Bill Moore,
South Africa isn't a relevant military player in Africa (apart from its mercenaries).
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.Originally Posted by KingJaja
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.
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Carl, you will find the following article interesting:
Adopting Africa by Paul Theroux
and this one:
The Charitable-Industrial Complex
Last edited by JMA; 08-12-2014 at 12:52 PM.
Boko Haram: Soldiers’ Wives, Children Resume Protest In Borno
Very worrying sign that the Nigerian Army could be at breaking point.
http://leadership.ng/news/380745/bok...-protest-bornoThe wives and children of Nigerian troops at the Giwa Barracks, Maiduguri, have resumed their blockade of the barracks, insisting that their husbands and fathers will no longer fight Boko Haram with old weapons.
It was reported that dozens of women and children had since Saturday forcefully stopped military trucks from transporting their husbands and fathers to Gwoza where Boko Haram has taken over the town.
The protesters blocked the gates of the barracks that houses the 21 Armoured Brigade of the Nigerian Army, demanding quality fighting equipment for the soldiers.
Meanwhile, the spate of killings in Gwoza has engaged the women in the area in mass burials as Boko Haram attacks have left many males dead in the town.
Religion and Politics in Nigeria.
Just to add that religion features heavily in the run up to the 2015 elections here. Massive whisper campaign - opposition party (Muslim dominated) is being painted as "Muslim Brotherhood", allusions to "Boko Haram", "Worldwide Jihad"...
These undercurrents tend to be ignored by Western analysts, but they do matter.
Which Muslim Brotherhood?
Given the variety of approaches within the Mulsim Brotherhood (MB) over recent years, I cannot see this 'whisper' being that effective. Is it the MB led by Morsi in Egypt or those who rose in the 80's against the Assad regime?
There is a long running thread on the MB:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=891
davidbfpo
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...
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.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
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”.
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.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Boko Haram gathers new recruits in Cameroon
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.
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Bo...eroon-20140808Yaounde - 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
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.
KingJaJa, I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning the colonial borders that were arbitrarily drawn into the sand and that resulted in nations/ethnic groups being incorporated into 2 or 3 different states. Your argument is sound and cannot be faulted.
However, that happened decades ago and Africa needs to come to terms with itself and move forward. We cannot continue blaming the past without taking responsibility for the present and planning for the future.
Insofar as Boko Haram is concerned: There are some who are fully aware of the fact that we issued a warning to the Nigerian government in 2012 of an upcoming BH offensive. This was discarded and instead other advice was accepted – such advice intimating that all is good and well, when in fact it wasn’t. By accepting unsound advice, governments erode their own powerbases and often bring their legitimacy into question. The populace take note of this as they are not blind or deaf.
Some African governments have apparently chosen to ignore their responsibilities and continue to rely on the West to jump in to solve their problems. The message this propagates is loud and clear to all who care to listen. But, many of these problems are the result of a lack of national strategy, a lack of a national security strategy, poor governance, a lack of direction and so forth – not the result of colonialism. Of course, without sound and credible intelligence, no focussed or realistic strategy can developed. Without valid predictive intelligence, there can be little to no flexibility.
So, back to BH: Where was the intelligence that indicated this was coming? If it was available, why were the armed forces incorrectly trained, equipped and postured and therefore caught by surprise? The same questions can be asked of Cameroon who are now suffering a similar onslaught.
The toppling of Ghadaffi must surely have allowed the intelligence services to make very valid intelligence predictions. Why didn’t they?
Yes, the colonial borders will always remain a point of disagreement but, we cannot continue blaming them for what is now happening. Besides, do you think any of our governments will willingly hand over large tracts of their territory to a neighbouring government? Personally, I doubt it.
The bottom line is that Africa needs to wake up and take control of itself. We cannot continue looking to the West to solve problems we in many instances have caused ourselves.
After thinking about this awhile I do agree we (the U.S.) generally do a very poor job at training foreign troops, despite all our hoopla to the contrary. I won't bore everyone with why that is, it is just the way it is. A self-evident truth that our leadership refuses to recognize.
I think your comments about unrealistic strategies, poor operational designs, etc., if directed against the U.S. military, may be overstated. You stated you work for the state that hired you as a mercenary. I assume in most cases that state believes they have a significant threat, and are looking for a military solution, which is why they hired you.
In contrast, when the U.S. military deploys to Africa we normally are subordinate to our State Department. This is a huge difference, our State Department is using the military as a foreign policy tool to further their diplomatic objectives. They don't care about winning, and they certainly don't share the same level of threat to their diplomacy interests that the state we're supporting feels.
When the U.S. military is in the lead, as it was in the initial phases of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military did a great job of defeating its adversaries in battle. What came after that is where we lost our direction and momentum. Mercenaries supporting an existing government don't have the same issues of dealing with what comes next after a government falls. On the other hand, this is where we have failed repeatedly. Until we toss out our naïve ideas of installing the least stable form of government, a newly formed democracy, as an end state and develop an occupation doctrine we'll continue to fail when we oust governments with our military.
I think if you take some of our higher end SOF units and better trained light infantry units and allow them to focus on hunting the adversary, like EO appeared to do in Sierra Leone, they would do quite well. Like any military unit operating in a new area they'll have to go through an initial learning curve.
Lots and lots of other issues, but I think the difference of a military unit for working for a state or their diplomatic corps is a significant difference that results in very different outcomes.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks