Nigeria 2013-2017

[KingJaja]

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.

You weren't paying attention to the Nigerian civil war (in which Britain ensured) that the separatists were pummeled - or the various separatist movements in Africa.

Why does France have such a large military presence on the Continent? To preserve its colonial sphere of influence.

There's a vested interest by former colonial powers to keep their spheres of influence in Africa intact, but just like in Iraq/Syria, destabilizing agents like ISIS & Boko Haram will make that task difficult, if not impossible.

So the next great thing in Africa is "redrawing of colonial era boundaries" - it will be bloody, but I don't think you'll understand this.

[KingJaja]

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?

Let me also add that save French intervention, Ivory Coast would have been at least two separate nations: one on the coast & another in the North. France moved to preserve its colonial sphere of influence there.

The thing is this - as time goes on, French & US ability to do these sorts of interventions wanes - the birth rates in the Sahel are frightening & there's no way a few French thousand troops will be able to restore order indefinitely.

So Africa is reverting more natural borders - that would be a major story of this Century.

[JMA]

You weren't paying attention to the Nigerian civil war (in which Britain ensured) that the separatists were pummeled - or the various separatist movements in Africa.

Oil... maybe you missed that.

Why does France have such a large military presence on the Continent? To preserve its colonial sphere of influence.

Yes the French are certainly displaying a high degree of post-colonial angst.

There's a vested interest by former colonial powers to keep their spheres of influence in Africa intact, but just like in Iraq/Syria, destabilizing agents like ISIS & Boko Haram will make that task difficult, if not impossible.

Due to its oil wealth Nigeria would have been in a better position (than most African countries) to resist this 'influence' had the proceeds not been looted by successive governments.

So the next great thing in Africa is "redrawing of colonial era boundaries" - it will be bloody, but I don't think you'll understand this.

Do you think I come from London or New York?

[JMA]

You keep looking for excuses... mainly colonialism.

Of course these countries are imploding... through total mismanagement and a lack of governance.

My point is rather than as is happening - just letting it all fall apart - is for the countries themselves to at least attempt to control the process.

No leadership, no foresight, no nothing.

... and the US hasn't got the foggiest idea of whats going on and how to assist with the process.

Let me also add that save French intervention, Ivory Coast would have been at least two separate nations: one on the coast & another in the North. France moved to preserve its colonial sphere of influence there.

The thing is this - as time goes on, French & US ability to do these sorts of interventions wanes - the birth rates in the Sahel are frightening & there's no way a few French thousand troops will be able to restore order indefinitely.

So Africa is reverting more natural borders - that would be a major story of this Century.

[ganulv]

Let me also add that save French intervention, Ivory Coast would have been at least two separate nations: one on the coast & another in the North. France moved to preserve its colonial sphere of influence there.

No doubt that France is paternalistic towards its former colonies. The intervention in Côte d'Ivoire would seem to me to be motivated by the desire to maintain stability, in the same way that serving as the guarantor of the CFA does. Not to be flippant, but ensuring a steady supply of cocoa would not seem to me to be worth the effort. I am far from an expert in the area, though, so I could be wrong.

So Africa is reverting more natural borders - that would be a major story of this Century.

Or is the human geography reshuffling itself within the post-colonial political geography, as Joshua Landis suggests is happening in Syria and Iraq?

[KingJaja]

No doubt that France is paternalistic towards its former colonies. The intervention in Cte d'Ivoire would seem to me to be motivated by the desire to maintain stability, in the same way that serving as the guarantor of the CFA does. Not to be flippant, but ensuring a steady supply of cocoa would not seem to me to be worth the effort. I am far from an expert in the area, though, so I could be wrong.



Or is the human geography reshuffling itself within the post-colonial political geography, as Joshua Landis suggests is happening in Syria and Iraq?

Anyone who lives in Sub Saharan Africa (not South Africa) will know how meaningless colonial borders are - you can move by speedboat from Uyo in Nigeria to Malabo. Boko Haram moves from one meaningless colonial border to another - people on all sides are the same.

The problem is that certain key states in Africa are growing weaker internally, not stronger - so why wouldn't Yorubas in Benin Republic associate more with Yorubas in Nigeria? A bit more like "ethnic nationalism" in 19th and 20 Century Europe.

[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?

[KingJaja]

Bill Moore,

South Africa isn't a relevant military player in Africa (apart from its mercenaries).

[Bill Moore]

Bill Moore,

South Africa isn't a relevant military player in Africa (apart from its mercenaries).

