To begin West Africa is not North Africa. The USA interests in those areas of Africa are different. Not to say the problems in these countries should be ignored, but, the national security interests of the USA and NATO are different.
Compassion for suffering does not interpret into national security interests, nor should it.
May 21, 2014 10:31 pm
By William Wallis in Abuja
North Africa is a security concern for NATO, the Mediterranean and the commerce within those waters. Whether anyone wants to realize it or not allowing these countries to struggle with internal security allows breathing room for The West. A well armed North Africa does not serve the purpose of NATO. To that end the French maintain an active interest in providing troops and otherwise to established governments to maintain some degree of stability. But, the greatest threat to The West lies with terrorists and their ability to carry out suicide attacks.
To arm the governments of these countries is only going to return dictators such as Mubarak and we are all back where we started from; huge unrest within a nation and extremists seeking to move against The West and their own governments.
The best venue for helping any of these nations in any part of Africa is to address health problems. Safe food sources, water, medicine, clothing and housing. With a healthier population the people can grow their economies. The Mideast is the best example of local economies that work for the people, namely in pilgrimages. The pilgrimage of these people are a very viable economy that does not at all conflict with the strong religious culture dominating the region.
The people have to find their own path, but, in order to do so they have to at the very least have health and well being. War does not deliver health and well being to these people and the recent Iraq War is a very dramatic example of that.
Another stark example of how invasion and war victimizes people; is Iraq. Where was the USA successful in maintaining a degree of peace? The Green Zone. What does that tell the average person in the USA? It should tell voters and citizens that when the USA enters a country with multiple nations of people based in ethnic and religious differences the best it can do is set up ZONES of control. The USA cannot conquer a country. It is not possible.
Where there any forces that surrendered during the Iraq War?
No.
The Iraq War was carried out on false pretense, killed thousands of Americans and even more Iraq civilians, spawned terrorist networks globally. There were huge power vacuums in Iraq and after a time some of the 'Iraq military units' were effective, but, basically the power vacuums still exist and anarchy is still the law of the day. Except, of course, for zones of control. Iraq's best outcomes will be viewed as concluded when there are three autonomous provinces able to govern themselves. The provinces are split among ethnic and/or religious lines. It is the way it is. No war is going to dissolve that movement of people toward their own best interests and a peace they long for from each other. The greatest problem within that movement is continued extremists seeking power differently than the majority. Those 'strains' of militancy will dissolve over time. Generations.
The case with Nigeria is that the current government is not the past government. It does not have the power of the past government because the past government not only was a force to contend with in West Africa, it killed it's own people on a right regular basis due to rebels interfering with oil production.
I can understand a government taking aim at rebels IF the oil production was actually working for the people, but, it NEVER did. The Nigerian government was killing their own people to secure contacts and wealth for a limited number of power brokers within the government. The people of Nigeria were trampled by their government. So, to realize the current government is weaker than the old government is not really the issue. The problem now is how is Nigeria going to answer the continued problems of it's people?
President Goodluck Jonathan is not really a bad guy. He is just like most other African leaders in that they are blunted through lack of military power to deal a sincere blow to the so called militias and militants. Power vacuums and rebels and anarchy is everywhere. Yes, there are elections, but, realize even after elections there are uprisings that result in deaths of citizens. So, to say things are settled in African nations because of elections is a vast myth.
Africa is riddled with rebels with causes and it usually interprets into survival. The rebels exist because of guns. If the rebels didn't have guns there would be a far less power vacuum and more peace. However, removing the guns is only part of the answer. Poverty is the largest driving force to any rebel group and to that point, they do solve their own problems. They find natural resources, stake their claim and proceed to find a way to survive. That is exactly what is occurring within northern Nigeria today. Boko Haram wants their own nation. Why? Because President Jonathan's answer to unrest is to round up people and stick them in prisons that result in their deaths though neglect and ack of dedicated resources.
Nigeria needs resources, but, not that of gold or oil; it needs resources from a brain trust that speaks words like PRISON REFORM. Nigeria needs to own up to the human rights abuses within it's prisons that is the focus of their rebels. Sending in troops to kill the rebels, or what Jonathan likes to call terrorists, is not going to end the problem. More dead rebels only begets more rebels.
