PDA

View Full Version : Al-Qaeda in Africa (merged thread)



SWJED
04-08-2007, 10:01 AM
At the Threats Watch (http://threatswatch.org/) blog - Grapes of Wrath: America's Recipe for al-Qaeda's Victory (http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/04/grapes-of-wrath-americas-recip/) by Steve Schippert.


The US State Department Supports All But Somalis in Somalia

It’s ‘The Other Spring Offensive.’ In order to create an eastern toehold on the Horn of Africa and create an Islamist Crescent from Mogadishu to Morocco, al-Qaeda is recommitting to re-taking Somalia through their once-ousted Southern Garrison, the Islamic Courts Union. With al-Qaeda’s clear and overt strategic aims on conquering Somalia, one would think that, at the very least, America’s economic might would be employed to support Somalis practically begging for the tools to do the bulk of the fighting themselves on all fronts - militarily, governmentally and socially. Think again.

This week, I wrote an analytical commentary for FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp) titled Do or Die in Somalia (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27673) that looked at the situation on the ground there but, more importantly, also at America’s inexplicably disengaged stance in a clear front-line battle with al-Qaeda. Given that al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the UN-recognized Transitional Federal Government and replace it with an Islamist-run state governed by strict adherence to Shari’a law, this American disengagement is difficult to fathom...

Sarajevo071
04-08-2007, 03:14 PM
U.S. allowed Ethiopian arms deal with North Korea
By Michael R. Gordon and Mark Mazzetti
Published: April 7, 2007

Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country's nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

American officials said that they were still encouraging Ethiopia to wean itself from its longstanding reliance on North Korea for cheap Soviet-era military equipment to supply its armed forces and that Ethiopian officials appeared receptive. But the arms deal is an example of the compromises that result from the clash of two foreign policy absolutes: the Bush administration's commitment to fighting Islamic radicalism and its effort to starve the North Korean government of money it could use to build up its nuclear weapons program.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, as the administration has made counterterrorism its top foreign policy concern, the White House has sometimes shown a willingness to tolerate misconduct by allies that it might otherwise criticize, like human rights violations in Central Asia and antidemocratic crackdowns in a number of Arab nations.

It is also not the first time that the Bush administration has made an exception for allies in their dealings with North Korea. In 2002, Spain intercepted a ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen. At the time, Yemen was working with the United States to hunt members of Al Qaeda operating within its borders, and after its government protested, the United States asked that the freighter be released. Yemen said at the time that it was the last shipment from an earlier missile purchase and would not be repeated.

American officials from a number of agencies described details of the Ethiopian episode on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal Bush administration deliberations.

Several officials said they first learned that Ethiopia planned to receive a delivery of military cargo from North Korea when the country's government alerted the American Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia's capital, after the adoption on Oct. 14 of the United Nations Security Council measure imposing sanctions.

"The Ethiopians came back to us and said, 'Look, we know we need to transition to different customers, but we just can't do that overnight,' " said one American official, who added that the issue had been handled properly. "They pledged to work with us at the most senior levels."

American intelligence agencies in late January reported that an Ethiopian cargo ship that was probably carrying tank parts and other military equipment had left a North Korean port.

The value of the shipment is unclear, but Ethiopia purchased $20 million worth of arms from North Korea in 2001, according to American estimates, a pattern that officials said had continued. The United States gives Ethiopia millions of dollars of foreign aid and some nonlethal military equipment.

After a brief debate in Washington, the decision was made not to block the arms deal and to press Ethiopia not to make future purchases.
...

much more here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/07/africa/web.0407ETHIOPIA.php

Beelzebubalicious
06-06-2008, 01:10 PM
Anyone read this book (http://www.africaworldpressbooks.com/servlet/Detail?no=234)? I'm curious and might pick it up, but would like to know if it's worth the effort. These days, I only get to read on the throne...


The African Jihad is a fascinating examination of the efforts by international jihadists to bring about their grand vision of Islamist hegemony in the greater Horn of Africa region. These efforts began with the collaboration between Al Qaeda and the National Islamic Front (NIF) government of Sudan. The NIF under the ideological leadership of Hasan al-Turabi and Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden sought to channel the social, political and economic grievances of Muslim communities into a global jihadist narrative, and the NIF and Al Qaeda worked hand in glove to set up and/or support several, coordinated jihadist movements in the countries of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania and Uganda. The combined Al Qaeda-NIF regional onslaught bequeathed a legacy of proxy wars and terrorism against Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda and Al Qaeda terror operations in Kenya and Tanzania. Dr. Gregory Alonso Pirio takes the story of Horn of Africa jihadism up to the defeat of Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia by the combined forces of Ethiopia and the Somali Transitional Federal Government in early 2007; Dr. Pirio demonstrates how a faction within Somalia’s Islamic Courts movement with historic ties to Al Qaeda had come to dominate the Islamic Court’s movement and threatened wider regional insecurity and the expansion of the Middle East conflict into Africa.

Chowing
11-30-2011, 10:27 PM
Today, Halting Al-Qaeda's African Rebound, a six part article appeared in Canada's Troy Media. The article is worth a long read. Great background and insightful.

Find it at http://www.troymedia.com/blog/2011/11/30/halting-al-qaeda%E2%80%99s-african-rebound-part-6/

In part 2 Wilner states Of the many and varied violent non-state African groups that share some of al Qaeda’s ideological principles and practical goals, two currently stand out: al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al Shabaab. Other prominent regional organizations, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), al-Itihaad al-Islaami (AIAI), Hizbul Islam, or the Armed Islamic Group (popularly known by its French name Groupe Islamique Armé, GIA) have largely been destroyed, disbanded, or rolled into other groups. While it is plausible that remnants of these organizations will regroup or that new terrorist organizations will be formed, the focus of international counterterrorism in Africa rests primarily on combatting and containing AQIM and al Shabaab."

I want to spend a lot of time on this important article, then get back here with perceptions. I trust some of you will read and contribute to the discuss too.

KingJaja
11-30-2011, 11:38 PM
I'm asking that question because I'm not sure.

Some radical Islamic extremists are armed and have grudges against their home governments and the Western powers that support them, but does that make them Al Qaeda?

Boko Haram for example, is not Al Qaeda and even if Boko Haram is associated with Al Qaeda, its association with Al Qaeda is not its defining characteristic. (I have discussed this at length in another thread).

Western analysts really need to step outside the narrow "war on terrorism" framework and appreciate the real sources of instability and violence in the Sahel and the Maghreb.

As long as there is widespread poverty and unemployment and as long as Islamist organisations continue to be the best positioned to provide social services. As long as governments are perceived as being weak and corrupt and as long as the West is perceived as being biased in support of Israel and the US is seen as waging war on Muslim countries - there will be terrorism against Western interests.

To deal with the so-called "Al Qaeda", the World needs to (1) appreciate it is the economy, stupid (2) understand that you cannot solve these problems with drones and (3) prepare for a long struggle.

Uboat509
12-01-2011, 01:32 AM
It has always been hard to tell the true believers from the opertunists who use the "AQ" label for personal gain and all the shades between those extremes. It also doesn't help when Islamist groups get arbitrarily get lumped together by lazy and/or ignorant analysts or commentators. Even among the true believers there are important distinctions to be made. Boko Haram, for instance, has made public statements affiliating itself with AQ and it has certainly shown a strong willingness to use violence but has shown little interest transnational terrorism. Although ostensibly an Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram seems to derive more of its support from the frustration felt by young, poor and unemployed (a dangerous combination in any account) Muslims over the economic inequality between the majority Muslim north and Christian dominated south of Nigeria. That restive population has given Boko Haram a powerful weapon but leaves them vulnerable to positive economic changes in the north (sadly probably a distant hope right now).

Dayuhan
12-01-2011, 09:13 AM
I'm asking that question because I'm not sure.

It's a good question and it needs to be asked more often. All too often groups with quite peripheral links to AQ are simply classified as "AQ franchises", and it's assumed that they are extensions of AQ or have adopted the entire AQ agenda. That's not always the case, and we need to be more discriminating.


Western analysts really need to step outside the narrow "war on terrorism" framework and appreciate the real sources of instability and violence in the Sahel and the Maghreb.

Agreed, but Western analysts also have to understand that not all instability and violence are any of their business or require a Western response. Unless it poses a direct threat to us - and not all Islamist or "AQ-linked" groups do - we're generally going to be better off letting it be. That may sound callous, but if we wade in and start trying to address instability and violence across these areas we are signing up for way more than we're prepared to deal with, and we're likely to step in the scheisse in a major way... IMO of course.


As long as there is widespread poverty and unemployment and as long as Islamist organisations continue to be the best positioned to provide social services. As long as governments are perceived as being weak and corrupt and as long as the West is perceived as being biased in support of Israel and the US is seen as waging war on Muslim countries - there will be terrorism against Western interests.

To deal with the so-called "Al Qaeda", the World needs to (1) appreciate it is the economy, stupid (2) understand that you cannot solve these problems with drones and (3) prepare for a long struggle.

Largely true, but understanding these things and doing something about them are two very different things. There's not a whole lot the US, the West, or "the World" can do to change African economies: they suffer more than anything from bad governance, and that has to change from the inside. Certainly it's true that "governments are perceived as being weak and corrupt", and that perception is accurate: governments are weak and corrupt. Again, that's not something that can be changed from the outside.

I'd agree that a more neutral stance toward Israel (already beginning) and less war in the Muslim world would be goals worth pursuing. I do not think that winding down Iraq and Afghanistan would reduce the probability of terrorist attack on the US, though. If anything, reduced US intervention is likely to produce new attacks aimed at provoking new intervention, because AQ can't survive without intervention.

KingJaja
12-01-2011, 11:14 AM
Agreed, but Western analysts also have to understand that not all instability and violence are any of their business or require a Western response. Unless it poses a direct threat to us - and not all Islamist or "AQ-linked" groups do - we're generally going to be better off letting it be. That may sound callous, but if we wade in and start trying to address instability and violence across these areas we are signing up for way more than we're prepared to deal with, and we're likely to step in the scheisse in a major way... IMO of course.

I agree with you.

I don't claim to be an expert on Somalia, but I cannot see the positive impact of the long US involvement in Somalia. Secondly, there seems to be a new twist to Boko Haram - certain elements of Boko Haram could be thugs hired by Northern Nigerian politicians. It seems to be a tangled mess that even the best Nigerian analysts find difficult to understand.

It is not Al Qaeda and it doesn't have a simple solution.

KingJaja
12-01-2011, 11:33 AM
Although ostensibly an Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram seems to derive more of its support from the frustration felt by young, poor and unemployed (a dangerous combination in any account) Muslims over the economic inequality between the majority Muslim north and Christian dominated south of Nigeria. That restive population has given Boko Haram a powerful weapon but leaves them vulnerable to positive economic changes in the north (sadly probably a distant hope right now).

It is not that far-fetched. Economic development is triggered by enlightened self-interest. We are rapidly reaching that tripping point. Our politicians would be stupid not to understand that 30 - 40 million unemployed/underemployed youth are a ticking time bomb that would task the capabilities of the entire US military, not to talk about the Nigerian military.

There several possible scenarios. One could be payment of a monthly stipend to the most troublesome unemployed youth (the rudiments of a social security system) or our politicians could finally summon the courage to do something about the Northern Nigeria.

Whatever happens, doing nothing is not an option, and our politicians know it. What they decide to do will depend on what they perceive to be the least risky course of action.

On a lighter note, Boko Haram has threatened to attack the offices of Nigerian political parties and the reaction on the street is like, when can you start?:D. Political party offices are being feverishly painted over.


Most Officials and Staff of major political parties in the Federal Capital Territory yesterday avoided their offices apparently because of the threat by the Boko Haram sect to attack political party offices.

The sect had on Thursday threatened to focus its attacks on political party offices and some key officials of the Government, including President Goodluck Jonathan and the Senate President, David Mark.

A visit to the headquarters of the Peoples' Democratic Party at the Wadata Plaza, Wuse Zone 5, Abuja revealed that most of the offices were deserted.

The situation was the same when our reporters visited the headquarter of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC located in Utako Area of Abuja and that of the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN in Zone 6.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201111260116.html

KingJaja
12-01-2011, 11:36 AM
US Congress heard from experts on Boko Haram. Yet to see the full transcript, but the experts don't see Boko Haram as an immediate threat to the United States.


A congressional panel has held a hearing on the threat to the U.S. homeland from the militant Islamist sect Boko Haram, based in northern Nigeria. Boko Haram has attracted more scrutiny after bombing the United Nations headquarters in the Nigerina capital Abuja, killing more than 20 people on August 26, 2011.

One of the Africa experts that testified at the House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on the threat from the radical Islamist group to the United States is Peter Pham of the Atlantic Council of the United States. He told the panel that the name "Boko Haram" is made up of Hausa and Arabic words and translates roughly as "Western eductation is a sin."

"Thus Boko Haram is not only a name, but a slogan, to the effect that Western education and such products that arise from it are sacrilege," said Pham.