KingJaja, that is exactly my point. It gets a bit tiresome when a South African is constantly attacking U.S. policy, when they're a non-player. The U.S. has its own interests, and its own issues (politically and economically), and despite our many challenges name another country that tries to help humanity on the scale of the U.S.? Yet, and while understandable, the U.S. constantly endures verbal and written attacks by pundits from insignificant countries who do little to nothing on the world stage. Reminds me of the Teddy Roosevelt comment, much paraphrased, that the credit belongs to the man in the arena, whether he triumphs or fails, not the critic on the sideline.

[JMA]

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?

Bill, with due respect you started this post attempting to provide your view and then when you realised you were failing you resported to the age old tactic of shooting the messenger.

Years ago I (and a number of others outside SWC) warned the the war in Afghanistan in general and in Helmand in particular with the Brits was going terribly wrong and was met by the same sort of mindset you now display - go read the thread for yourself - The UK in Afghanistan. I was 95% correct without even having been to Afghanistan. Now as I sit in Kabul I see the US packing up and selling out and ready to leave and desperately trying to put a positive spin on another war loss. ISAF came here saying "this is what we do" did just that and got it wrong. In this case I am deeply sorry I got it right (and Lind is bang on the nail).

The final question is whether the yanks are going to be as dumb as the Bits were in 1842 and the Russians in 1989 and try to negotiate safe passage out of Afghanistan. My guess is that they will - on the basis that the Brits and the Russians are dumb and we are smart, right - and expect the Afghans to stand by the deal.

But back to Africa.

From TED here is a story by an Italian who arrived in Africa - like all the yanks, Canadians, Europeans and (yes) even the Chinese before him - believing he had all the answers and got it wrong (surprise, surprise). Now instead of hanging his head in shame he turns his cock-up in to a virtue.

Watch this and weep:

Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!

At least he learned something but despite a long string of cock-ups have the yanks?

[JMA]

Bill Moore,

South Africa isn't a relevant military player in Africa (apart from its mercenaries).

Interesting comment... (I wonder if you realise that?)

The 'new' South African army is a joke. Its main role is a place where ex-fredom fighters can hang out with a salary and do next to nothing. In addition there is around a 40% HIV positive rate. Then there is the infamous Arms Deal which haunts the government. So, yea, just another African army.

The mercenaries? Now there's a thought.

Ever wondered why and how a small group of under equiped (in terms the US would understand) men could wrap up situations in Africa which no one else could? Like the Russians and Cubans in Angola for instance? Also Sierra Leone.

Have any of the 'smart guys' analysed what these guys did and what worked as opposed to how the US, Russians, Brits and French would approach it?

Doubt it...

[JMA]

Bill, by your logic - and as the recent US record is a string of military defeats - every yank should shut up as his country's record is one of military failure.

It is surely not in the US's best interest to keep losing wars?

I have said many times before - even here - that the US is attempting to do good in the world but the aim and manner of imposing a form of US democracy on the world is not working and can be classed as an abject failure and leading the nation into bankruptcy. The US continues to do some really dumb stuff.

The fact that me and my view are insignificant in the greater scheme of things does not detract one iota from the truth of what I say.

Yes, by all means disregard everything and carry on blindly cocking it up every inch along the way. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

KingJaja, that is exactly my point. It gets a bit tiresome when a South African is constantly attacking U.S. policy, when they're a non-player. The U.S. has its own interests, and its own issues (politically and economically), and despite our many challenges name another country that tries to help humanity on the scale of the U.S.? Yet, and while understandable, the U.S. constantly endures verbal and written attacks by pundits from insignificant countries who do little to nothing on the world stage. Reminds me of the Teddy Roosevelt comment, much paraphrased, that the credit belongs to the man in the arena, whether he triumphs or fails, not the critic on the sideline.

[KingJaja]

Report from local news media, disturbing trend.