I am NOT saying Boko Haram is a benevolent group of guys but just grossly misunderstood. But, their historical leaders were non-violent. That is not the case today. There have been brutal killings and now with Jonathan refusing to negotiate prisoner release, which would help unburden the prison system, there is all out declaration of war between the rebel group and the Nigerian government.
Did refusing to negotiate with the rebels protect the people of Nigeria? It would not seem the case. Did going to Paris and communing with other African leaders to give the USA a thumbs up and 'atta boy' stop the danger to the Nigerian people? Nope. Will sending in the troops stop the danger to the Nigerian people? Not likely.
The only real resolve of the Nigerian government should have been to meet with the rebels, secure the release of the girls, release prisoners that have not committed crimes and sought to end the violence while returning trust within the people. Calling them rebels and waging war is too easy and achieves nothing.
The best outcome now? Bouy. The rebel leaders have to be taken in abstentia before the courts. That sort of scenario worked just fine for Jordan. Yes, the country of Jordan.
AMMAN — The Criminal Court (click here) handed down the death sentence in absentia to two brothers after convicting them of murdering their married sister in one of the governorates earlier this year, senior judicial sources said on Sunday.
Compassion for suffering does not interpret into national security interests, nor should it.
May 21, 2014 10:31 pm
By William Wallis in Abuja
In the not so distant past (click here) Nigeria’s armed forces claimed to be the linchpin of west African security, better equipped and better resourced than their peers and under the control of generals who took pride in their role as regional policemen.
Fifteen years after military rule ended and soldiers handed power back to elected civilians, Nigeria’s army and police force are struggling to keep the peace at home in the face of a widespread breakdown in law and order....
Lamenting for 'the old ways' does not solve the problems the people of these countries face.
North Africa is a security concern for NATO, the Mediterranean and the commerce within those waters. Whether anyone wants to realize it or not allowing these countries to struggle with internal security allows breathing room for The West. A well armed North Africa does not serve the purpose of NATO. To that end the French maintain an active interest in providing troops and otherwise to established governments to maintain some degree of stability. But, the greatest threat to The West lies with terrorists and their ability to carry out suicide attacks.
To arm the governments of these countries is only going to return dictators such as Mubarak and we are all back where we started from; huge unrest within a nation and extremists seeking to move against The West and their own governments.
The people have to find their own path, but, in order to do so they have to at the very least have health and well being. War does not deliver health and well being to these people and the recent Iraq War is a very dramatic example of that.
Another stark example of how invasion and war victimizes people; is Iraq. Where was the USA successful in maintaining a degree of peace? The Green Zone. What does that tell the average person in the USA? It should tell voters and citizens that when the USA enters a country with multiple nations of people based in ethnic and religious differences the best it can do is set up ZONES of control. The USA cannot conquer a country. It is not possible.
Where there any forces that surrendered during the Iraq War?
No.
The Iraq War was carried out on false pretense, killed thousands of Americans and even more Iraq civilians, spawned terrorist networks globally. There were huge power vacuums in Iraq and after a time some of the 'Iraq military units' were effective, but, basically the power vacuums still exist and anarchy is still the law of the day. Except, of course, for zones of control. Iraq's best outcomes will be viewed as concluded when there are three autonomous provinces able to govern themselves. The provinces are split among ethnic and/or religious lines. It is the way it is. No war is going to dissolve that movement of people toward their own best interests and a peace they long for from each other. The greatest problem within that movement is continued extremists seeking power differently than the majority. Those 'strains' of militancy will dissolve over time. Generations.
The case with Nigeria is that the current government is not the past government. It does not have the power of the past government because the past government not only was a force to contend with in West Africa, it killed it's own people on a right regular basis due to rebels interfering with oil production.
I can understand a government taking aim at rebels IF the oil production was actually working for the people, but, it NEVER did. The Nigerian government was killing their own people to secure contacts and wealth for a limited number of power brokers within the government. The people of Nigeria were trampled by their government. So, to realize the current government is weaker than the old government is not really the issue. The problem now is how is Nigeria going to answer the continued problems of it's people?
