Al-Qaeda in Africa (merged thread)

[KingJaja]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?. 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]

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/...134782893.html

[Chowing]

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/...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]

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.