.Shoot me if you want, a female suicide bomber dares police
.Holding a Bible and pretending to be a worshipper, another detonated a bomb
.With a hug the third bomber blows up a soldier
.From a wheelchair the third throws a bomb at her target
The policemen who were stationed at the Eid prayer ground near North-West University in Kofar-Nasarawa in the ancient city of Kano were astonished when a teenage girl, clad in a brown hijab, walked confidently and hurriedly towards them where they were stationed in order to monitor the activities in the environment.
Apparently unsuspecting that danger was approaching them, the policemen handled her presence with levity. When she got too close for comfort, the policemen queried her. But rather than stop, she kept moving towards them. Speaking to Sunday Trust on their encounter with the young lady, who later became a suicide bomber, one of the policemen said when the girl refused to stop, they activated their guns.
“At first, we thought she wanted to come and give us a report about a security breach around the place, but when she moved quickly towards us, we all activated our guns. Yet, she didn’t stop,” the policeman said. “When we asked her to stop, she refused. She rather told us in Hausa that if we wanted to kill her we should.”
The policeman said it was while the conversation was going on that a loud bang tore through the air, such that they all had to dive to take cover.
“We took cover, but we all sustained injuries. We went down flat because we were afraid that her colleagues may be nearby,” he said.

http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/sunday/...uicide-bombers

[carl]

KingJaja, that is exactly my point. It gets a bit tiresome when a South African is constantly attacking U.S. policy, when they're a non-player. The U.S. has its own interests, and its own issues (politically and economically), and despite our many challenges name another country that tries to help humanity on the scale of the U.S.? Yet, and while understandable, the U.S. constantly endures verbal and written attacks by pundits from insignificant countries who do little to nothing on the world stage. Reminds me of the Teddy Roosevelt comment, much paraphrased, that the credit belongs to the man in the arena, whether he triumphs or fails, not the critic on the sideline.

If it's true though, you gotta listen. We try, us flyover people and guys like you. Our failures aren't for the lack of effort and goodwill. We fail because of our leaders, a class of people who have neither character, wit, intelligence nor intellectual honesty. The furiners who comment around here without exception realize that. They know it isn't the Americans, it's the wizards inside the beltway.

[Bill Moore]

Bill, with due respect you started this post attempting to provide your view and then when you realised you were failing you resported to the age old tactic of shooting the messenger.

Years ago I (and a number of others outside SWC) warned the the war in Afghanistan in general and in Helmand in particular with the Brits was going terribly wrong and was met by the same sort of mindset you now display - go read the thread for yourself - The UK in Afghanistan. I was 95% correct without even having been to Afghanistan. Now as I sit in Kabul I see the US packing up and selling out and ready to leave and desperately trying to put a positive spin on another war loss. ISAF came here saying "this is what we do" did just that and got it wrong. In this case I am deeply sorry I got it right (and Lind is bang on the nail).

The final question is whether the yanks are going to be as dumb as the Bits were in 1842 and the Russians in 1989 and try to negotiate safe passage out of Afghanistan. My guess is that they will - on the basis that the Brits and the Russians are dumb and we are smart, right - and expect the Afghans to stand by the deal.

But back to Africa.

From TED here is a story by an Italian who arrived in Africa - like all the yanks, Canadians, Europeans and (yes) even the Chinese before him - believing he had all the answers and got it wrong (surprise, surprise). Now instead of hanging his head in shame he turns his cock-up in to a virtue.

Watch this and weep:

Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!

At least he learned something but despite a long string of cock-ups have the yanks?

JMA,

First off I don't believe I have disagreed with you regarding Afghanistan. Our nation building effort will be easily destroyed by the Taliban if we pull out in mass. On the other hand, what you call a military failure I call a political failure, and I don't think I'm being defensive. The military performed quite well in the early phases of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is after projecting force halfway around the world. In Iraq our politicians had a vision that was disconnected from reality, and our politicians stopped the military from pursuing Al-Qaeda into Pakistan (for bad or good reasons depending on your point of view). Turning Iraq and Afghanistan into stable democracies was a pipe dream that military couldn't accomplish, and I don't think it reflects poorly on the military for being unable to create a world full of rainbows and unicorns.

For the countries in Africa, we haven't committed our forces to defeat an adversary decisively there. We have conducted some disruption operations against different terrorist groups, and engaged in a number of capacity building efforts, which probably will fail over time for a lot reasons. However, that isn't losing a war. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be interested in your views on what we should do in Africa, and throwing up our hands and saying we don't care won't fly.

As to your comment on mercenaries being successful, I wasn't aware the mercenaries were successful in Angola, but I haven't read up on that conflict in years so I'll take a look. Executive Action was extremely successful in Sierra Leone with a small and lightly armed force, and they were punished by international opinion, which to this day amazes me. They turned the tide against a group of murderous thugs and they get criticized, much like Israel gets punished for their operations against Hamas. Want to know why we're not winning? Apparently there is no appetite for winning in the liberal West at this time, so we'll have to wait until more Westerners die before people wake up and depend decisive action. This is political, not a military issue. Since the military in the West is subordinate to the political we're simply stuck in a do loop where we're either given an impossible mission or denied the authorities and permissions to win what is winnable.