The Boko Haram militants say they are fighting for the creation of a Sharia-led nation in the north of Nigeria, and they do not recognize the authority of Nigeria's constitution or President Goodluck Jonathan.

Ricardo Laremont is a Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University in the state of New York. He explained the group's traditional operating methods.

Link:http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Congress-Panel-Probes-Threat-from-Nigerian-Islamist-Sect-Boko-Haram-134782893.html

Chowing
12-02-2011, 06:27 PM
US Congress heard from experts on Boko Haram. Yet to see the full transcript, but the experts don't see Boko Haram as an immediate threat to the United States.



Link:http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Congress-Panel-Probes-Threat-from-Nigerian-Islamist-Sect-Boko-Haram-134782893.html

I would not see Boko Haram as a threat to the USA either, at this time. Currently it is the most active terrorist group in the world in terms of violent events and deaths. All has been located in Nigeria, yet most were surprised to see them strike in Abuja and and military and UN installations.

The article that started this thread sees more and more dialogue and training, if not coordination, between AQIM, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. The first two have declare linkage to Al-Qaeda.

KingJaja
12-02-2011, 06:58 PM
I understand that. But let's take a step back.

You have a region, the Sahel, extending from the Atlantic to Indian Oceans. You have ancient trade routes between the Sudan (black Africa) and the Maghreb and you also have religious ties.

That area is a continuum, so there will be coordination between Islamist groups with common aims.

My main point is that these groups are a product of real local grievances that are yet to be addressed. AQIM is a product of the 1991 election in Algeria. Boko Haram is a product of fifty years of appalling governance in Northern Nigeria.

I am not terribly concerned about whether Boko Haram is a threat to Nigeria or the United States. What concerns me is the ability of the entire Global community to deal with the conditions that led to the rise of organisations like Boko Haram. (We've lost over 13,000 people to communal violence since 1998, so Boko Haram won't significantly change the situation in Nigeria).

It is a bit like labelling Al Shabab as Somalia's greatest threat. No, Al Shabab is merely a symptom of catastrophic state failure.

davidbfpo
12-02-2011, 08:34 PM
KingJaja and others,

I am sceptical that AQ has been reborn in Africa and in other places. The original linked, Canadian article does not raise any new points, although it does emphasise the dangers facing Canada from AQ-inspired terrorism.

Some of the discussion on AQ in Africa reminds me of the thread discussing David Killcullen's book 'The Accidental Guerilla' and the association of local insurgency to the AQ 'brand'. There are several threads on Killcullen's work, this one is appropriate:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7224

There are also the three threads debating the impact of Osama Bin Laden's removal, for a wider perspective, although I have m' doubts Africa figured much.

For the moment let us leave aside the impact in Africa.

Are the AQ insurgencies based in Africa, currently mainly in the "badlands", amidst small isolated populations, with very limited access to capabilities which can target the 'Far Enemy', a 'clear & present danger' to the core interests of countries like Canada, France and the USA?

No IMHO.

Yes they can be an occasional danger, like the 'Underpants Bomber', although he is not a good example as his capability appears to be from the Yemen. Nor are the Somali pirates more than a painful nuisance to world shipping and I remain unconvinced Al-Shabab is "pulling the strings" of the pirates.

As the 'Far Enemy' currently faces far more significant threats to national and collective interests, which are notably economic and fiscal, their attention span and focus is nearer to home.

Dayuhan
12-03-2011, 02:54 AM
What concerns me is the ability of the entire Global community to deal with the conditions that led to the rise of organisations like Boko Haram.

I don't think there's anything at all "the global community" can do about these conditions. In the case of Boko Haram, the conditions that produce the organization are for the Nigerian Government to deal with, or to not deal with and suffer the consequences. There's no problem with resources: the Nigerian Government has plenty of money. The problem is will and capacity, and if the government in place lacks the will and capacity to act there is nothing "the global community" can do.

Chowing
12-05-2011, 05:25 PM
I don't think there's anything at all "the global community" can do about these conditions. In the case of Boko Haram, the conditions that produce the organization are for the Nigerian Government to deal with, or to not deal with and suffer the consequences. There's no problem with resources: the Nigerian Government has plenty of money. The problem is will and capacity, and if the government in place lacks the will and capacity to act there is nothing "the global community" can do.


Sure this is first and foremost a Nigerian problem, to be solved by Nigerians. Or in the cases of AQIM and al-Shabaab they are Sahelian and East Africa problems. HOWEVER, AQ has most of its members hidden away in desert hills of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen (to name a few) yet they have inflicted global damage while being protected by the locals.

In a Associated Press article out today we can see that AQIM has recognized the need to aid the poor locals to gain their hearts and minds.
"With almost no resistance, al-Qaida has implanted itself in Africa's soft tissue, choosing as its host one of the poorest nations on earth. The terrorist group has create a refuge in this remote land through a strategy of winning hearts and minds, described in rare detail by seven locals in regular contact with the cell. The villagers agreed to speak for the first time to an Associated Press team in the "red zone," deemed by most embassies to be too dangerous for foreigners to visit." see entire article at http://www.newser.com/article/d9rdg0u01/gifts-of-cash-baby-clothes-medicine-al-qaida-uses-hearts-and-minds-approach-in-africa.html

The world's poor are a easy target for terrorists to recruit and gain their confidence. The world, not necessarily governments only, must reach out to help, listen to and walk along side the poor or there will be much unrest ahead.

I remember Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic Monthly predicting anarchy in West Africa back in 1994...see article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/4670/ What we may be seeing is a second wave of the anarchy with the same, unsolved poverty issues driving it.

tequila
12-05-2011, 08:49 PM
I remember Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic Monthly predicting anarchy in West Africa back in 1994...see article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-anarchy/4670/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/4670/) What we may be seeing is a second wave of the anarchy with the same, unsolved poverty issues driving it.

I like how Kaplan also foresees the coming breakup of Canada in the cited article as well, complete with the absorption by the U.S. of its English-speaking portions.

Kaplan's hobbyhorse has always been the artificial nature of the nation-state in comparison to supposedly bedrock culture or religion - failing to note that cultures and religions are also artificial, malleable human constructs.

KingJaja
12-05-2011, 09:30 PM
Thanks for this great article. I agree with what he wrote because I lived through it. In 1994, we were recovering from the aftermath of violence precipitated by the annulment of the 1993 presidential election. The Yoruba ethnic group took to the streets and rose in opposition to the dominant Hausa-Fulani. That era led to the rise of ethnic militias like the Odua People's Congress - (you might hear about them in future).

