Nigeria 2013-2017

[KingJaja]

Discusses the links between Northern Sudan & Northern Nigeria.

Historically,socio-cultural and trade ties have been strong between Northern Nigeria and Northern Sudan,particularly around Kano and Bornu. For centuries, the Shuwa Arabs(who number perhaps half a million people in Adamawa,Yobe and Borno states) who are thought to have emigrated from Darfur have inhabited the area around the Biu Plateau,Mandara mountains and plains and the Lake Chad basin. There also exists a well-established Sudanese diaspora in Kano. As recently as 1900,Rabeh the son of a Darfuri Arab was temporal Lord of the Lake Chad region!

These migratory trends appear to have been influenced by the fact of Kano having been the central terminus and Bornu the eastern terminus of the Trans-Saharan trade routes. Indeed,there is a long established practice(which continues to this day) of sending children/wards of the nobility for training in Islamic law,philosophy and theology to the Sudan.This is particularly noticeable in emirates such as Kano,Katsina,Zaria,Sokoto,Adamawa and Bornu.
So,how did Nigerians end up becoming Sudanese nationals?

http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2010/...-of-the-sudan/

[davidbfpo]

Gruesome video footage, images and testimonies gathered by Amnesty International provide fresh evidence of war crimes, including extrajudicial executions, and other serious human rights violations being carried out in north-eastern Nigeria as the fight by the military against Boko Haram and other armed groups intensifies.

The video is bad, especially at the end.

Link:http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/niger...mes-2014-08-05

[KingJaja]

David,

Nothing unusual about that. The Nigerian Army killed 2,400 in a single day in 1999 in Odi (in the Niger Delta). Amnesty and HRW protest, life goes on. That's the deeply distressing reality of life in Nigeria.

Another important (but often non discussed fact) is this: empathy is dead in Nigeria. Nigeria has witnessed so many gruesome killings that people no longer care (as long as it is not in their part of the country).

I live in Lagos, nobody in Lagos is bothered about this - and most definitely nobody from the Niger Delta or Southeast who will tell you that "Northerners weren't bothered when Northern dictators sent soldiers to massacre our people".

[davidbfpo]

KingJaja,

Agreed on how Nigerians react. I would speculate that such footage could undermine Western involvement, especially if parliamentary approval is needed. It may also turn off Amnesty members, who recoil at the brutality of both sides. Above all non-African viewers will simply say "That's Africa, best to stay out and uninvolved".

[KingJaja]

KingJaja,

Agreed on how Nigerians react. I would speculate that such footage could undermine Western involvement, especially if parliamentary approval is needed. It may also turn off Amnesty members, who recoil at the brutality of both sides. Above all non-African viewers will simply say "That's Africa, best to stay out and uninvolved".

Is Western involvement critical in solving this problem? I don't get a feel the Nigerian Army feels that way. They've already met the Sri Lankans, so that should tell you in what direction their minds are moving.

Worst case scenario, some territory is ceded to Boko Haram, life goes on, news is suppressed.

It is unfortunate, Nigeria was very "poorly designed" - bits and pieces of 1,000 year old Islamic states joined together with coastal forest states - which they had nothing in common with. That's why you have Sharia law in the North & Evangelical Christianity in the South.

There's very little cultural basis for a Nigerian state & if Boko Haram means the North leaves the South - I doubt if too many in the South will be bothered - if it doesn't shake up things too much.

[Bill Moore]

Is Western involvement critical in solving this problem? I don't get a feel the Nigerian Army feels that way. They've already met the Sri Lankans, so that should tell you in what direction their minds are moving.

This doesn't surprise me, and one the reasons I'm a vocal critic of U.S. COIN doctrine. It doesn't work, and yet we seem to be the only ones who don't recognize it. We promote political correctness over combat and strategy effectiveness. There are many options for countries to consider when it comes to security advice, and it is only logical they'll turn to a country they perceive to be successful. Tactically the Sri Lankan approach may work, but ultimately I suspect it will only the make situation worse. The Sri Lankan approach doesn't facilitate consolidating the victory in a way that leads to an enduring peace.

On the other hand, the U.S. isn't as competitive as it used to be when a country is looking for security assistance. The exception is when the U.S. is throwing money at the country (buying influence). It's sad if we're not sought out for our strategy and military competence. I suspect that is gradually will erode our influence globally as we lose our competitive advantage. When countries are facing existential threats they'll seek approaches they think will work. We need to find a better balance between promoting our ideas, morals, etc. with military effectiveness.

Final point, we create our own asymmetric disadvantages with our excessive legalistic approach to war.

[JMA]

Nigerians don't need any guidence from Sri Lanka as they are well acquainted targeting civilians when the armed groups are too difficult to find.

I suggest that this is merely a 'trick' to justify the only approach they know... so when the bodies of the civilians begin to pile up they will have a excuse saying they are merely following the Sri Lankan doctrine.

Your comment on the legalistic approach to war is correct in that - certainly in Afghanistan - you have hog-tied your troops to the extent the Taliban can and will declare victory. You can see this can't you?