[carl]

Bill:

That last sentence was great.

[Dayuhan]

Ever wondered why and how a small group of under equiped (in terms the US would understand) men could wrap up situations in Africa which no one else could? Like the Russians and Cubans in Angola for instance? Also Sierra Leone.

Have any of the 'smart guys' analysed what these guys did and what worked as opposed to how the US, Russians, Brits and French would approach it?

Doubt it...

They operated without the constraint of domestic politics. That is not replicable by the forces of a Western democracy, because in a Western democracy domestic politics are ever-present and inescapable.

That constraint has to be factored into decision making from the start, and if you know that it will pose untenable limits on an intervention, it's better not to go there in the first place.

[Echo Bravo]

Dayuhan, I don’t comment on this site for numerous reasons.
However, I need to point out that as “mercenaries” we operated – and still operate -under the domestic laws of the governments that contracted us. That places us in a very different position to other PMCs that operate under their own country’s domestic laws and are therefore not accountable to the host government’s laws. Although we were (and still are) usually called when all other options have failed and the contracting government is close to collapse, we apply and enforce a very strict code of conduct.
I can also add that many of the African troops we have recently encountered and that have been trained by foreign military advisors and PMCs need to be retrained as their “training” has been shocking at best. Similarly, advice given to some African governments by “foreign Africa specialists” has been very poor and in many cases, has done more harm than good.
A lack of credible intelligence, unrealistic strategies, poor operational designs and ill-prepared troops can never result in success. Add to that a lack of political and military will and a misunderstanding of the enemy and his support base and, at best, you have a disaster in the making.
Considering the above, it will most certainly pose “untenable limits on an intervention, it's better not to go there in the first place”.

[Dayuhan]

Operating under local law makes sense, assuming that the government behind local law has some degree of legitimacy. Local law is to some extent linked to the conflict environment and will to some extent be understood by the people in that environment. A force operating under an utterly remote rule set will certainly be handicapped.

Law, though, is just the beginning of the problem. My own observation of US interventions, particularly those in places not considered strategically critical, is that they are usually designed not for their impact on the target country, but for their impact on the domestic political audience, a circumstance that is not conducive to success.

The US (again in my observation) typically ignores places that are not immediate concerns: there's little effort to develop serious understanding or expertise on environments that are not on today's problem list. When something does break out they are caught flat-footed and there's a mad rush to find some "expert" that will tell the political powers of the day whatever they have already decided they want to hear. At this point the "intelligence" community is tasked with providing a justification for whatever course of action is deemed most salable to the domestic political audience. At the end of it, whatever poor schmuck ends up out in the field is burdened with unachievable goals, unrealistic expectations, inappropriate strategies, and a whole host of other problems.

Unless that changes, and I don't think it will, I'd rather see the US keep it's collective putz in its pants with the zipper well up, and resist the temptation to meddle in places they don't understand. If you can't play by local rules and you aren't there with a clear and realistic objective, better not to be there at all.

IMO, obviously.

[KingJaja]

I knew this was going to happen.

1. Cameroon is even more badly governed than Nigeria & Northern Cameroon is worse off than Northern Nigeria.

2. There's no real difference with Northern Cameroon, Northeast Nigeria or parts of the middle of Thad - they are all Kanuri, colonial borders don't mean much.

Yaounde - The Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram has recruited and trained hundreds of young Cameroonians to carry out attacks in their own country, according to the police and civilians.

As the militant group seeks to gain a foothold in the poor, rural north of Cameroon, experts warn that violence may spread beyond border areas to other parts of the central African country.

"Boko Haram has recruited many young people" from Cameroon's Far North region, a police officer from the area told AFP on condition of anonymity

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Bo...eroon-20140808

When I say that colonial era boundaries are simply not viable long-term, this is what I mean. In other parts of Africa, these borders are being eliminated by trade, not conflict.

Paradoxically, decades of Western aid have led to less, not more capable African governments - and one of the goals of aid (as I hear) is to produce more capable African governments.

Paul Biya is old, tired and probably unwilling to fight a long-drawn out battle with Boko Haram. I hear Cameroonian Army strength is only about 20,000. True, the French will pitch in, but for how long - and what political solutions will be considered?

I don't know what a viable long-term political & economic solution to the crisis in the Sahel will look like. However, I'm not sure anyone else does either.