself to one camp.

 

[Gary]

I suggest you read more about Moroccan history. I'm sure that it will give you a better idea of where we are heading. Morocco is already a regional power and a pioneer in several fields. Morocco is a country that is respected by its allies, and its enemies. Maybe you understood me, the reason why I mention economy is because your power and economy go hand in hand in many cases. If Morocco wants to become a global power in weapon production then we need the necessary funds to fund these programs. On top of that, our armed forces will grow a lot in the upcoming years leading into 2030. The economy is important in this regard.

If Morocco was a follower then I'm sure that Morocco would be in a much stronger position on paper, but we are not due to the fact that we do not make concessions in certain areas. We made the world power America recognize our Sahara, we made the European powers bow their heads down after cutting our ties with them ( France, Germany, Spain). They came running back to us, while negotiations were still underway with the french. We did not support the arab league against Qatar and Turkey, and they punished us with cold ties and low investment. We condemned Israel for months, and the Americans seemed not to be happy with it. I could write many more events...


I leave you with one statement, one made by our rivals


Alan Julliet, Former number 2 of the DGSE ( French directorate general of external security):


"Morocco is a power which alone leads the race in its region". Morocco has become a country that counts, because it achieves real economic development, and weaves very important international links in all directions without limiting itself to one camp.

You are classifying power based on its aggregate power on paper. Using this classification, Germany is a great power. But does power comes with another important factor which is independence of action? the answer is clearly no.

The traditional classification that people in school taught people is that the hierarchy of global power is like this (from top to bottom) :

A. Superpower(s)​

B. Great Powers​

C. Middle Powers​

D. Regional Powers​

E. Small powers.​

​

This is an outdated classification that conforms to the times before and right after the American unipolarity of the 90s.

The better way to understand where a country stand in the age of American dominance is basically classify a country/countries into 3 groupings.

A. The leader also called as the Hegemon​

B. The challenger(s) to the Hegemon​

C. Mere follower of the system imposed by the Hegemon.​

​

This is important because measuring a country's power by aggregate quantifiable measurements is no longer enough to read its trajectory and identify its position. For example, like I said before, Germany is arguably Europe's greatest power at the moment, but does Germany's great power status made it independent in its foreign policy? The answer is no, because Germany is at best the client state of America that conforms and shapes its foreign and domestic policies dictated by Washington.

On the other hand, Iran, a country which has only 1/8th GDP of Germany is now one's worthy of being classified as a serious power because Tehran is actually the ones that is playing a great power, by confronting the Americans and the Arab Sunni axis using its proxy forces. Iran is what we call a Challenger, because it does not conform to the order that the Leader of this era (The United States) imposed all over the world, not only does Iran not conform, but they're actively and aggressively trying to compromise this order (via proxy wars and the export of the revolution worldwide). The Iranians could boast that Tehran now controls 3 Arab capitals (Sanaa, Baghdad and Damascus) can the 'great power' Germany said the same ?

So it's arguable that despite its relative poverty compared to Germany, Iran is actually THE player that has more say.

So we have to understand what is the role of a leader (Hegemon) and a Challenger, the last thing we need to understand is what I would like to call a follower, and this is what 90% of the world are classified into (yours and mine included). A follower doesn't have:

1. any legitimate cause worthy of effort outside its pre-determined national borders
2. it does not actively try to shape the world in its image
3. most of the time are happy with what the Hegemon dictates them.

Now my critique to your post that says:

that such a step would allow Morocco to evolve itself into a regional power both militarily, and economically speaking

After the 2nd WW, Germany and Japan ceased to exist as a challenger, the Bundesrepublik and Tokyo accepted American hegemony and adopted the 'if you can't beat them join them' attitude and for quite some time yes, Germany and Japan rose up the rank into a prosperous country. Japan at some point even are forecasted to overtake the US GDP in the late 80s. But because they're just a mere follower, in the case of Japan, The US intervened and caused the crash of the Japanese economy that lasted to this day.

So wealth and power that you get by cooperation (with a stronger power) would ultimately be sabotaged by that very same power you patronize.

And this is what a follower will always end up with.

So at the end of the day my point ist:

1. Countries are classified in the hierarchy of global power politics by what is their attitude on the Hegemon of their era
2. Those 3 classifications are that of leaders, challengers and followers
3. A Leader is the hegemon that is currently imposing its will on the global arena
4. A Challenger is the country/ies that actively try to bring down the imposed system (the world order) and shape it to its image
5. A Follower is the country who finds the order of the hegemon is suited enough for himself and there's no need to do anything other than cooperate
6. A Challenger isn't necessarily a wealthy power and a follower isn't necessarily a poor country
7. A Challenger will always be better than a follower in the grand scheme of things and will always talk to the follower from a position of strength.
8. A Challenger will NEVER allow foreign bases of foreigners in their territory or even the territory of other countries they deem important.