In 1995 Ken Saro-Wiwa was hanged and the Niger Delta militancy really took off. I remember quite vividly a conversation in a taxi from Port Harcourt to Enugu in 1998. The anger was palpable and the consensus was that Nigeria was finished as a nation.

I was in Lagos in the late nineties and I witnessed a breakdown of law and order on an almost daily basis. I woke up to see the mangled remains of lynched robbery suspects and I also saw actual lynching taking place many times. The state began to break down and ethnic militia like the Odua People's Congress in the South West and the Bakassi Boys in the South East were called in to maintain law and order. Their methods were less than orthodox, but they had widespread support in the slums of Lagos, Onitsha and Aba.

All across West Africa and the Sahel, the state is being desperately weakened. West Africans structure their lives in such a way as to be independent of the state. For example, a study by the University of Newcastle showed that a whopping 75% of all children attending schools in Lagos, attend private schools. Nothing illustrates state failure as starkly as that statistic.

If the government cannot provide public goods, someone else will. And Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and Salafists are well placed to exploit these gaps.

Aid money from the West usually pours into government establishments, but governments are increasingly weak and incompetent. So the money is usually wasted.

I particularly like this, it illustrates the difficulty of dealing with groups like AQIM.


The fiction that the impoverished city of Algiers, on the Mediterranean, controls Tamanrasset, deep in the Algerian Sahara, cannot obtain forever. Whatever the outcome of the peace process, Israel is destined to be a Jewish ethnic fortress amid a vast and volatile realm of Islam. In that realm, the violent youth culture of the Gaza shantytowns may be indicative of the coming era.

Dayuhan
12-05-2011, 10:11 PM
The world's poor are a easy target for terrorists to recruit and gain their confidence. The world, not necessarily governments only, must reach out to help, listen to and walk along side the poor or there will be much unrest ahead.

I remember Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic Monthly predicting anarchy in West Africa back in 1994...see article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/4670/ What we may be seeing is a second wave of the anarchy with the same, unsolved poverty issues driving it.

Odd how the terrorists who plan and do the damage never seem to be poor.

Poverty is of course a huge problem and a huge issue, but any proposed causative link between poverty and terrorism is strained at best. And while it's easy to point to poverty as a problem, it's a good deal harder to do anything about it. Development aid simply doesn't work. It doesn't win hearts and minds, it doesn't have much impact on poverty, and it certainly doesn't do anything about terrorism. It allows donors to feel good about themselves and say nice things about themselves, and it keeps the aid industry afloat, so you can say it's doing what it's intended to do... but let's not pretend that it's doing anything abut poverty.

There is certainly a good deal of unrest ahead, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. For poverty to be effectively addressed parasitic governments have to be displaced, and that requires unrest: the parasites aren't just going to walk away.

Bill Moore
12-06-2011, 06:05 AM
Most terrorists that I have read about were middle or upper middle class and had a college degree. I don't know why this poverty causes terrorism myth refuses to die despite the facts.

I'm all for development and helping the poor, that isn't my point, but rather that we're going to waste a lot of money looking for terrorists in the wrong places. Want to pre-empt the next terrorist, visit a university.

KingJaja
12-06-2011, 06:19 AM
Poverty is of course a huge problem and a huge issue, but any proposed causative link between poverty and terrorism is strained at best. And while it's easy to point to poverty as a problem, it's a good deal harder to do anything about it. Development aid simply doesn't work. It doesn't win hearts and minds, it doesn't have much impact on poverty, and it certainly doesn't do anything about terrorism. It allows donors to feel good about themselves and say nice things about themselves, and it keeps the aid industry afloat, so you can say it's doing what it's intended to do... but let's not pretend that it's doing anything abut poverty.

You are wrong. Most terrorists are poor.

To access the Western World you must be both financially stable and educated. So the terrorists that attack the West tend to be middle class. On the other hand, most terrorist activity in the developing World (where the majority of terrorist activity occurs anyway) is carried out by poor people. Nigeria's first suicide bomber was a roadside mechanic and suicide bombers in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan tend to be poor.

Finally, Osama bin Laden's flavour of Islam is not the traditional Islam of the merchant class, it is the Islam of desperate young men from slums. That it was co-opted by the middle class does not change its primary audience.

It all boils down to poverty.

Bill Moore
12-06-2011, 07:22 AM
KingJaja,

I believe you have it wrong when you confuse poverty as the cause for terrorism, because if that was true, if we eradicated poverty there would be no terrorism. In Iraq and Afghanistan you are confusing insurgents with terrorists, but hey our forces do that all the time. You make a good point though about local terrorists compared to transnational terrorists, but I still doubt poverty is the cause.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100500351318


This research note explores aspects of the demand for terrorism using data from the Pew Research Center. With these data from 7,849 adult respondents persons within 14 Muslim countries, this article explores who supports terrorism. It is shown that females, younger persons, and those who believe Islam is under threat are more likely to support terrorism. Very poor respondents and those who believe that religious leaders should play a larger role in politics are less likely to support terrorism than others. Because these affects vary throughout the countries studies, it is argued that interventions must be highly tailored, using detailed demographic and psychographic data.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7371


The experts have maintained for a long time that poverty does not cause terrorism and prosperity does not cure it. In the world’s 50 poorest countries there is little or no terrorism. A study by scholars Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reached the conclusion that the terrorists are not poor people and do not come from poor societies. A Harvard economist has shown that economic growth is closely related to a society’s ability to manage conflicts. More recently, a study of India has demonstrated that terrorism in the subcontinent has occurred in the most prosperous (Punjab) and most egalitarian (Kashmir, with a poverty ratio of 3.5 compared with the national average of 26 percent) regions and that, on the other hand, the poorest regions such as North Bihar have been free of terrorism. In the Arab countries (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also in North Africa), the terrorists originated not in the poorest and most neglected districts but hailed from places with concentrations of radical preachers. The backwardness, if any, was intellectual and cultural — not economic and social.

These findings, however, have had little impact on public opinion (or on many politicians), and it is not difficult to see why. There is the general feeling that poverty and backwardness with all their concomitants are bad

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/povterr.pdf

The Harvard study

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html


After controlling for the level of political rights, fractionalization, and geography, Abadie concludes that per capita national income is not significantly associated with terrorism. He finds, though, that lower levels of political rights are linked to higher levels of terrorism countries with the highest levels of political rights are also the countries that suffer the lowest levels of terrorism. However, the relationship between the level of political rights and terrorism is not a simple linear one. Countries in an intermediate range of political rights experience a greater risk of terrorism than countries either with a very high degree of political rights or than severely authoritarian countries with very low levels of political rights.