This doesn't surprise me, and one the reasons I'm a vocal critic of U.S. COIN doctrine. It doesn't work, and yet we seem to be the only ones who don't recognize it. We promote political correctness over combat and strategy effectiveness. There are many options for countries to consider when it comes to security advice, and it is only logical they'll turn to a country they perceive to be successful. Tactically the Sri Lankan approach may work, but ultimately I suspect it will only the make situation worse. The Sri Lankan approach doesn't facilitate consolidating the victory in a way that leads to an enduring peace.

On the other hand, the U.S. isn't as competitive as it used to be when a country is looking for security assistance. The exception is when the U.S. is throwing money at the country (buying influence). It's sad if we're not sought out for our strategy and military competence. I suspect that is gradually will erode our influence globally as we lose our competitive advantage. When countries are facing existential threats they'll seek approaches they think will work. We need to find a better balance between promoting our ideas, morals, etc. with military effectiveness.

Final point, we create our own asymmetric disadvantages with our excessive legalistic approach to war.

[JMA]

Pray tell me, if these boundaries are so ridiculous, why after 50 years of independence has nothing been done about it?

Why if the 'coastal forrest states' have enough in common have they not just abandoned the northern 'Islamic states' to their own devices? Methinks that is far to simple an option.

Is Western involvement critical in solving this problem? I don't get a feel the Nigerian Army feels that way. They've already met the Sri Lankans, so that should tell you in what direction their minds are moving.

Worst case scenario, some territory is ceded to Boko Haram, life goes on, news is suppressed.

It is unfortunate, Nigeria was very "poorly designed" - bits and pieces of 1,000 year old Islamic states joined together with coastal forest states - which they had nothing in common with. That's why you have Sharia law in the North & Evangelical Christianity in the South.

There's very little cultural basis for a Nigerian state & if Boko Haram means the North leaves the South - I doubt if too many in the South will be bothered - if it doesn't shake up things too much.

[Bill Moore]

KingJaja,

Agreed on how Nigerians react. I would speculate that such footage could undermine Western involvement, especially if parliamentary approval is needed. It may also turn off Amnesty members, who recoil at the brutality of both sides. Above all non-African viewers will simply say "That's Africa, best to stay out and uninvolved".

The Nigerian military isn't doing itself any favors. It is tragic if confirmed these are military men (uniforms alone doesn't confirm that), especially after the years of effort dedicated to help reform the Nigerian military. Maybe in the end those who say this is Africa, and it is best to stay out are ultimately right?

[JMA]

The Nigerian military isn't doing itself any favors. It is tragic if confirmed these are military men (uniforms alone doesn't confirm that), especially after the years of effort dedicated to help reform the Nigerian military. Maybe in the end those who say this is Africa, and it is best to stay out are ultimately right?

Bill, you must please listen to KingJaja on this... this stuff has been happening for years not only internally in Nigeria... but also under ECOWAS interventions in Sierra Leone and Liberia. How is it that you can not be aware of this stuff... which BTW is not limited to Nigeria.

[Bill Moore]

Bill, you must please listen to KingJaja on this... this stuff has been happening for years not only internally in Nigeria... but also under ECOWAS interventions in Sierra Leone and Liberia. How is it that you can not be aware of this stuff... which BTW is not limited to Nigeria.

Yes it has been happening for years, and I'm quite familiar with the atrocities committed in both the north and in the Niger Delta (been there). I recall reading about 200-300 getting killed a day with small arms and machetes in Jos, it was situation normal, and it wasn't unusual to see bodies floating the rivers and swamp in the Delta. Nonetheless I was surprised to see the current Nigerian military (if it actually was) commit these crimes based on our experience with the Nigerians in Liberia (second intervention) in 2003 where they were lauded for their professionalism, in contrast to the first intervention where they frequently raped the locals and set up illegal drug rings along with a number of other crimes. Clearly a major step backwards, but then again the U.S., along with other countries I suspect, greatly reduced to their support to Nigeria after 9/11.

Reference Sri Lanka, there was more to their strategy than killing civilians. Some spread the myth that the Sri Lankans quit focusing on taking and holding territory, and instead focused on killing the separatists, but the reality is they did both. While not decisive, their small unit operations in LTTE controlled areas were essential enablers in weakening LTTE cohesion and allowing decisive maneuver by larger elements. Their military tactics were actually quite good, but they failed to effectively consolidate their victory by failing to treat the civilians with respect and meet their needs (physical and psychological). Tactics generally shouldn't be followed blindly in different wars/locations for obvious reasons. A lesson the U.S. can't seem to apply effectively.

To your point about the U.S.'s ability to do anything about Africa, I don't think it our intention to save Africa from itself, but when there are opportunities to reinforce a positive movement I think we'll dedicate some support to it. Hopefully you know there are a lot countries playing in Africa besides the U.S., so you can start directing some your ire against them also, to include S. Africa, what the hell are they doing to help stabilize the region?

[JMA]

The video is bad, especially at the end.

Link:http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/niger...mes-2014-08-05

That this video surprises people says a lot in itself.

The main problem is that the people who make the decisions on Africa in Washington and the European capitals have absolutely no idea of how Africa 'works'.