What shocks me is that our COIN doctrine is focused on development instead of the actual factors that drive the conflict. As one academic terrorism expert stated, our development efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in providing more money for the terrorists and insurgents, but did little to alleviate the true causes of the conflict.

Where you may be right, is the secondary effects of poverty, which could be political polarization and greater social tension if a particular group is poor due to discrimination.

KingJaja
12-06-2011, 10:09 AM
I believe you have it wrong when you confuse poverty as the cause for terrorism, because if that was true, if we eradicated poverty there would be no terrorism. In Iraq and Afghanistan you are confusing insurgents with terrorists, but hey our forces do that all the time. You make a good point though about local terrorists compared to transnational terrorists, but I still doubt poverty is the cause.

I don't agree with any of these reports.

I live in Nigeria with 75 million Muslims and I can tell you that the Muslim parts of Nigeria where poverty and illiteracy rates are the highest are the most prone to terrorism. That is a fact.

Of course the most vocal exponents of terrorism tend to be from the middle class, because they tend to have the best communication skills. But the soil in which terrorism thrives is poverty and frustration.

Poverty and frustration triggered both terrorism in the Niger Delta and in Nigeria's North East. The Odua People's Congress in the South West has carpenters and motor park touts as its rank and file, but its mouth piece is a medical doctor.

KingJaja
12-06-2011, 10:18 AM
Eradicating poverty and emphasising education will not eliminate terrorism, but it will drastically reduce it. The Sahel Region (an area larger in size than the USA) is on track to be a major terrorist breeding ground, if poverty and education are not taken seriously.

The transition from madrassa student / almajiri (student of an itinerant religious scholar) to hired political thug (for less than $10 a day) to suicide bomber can occur (and is occurring) extremely rapidly in Northern Nigeria. On the other hand, the transition from engineering student to suicide bomber takes much longer and is much rarer.

Secondly, there is no clear division between terrorism and insurgencies. It is generally accepted that poverty and frustration drives insurgencies and insurgents use terrorism as a tactic.

Dayuhan
12-06-2011, 10:41 AM
Poverty may well be associated with insurgency and the domestic use of terror tactics by insurgents... but that's hardly something that the US or the West need to be concerned with. At the end of the day the solution to insurgency - and thus domestic terrorism - in Nigeria is drastic reforms in the Nigerian government. In the absence of such reform, western attempts to alleviate poverty will only worsen the problem by allowing the government to avoid confronting the need for change.

The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

KingJaja
12-06-2011, 01:22 PM
The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

Exactly. My fears about terrorism are not your fears about terrorism. So when we talk about terrorism, we are talking about two different things.

I really don't fear that some engineering student from Bradford will blow me or my children up, but I fear that some poor, uneducated, suicidal bigot will.

Bill Moore
12-07-2011, 09:03 AM
Posted by KingJaja,


Exactly. My fears about terrorism are not your fears about terrorism. So when we talk about terrorism, we are talking about two different things.

I really don't fear that some engineering student from Bradford will blow me or my children up, but I fear that some poor, uneducated, suicidal bigot will.

Point taken.

Chowing
12-07-2011, 03:10 PM
I have wrestled with where to jump back into this discussion. This whole discussion around "cause" is complex, regional, and, so far, without a solution, yet it remains one of the current, major issues to be solved on the planet. Kaplan's chaos and anarchy either reign or are on the horizon in many parts of the world. Terrorists are right in the middle of it.

I do know from experience here in the states, that many of our home grown terrorists came from families with money and they were highly educated, from the Weather Underground, SLA, and others. There is always the "redneck" factor that is more based on racial hatred then against the seats of power. However, none of these home grown terrorist gained much, if any, popular support.

Terrorists gain popular support where poverty exists. They promise aid or a better way of life to the poor and blame the mess on the seats of power. The poor are looking for hope and grab onto it. These terrorists are very persuasive. There arguments make more sense in the face of poverty. When the terrorists have popular or regional support they can stay hidden longer, get the supplies they need and recruit many many more people into their ranks.


Poverty may well be associated with insurgency and the domestic use of terror tactics by insurgents... but that's hardly something that the US or the West need to be concerned with.

I guess this is where my global citizenship comes in. Where people suffer, I should be concerned and do what I can to be part of the solution. The other side of the story, a reality, is that the US will be impacted soon or later by the unrest that terrorists are a part of.


At the end of the day the solution to insurgency - and thus domestic terrorism - in Nigeria is drastic reforms in the Nigerian government. In the absence of such reform, western attempts to alleviate poverty will only worsen the problem by allowing the government to avoid confronting the need for change.

We can help alleviate poverty by not being concerned only about our interests. That view of the world has only heightened and in some cases caused the poverty in some regions of the world. Africa has some of the largest deposits of natural resources, we in the West gobble them up and pay scant attention to the poor in the very regions that give us the natural resources. That all sound harsh, but it is part of the reality. Right now, there are westerners and Chinese as well buying up large tracts of land and water to aid the West and China, not those who have the land and are in poverty.

Granted, the traditional and most often used standard practices for alleviating poverty have not worked. Most of it has gone on with little or no dialog with local people.


The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

Agreed. That does not mean that outside help is useless. There are ways of empowering people, without leading the movement.

Dayuhan
12-08-2011, 01:08 AM
This whole discussion around "cause" is complex, regional, and, so far, without a solution, yet it remains one of the current, major issues to be solved on the planet. Kaplan's chaos and anarchy either reign or are on the horizon in many parts of the world. Terrorists are right in the middle of it.

It seems to me that chaos and anarchy have receded substantially in much of the world, and that many parts of the world that were once widely threatened by them - notably east Asia and Latin America are now relatively stable, after decades of chaos during the Cold War.


Terrorists gain popular support where poverty exists. They promise aid or a better way of life to the poor and blame the mess on the seats of power. The poor are looking for hope and grab onto it. These terrorists are very persuasive. There arguments make more sense in the face of poverty. When the terrorists have popular or regional support they can stay hidden longer, get the supplies they need and recruit many many more people into their ranks.

I think it's unproductive and possibly dangerous to lump "terrorists" into a single category. In many places "terrorists" are insurgents adopting terror as a tactic to drive their struggle against governments that have often earned the opposition. It's very difficult for an outside power to address this without taking sides in a domestic quarrel, and I think in virtually all such cases the US and allies should minimize involvement.

Then you have what might be called "pure terrorists", where terrorism is not adopted as a reaction to oppressive government, but is adopted in a proactive effort to impose an internationalist agenda. That's the terrorism the US and other outside parties need to worry about, and the link between that type of terrorism and poverty remains very tenuous.


I guess this is where my global citizenship comes in. Where people suffer, I should be concerned and do what I can to be part of the solution. The other side of the story, a reality, is that the US will be impacted soon or later by the unrest that terrorists are a part of.

Individual commitment may be admirable, but I think an official US policy of pushing in and trying to "fix" these environments would do more harm than good.


We can help alleviate poverty by not being concerned only about our interests. That view of the world has only heightened and in some cases caused the poverty in some regions of the world. Africa has some of the largest deposits of natural resources, we in the West gobble them up and pay scant attention to the poor in the very regions that give us the natural resources. That all sound harsh, but it is part of the reality. Right now, there are westerners and Chinese as well buying up large tracts of land and water to aid the West and China, not those who have the land and are in poverty.

I have doubts about this. Certainly there are things the West can do. If the US and Europe would abandon agricultural subsidies and trade obstructions designed to promote their own exports and obstruct imports from the developing world, for example, that would certainly help.

Ultimately, though, the problem is not that the West is concerned only with their interests, the problem is that the elites who govern Africa are concerned only with their interests. Paying attention to the poor is not reasonably the responsibility of an outside investor: they're supposed to negotiate a deal with the government that gives the government a reasonable share of the profits that will let the government do its job. Foreign parties, official or private, cannot be expected to take on governance responsibilities.


Granted, the traditional and most often used standard practices for alleviating poverty have not worked. Most of it has gone on with little or no dialog with local people.

I think they fail because they are not considered consistent with the interest of local governing elites, who do everything in power to preserve their own control.


Agreed. That does not mean that outside help is useless. There are ways of empowering people, without leading the movement.

Maybe not useless, but not a game-changer either. Possibly 30+ years around the aid industry have left me excessively cynical.

I live in an indigenous community in a developing country. We've a constant stream of well-meaning pinks coming through with various plans to empower us. Most leave with no visible impact, though they always seem to leave feeling very good about themselves. Ultimately you can't empower people, they have to empower themselves. Unfor

Chowing
01-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Here are my predictions for terrorism in Africa in 2012 from my blog www.terrorisminafrica.com

The next twelve months will most likely see the LRA being snuffed out or reduced into a very small, yet no less violent, local threat in the CAR, but far off its course of destabilizing or overthrowing the Ugandan government.

The AQIM will not go much beyond their occasional abduction of foreigners, yet the MOJWA splitter group has threatened to step up jihadist operations in West Africa. They could well keep their word and become Africa’s newest terrorist threat. The deadly wild card here is the large number of Libyan weapons that have found their way into north Africa and the Sahel.

Al-Shabaab will continue to be kept somewhat in check in Somalia, but they could reach deep into Kenya or Uganda in an attempt to intimidate those countries’ or cause over reactions by them or the United States resulting on easier recruitment of Muslims within East Africa. As long as Somalia remains void of an effective central government, the more chance that al-Qaeda will use it for training and hiding out. If the 2012 election in Kenya turns violent as it did last time, it could be a distraction to role in Somalia.

Boko Haram will remain the most active terrorist group in Africa with its operations confined to Nigeria. Its operations may well ignite a widespread civil battle between Nigeria’s Christians and Muslims. The rumored involvement by the United States could become a reality if the oil rich Delta region falls into turmoil.

Stan
01-02-2012, 04:53 PM
Boko Haram will remain the most active terrorist group in Africa with its operations confined to Nigeria. Its operations may well ignite a widespread civil battle between Nigeria’s Christians and Muslims. The rumored involvement by the United States could become a reality if the oil rich Delta region falls into turmoil.

I don't wish to quibble with your predictions, but, Boko Haram isn't even in the top 50 list. In fact, I can't find a single secure source that even lists them as anything ? Who established them as terrorists ?

You are also well aware of the fact that the Christians and Muslims have been doing church bombings well before (2 or even 3 decades) Boko Haram came to be. Right ?

What rumored USA assistance are you referring to? USG links please.

Dayuhan
01-02-2012, 11:39 PM
What rumored USA assistance are you referring to? USG links please.

There is a rumor of imminent US involvement in every corner of the planet. I understand that in the deepest south the Penguins are expecting ANTARCTICOM aggression any day now.

carl
01-03-2012, 12:58 AM
There is a rumor of imminent US involvement in every corner of the planet. I understand that in the deepest south the Penguins are expecting ANTARCTICOM aggression any day now.

Nah, no drone support so they won't make a move. Not enough Predators to go around.

Dayuhan
01-03-2012, 01:28 AM
Nah, no drone support so they won't make a move. Not enough Predators to go around.

Yes, but you'll never convince the Penguins of that. They know otherwise. Something about multinational corporations wanting their ice...

Stan
01-03-2012, 08:58 AM
I was unable to find the new COCOM, so this will have to do :D


There is a rumor of imminent US involvement in every corner of the planet. I understand that in the deepest south the Penguins are expecting ANTARCTICOM aggression any day now.

jmm99
01-03-2012, 01:02 PM
is a Spy !" - "Doth sayeth you all, members of the Penquin Jury ?"

Indeed, they did so sayeth - shortly before they were all eaten.

Occasionally, even paranoiacs have real enemies.

Regards :)

Mike

Chowing
01-03-2012, 02:22 PM
I don't wish to quibble with your predictions, but, Boko Haram isn't even in the top 50 list. In fact, I can't find a single secure source that even lists them as anything ? Who established them as terrorists ?

Top 50 list of what? The are local terrorists. There very operations make them such. What I say is, "Boko Haram is the most ACTIVE terrorist group on the planet." Ok, that may be a bit of stretch, I am not as aware of the world as I am Africa. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find as many operations carried out by any group over the past 6 months.

It is no surprise that, to me, that Boko Haram does not appear on any "top 50 list", if such exists. Americans and westerners are mostly unaware of or discount much of what goes on in Africa.


You are also well aware of the fact that the Christians and Muslims have been doing church bombings well before (2 or even 3 decades) Boko Haram came to be. Right ?

Exactly, I am not ignorant or unaware of that fact. What Nigeria is on the verge of right now is a much wider spread battle between Christians and Muslims than has been seen there in recent history. Many who live there see this coming, in fact it may well already be spreading.


What rumored USA assistance are you referring to? USG links please.

If there were a USG link for it, it wouldn't be a rumor would it? The rumors about US involvement have been discussed right here on this forum in the Nigeria area. It is a rumor, sure not much different than rumors of involvement elsewhere. The only difference is Nigeria is Africa's most populous country, there is substantial oil heading for the USA everyday from Nigeria's Delta region. Are our memories too short to remember what oil has to do with US military involvement? But still it is only a rumor, don't get so upset, YET.

Stan
01-03-2012, 03:34 PM
Top 50 list of what? The are local terrorists. There very operations make them such. What I say is, "Boko Haram is the most ACTIVE terrorist group on the planet." Ok, that may be a bit of stretch, I am not as aware of the world as I am Africa. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find as many operations carried out by any group over the past 6 months.

It is no surprise that, to me, that Boko Haram does not appear on any "top 50 list", if such exists. Americans and westerners are mostly unaware of or discount much of what goes on in Africa.

Just a few of the watch lists that you can freely access, which include Africa, are as follows:

CDI Terrorism Project (http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm)

U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html)

Not sure what you conclude is a "local terrorist" and why their operations are so unique (communal tension, radical and anti-West, robbing banks, blowing up churches and shooting government employees as if these are something new to the region). If Boko Haram was in fact the most active terrorist group on the planet, they would certainly have made one of the lists. I beg to differ on who has carried out the greatest number of operations over a 6-month period (assuming this is part of the criteria).

One of the reasons I am concerned about said predictions and false perceptions is, if they have yet to act like terrorists or even be slightly classified as such, they are not even on the radar screen and all this hyperbole about perceived US intervention is Bravo Sierra. Yes, this may change and when that day comes, let the presumptions fly !


Exactly, I am not ignorant or unaware of that fact. What Nigeria is on the verge of right now is a much wider spread battle between Christians and Muslims than has been seen there in recent history. Many who live there see this coming, in fact it may well already be spreading.

And you contribute that to exactly what ? I see it as nothing more than the "political powers to be" playing on the same fears and ignorance as they have done for four decades following independence. It is more about the dictatorship than it is about the impoverished.


If there were a USG link for it, it wouldn't be a rumor would it? The rumors about US involvement have been discussed right here on this forum in the Nigeria area. It is a rumor, sure not much different than rumors of involvement elsewhere. The only difference is Nigeria is Africa's most populous country, there is substantial oil heading for the USA everyday from Nigeria's Delta region. Are our memories too short to remember what oil has to do with US military involvement? But still it is only a rumor, don't get so upset, YET.

I don’t believe we discussed rumors of US intervention as much as we have discussed the need for the West to stay out of Nigeria’s mess. Going over State and other USG sources does not reveal even the slightest hint of assistance. Stirring the pot is not helping.

How much oil do you conclude is substantial ?

Nigeria is dead last on the list of major oil exporters to the USA and even that list only accounts for 69% of total imports. (BTW, Canada is still the number one exporter to the USA.)

I’d love to have something solid to chomp on regarding oil and US Military involvement. You must have meant to say USG involvement because you certainly know that the US Military does not dictate her destinations and fights. Don’t you ?

Dayuhan
01-04-2012, 01:54 AM
I don't think anyone in the US government or military is seriously contemplating involvement in Nigeria. Last thing most of them would want, really. That of course will not stop rumors and speculation.

Chowing
01-09-2012, 07:15 PM
Not sure what you conclude is a "local terrorist" and why their operations are so unique (communal tension, radical and anti-West, robbing banks, blowing up churches and shooting government employees as if these are something new to the region).

Boko Haram is considered a terrorist group by many. Here is a recent source

For those reading the news about Africa, both of you, Nigeria is under terrorist attack and preparing military operations against a group called Boko Haram, an Islamic group from the North, more accurately centered in Niger, a nation to the north, a cesspool of international intrigue.

This comes from Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veteran's Day Journal http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/14/nigeria-targeted-for-destruction/


and all this hyperbole about perceived US intervention is Bravo Sierra. Yes, this may change and when that day comes, let the presumptions fly !

I merely said it was a rumor, a rumor. There have been enough places, including here, that such has been talked about. I never called it a fact or anything close to it.



And you contribute that to exactly what ? I see it as nothing more than the "political powers to be" playing on the same fears and ignorance as they have done for four decades following independence. It is more about the dictatorship than it is about the impoverished.
Bombs going off and killing people and Boko Haram claiming that they were responsible, that is a WHOLE LOT MORE than political powers playing of fears.


How much oil do you conclude is substantial? Nigeria is dead last on the list of major oil exporters to the USA and even that list only accounts for 69% of total imports. (BTW, Canada is still the number one exporter to the USA.)
To make the list at all, means 'substantial.'

Stan
01-09-2012, 08:40 PM
Chowing,
I know you and I don't always see eye-to-eye herein, but you do tend to make your point.

Gordon Duff is a source ? Have you read his other stuff ?

I prefer factual evidence and I'm anal about that as is happens to be my job.
So when one says "bombs" and "rumor" to me that's just vague. The forensic evidence clearly indicates the use of military ordnance and rumor is just that.

Of course the Christians are in the process of fighting back as they have for years. I would expect nothing less. But, that doesn't immediately translate into terrorism IMO.

Some of us clearly disagree on whether or not the events are norm, or, on the road to escalation. The Nigeria thread is booming and your participation there would be most welcome - your call.

EDIT: I'm done posting here ;)

Chowing
02-11-2012, 03:16 PM
Here are Ham's fears, stated sometime ago, that al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab link is dangerous for the US as well.

"If you ask me what keeps me awake at night, it is the thought of an American passport-holding person who transits through a training camp in Somalia and gets some skill and then finds their way back into the United States to attack Americans here in our homeland," General Carter Ham, the head of the United States Africa Command, said late last year.
That link is somewhat more formal and confirmed now.

News that Harakat Al-Shabaab - long associated with al Qaeda but never formally welcomed into the family - has gotten the blessingp from al Qaeda's leader seems to be a merger that was a long time coming. But the announcement does raise concerns that that the Somali terror group could help them in plotting to attack on U.S. soil.
Both of the above quotes come from the same link.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/al-qaeda-merger-raises-new-concerns/

KingJaja
02-12-2012, 05:57 PM
Chowing,

Does everything have to revolve around America?

General Ham is free to say what he likes but if the metric for measuring America's concern about BH is real or imaginary links to Al Qaeda then American reasoning and policy in the Sahel region is badly flawed.

I appreciate that America needs to have an American centric foreign policy, but sometimes America needs to do things simply because they are the right things to do. Not everything should be subjected to a binary test of whether US interests are involved.

I am not suggesting that America should get involved in the fight against BH, but senior American policy makers/officials need to understand that there is an entire world listening to their words and the motivation behind them.

America is the most activist major power on earth. America has called on many nations (including my own) to take on sacrifices in blood and treasure to support American strategic interests. If they atmospherics suggest that America is only narrowly focused on what it percieves as its core interests - then well and good, but don't just expect a more democratic Africa to support America with the traditional levels of enthusiasm next time around.

Alternatively, US Army generals could shut their mouths and cease speculating on the internal affairs of African states.

Ken White
02-12-2012, 06:06 PM
Sadly...

Dayuhan
02-12-2012, 10:01 PM
I appreciate that America needs to have an American centric foreign policy, but sometimes America needs to do things simply because they are the right things to do. Not everything should be subjected to a binary test of whether US interests are involved.

I am not suggesting that America should get involved in the fight against BH, but senior American policy makers/officials need to understand that there is an entire world listening to their words and the motivation behind them.

What would you have America do, or say?

It sometimes seems as if when America notices Africa, the reaction is "stay out of our business"; when America doesn't notice the reaction is "why are you ignoring Africa"? Of course when that dichotomy comes up the reaction is always that the attention given is the wrong sort, but what's the right sort? Other than sending lots of money, of course...

KingJaja
02-12-2012, 11:12 PM
What would you have America do, or say?

It sometimes seems as if when America notices Africa, the reaction is "stay out of our business"; when America doesn't notice the reaction is "why are you ignoring Africa"? Of course when that dichotomy comes up the reaction is always that the attention given is the wrong sort, but what's the right sort? Other than sending lots of money, of course...

1. Label Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation - which it is. Stop all the verbal gymnastics and second guessing.
2. Appreciate that the primary concern of Africans is not links between any group and AQIM, but loss of life and limb.
3. Get your policy makers (especially our dear general) to appreciate that fact.
4. Show some more concern for the victims of the attacks, do not reduce the discussion to "Western interests this" and "Western interests that".
5. Get out of the way.

Dayuhan
02-12-2012, 11:36 PM
1. Label Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation - which it is. Stop all the verbal gymnastics and second guessing.

One of the criteria for a US designation as a foreign terrorist organization is the following:


The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Does BH meet that criterion?

I'm not personally convinced that a US "terrorist organization" designation on BH would be of any real utility. It would make it illegal for a US person or organization to fund or assist BH, but I doubt that's a significant factor. On the negative side, it would only fuel the rumours of impending US miitary action, it would internationalize the perception of BH, and could easily accelerate and deepen links between BH and AQIM.

What useful goal would you expect the designation to accomplish?


2. Appreciate that the primary concern of Africans is not links between any group and AQIM, but loss of life and limb.

3. Get your policy makers (especially our dear general) to appreciate that fact.

We do appreciate that, and I expect the policy makers do too. However, our policy makers do not (and should not) make policy on the basis of African concerns. Your policy makers do... or should, at least. Some role confusion here, I think.

What policies would you want our policy makers to make... and why? I don't see that any US policy will have any impact on BH and the loss of life and limb that BH produces.


4. Show some more concern for the victims of the attacks, do not reduce the discussion to "Western interests this" and "Western interests that".

To pick on a small but important distinction, do you want them to express concern (words) or show concern (actions). If the latter, what actions would you think appropriate? It would be hypocritical for Western governments to pretend that they are not primarily concerned with Western interests, and nobody would be convinced.


5. Get out of the way.

Are we in the way? How so? What exactly would you have us do to get out of the way? What action is our non-presence preventing or discouraging?

davidbfpo
02-15-2012, 06:06 PM
This commentary on AQ's merger could fit in the Horn of Africa Non-piracy Somali thread, so will be copied there. Hat tip to FP Blog:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/14/al_qaedas_merger?page=0,0

A good summary and ends with well made points:
It's one thing to have a loaded gun; it's another to pull the trigger and safely walk away. Al-Shabab might elevate its status in the jihadi world by hitting an American target on U.S. soil, but in doing so it would risk an even harsher crackdown on its bases in Somalia.

But then, al-Shabab has earned one more dangerous distinction: It is the only jihadi organization ever to convince Americans -- at least four, so far -- to serve as suicide bombers. It would not be wise to count on al Qaeda's newest affiliate to act in its own self-interest.

davidbfpo
04-04-2012, 06:51 PM
A report by a RUSI analyst, Valentina Soria, that considers:
Africa represents a fertile ground for a diminished ‘Al-Qa’ida-core’ to re-group,
re-energise and re-launch its mission of global jihad.

The Key Findings are:
Recent attacks in Nigeria, coupled with ongoing insurgency in Somalia and current turmoil in Mali, underline that the jihadist challenge may be migrating to Somalia, Kenya, north Nigeria and the borderlands of some of the vast territories of West Africa.

a) As the central leadership of Al-Qa’ida is weakened and challenged, the terrorist movement is looking to partnerships in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa to re-group and re-energise itself
b) Despite greater co-operation, there seems to be an unresolved tension between transnational aims of Al-Qa’ida-core and the local grievances of African partners
c) Following the alliance with Al-Qa’ida-core, regional affiliates such as Al-Qa’ida in the Maghreb and Al-Shabaab have undergone similar patterns of strategic, tactical and propagandistic evolution
d) Nigeria’s Boko Haram is still focused on a local campaign, but
recent operational refinement and ability to stage deadly ‘spectaculars’ suggests disturbing connections with other regional terror groups
e) Links between Al-Qa’ida-core and some jihadist groups in Africa have been established over the last decade which vary in strategic and operational significance
f) A range of new challenges are possible as jihadism evolves and disperses into territories of ungoverned space across large stretches of the African continent. Among these are the potential for radicalisation and mobilisation of a new subset of British youth in the UK

The later has got the headlines in the UK. There is also a profile of Al-Shabaab in Somalia

Link:http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/UKTA2.pdf

KingJaja
04-04-2012, 09:34 PM
It is very difficult to argue with what she wrote, but we must understand that the practice of Islam in West Africa is not monolithic, and that adherence to a particular brand of Islam or Christian is linked to tribal affiliation.

Boko Haram is being described as a "Northern Nigerian" phenomena, it is really a Hausa-Fulani/Kanuri phenomena largely limited to the parts of Nigeria where Hausa is the lingua franca.

This is why Kenya, Nigeria and most of West Africa are different from Somalia. Kenya's Islamists are more likely to be ethnic Somalis or from the Mombasa area. That makes them easier to isolate and presents us with the terrifying prospect of massive retaliation attacks by the majority Christian tribes in Kenya, should the situation get out of hand.