President Goodluck Jonathan is not really a bad guy. He is just like most other African leaders in that they are blunted through lack of military power to deal a sincere blow to the so called militias and militants. Power vacuums and rebels and anarchy is everywhere. Yes, there are elections, but, realize even after elections there are uprisings that result in deaths of citizens. So, to say things are settled in African nations because of elections is a vast myth.
Africa is riddled with rebels with causes and it usually interprets into survival. The rebels exist because of guns. If the rebels didn't have guns there would be a far less power vacuum and more peace. However, removing the guns is only part of the answer. Poverty is the largest driving force to any rebel group and to that point, they do solve their own problems. They find natural resources, stake their claim and proceed to find a way to survive. That is exactly what is occurring within northern Nigeria today. Boko Haram wants their own nation. Why? Because President Jonathan's answer to unrest is to round up people and stick them in prisons that result in their deaths though neglect and ack of dedicated resources.
Nigeria needs resources, but, not that of gold or oil; it needs resources from a brain trust that speaks words like PRISON REFORM. Nigeria needs to own up to the human rights abuses within it's prisons that is the focus of their rebels. Sending in troops to kill the rebels, or what Jonathan likes to call terrorists, is not going to end the problem. More dead rebels only begets more rebels.
I am NOT saying Boko Haram is a benevolent group of guys but just grossly misunderstood. But, their historical leaders were non-violent. That is not the case today. There have been brutal killings and now with Jonathan refusing to negotiate prisoner release, which would help unburden the prison system, there is all out declaration of war between the rebel group and the Nigerian government.
Did refusing to negotiate with the rebels protect the people of Nigeria? It would not seem the case. Did going to Paris and communing with other African leaders to give the USA a thumbs up and 'atta boy' stop the danger to the Nigerian people? Nope. Will sending in the troops stop the danger to the Nigerian people? Not likely.
The only real resolve of the Nigerian government should have been to meet with the rebels, secure the release of the girls, release prisoners that have not committed crimes and sought to end the violence while returning trust within the people. Calling them rebels and waging war is too easy and achieves nothing.
The best outcome now? Bouy. The rebel leaders have to be taken in abstentia before the courts. That sort of scenario worked just fine for Jordan. Yes, the country of Jordan.
by Rana Husseini
Dec 29, 2013 | 22:59
The two brothers, aged 20 and 23, were found guilty of complicity in the premeditated murder of their sister at her home in June and were handed the maximum sentence by presiding Judge Awad Abu Jarad last week, a senior judicial source said....
Such a designation brings about an understanding of the reason the rebels are sought for crimes. Rebels have to be brought to justice for the crimes they commit otherwise they are viewed as powerful men with clout among the people. The lives of the people killed have to be elevated and valued above the lack of ability of the government to retaliate.
Jordan, by the way is not a wealthy or powerful country. It has strong ethnic divides, but, it does practice peace and welcomes refugees. There is no reason why the African governments cannot act in the same way and push their people into stronger ties to law and order rather than identities with rebel causes.
What can happen in Africa once there are judicial findings?
Ever hear of Private 'for hire' military unites that operate within a country to solve it's problems? So long as African governments are seeking out sincere criminals for apprehension and not simply rounding up people and killing the oppressed angry with their government's neglect; law and order might even have a chance.
Training Nigerians as if Iraqis is a losing game. It won't happen. Nigeria and nations like it need ready trained soldiers. Nigeria needs 'strike forces' that actually know how to carry out arrest warrants to bring profound criminals to justice. It is too late to train anyone. The shift has to occur and until there is something positive happening for the people to close power vacuums while they advance their society; the idea a USA unit is going to achieve long term stability is not at all the answer.
The problem as it exists today? NEGOTIATIONS and prisoner releases to bring the girls home. It is too dangerous otherwise and the girls won't make it home.
Such a designation brings about an understanding of the reason the rebels are sought for crimes. Rebels have to be brought to justice for the crimes they commit otherwise they are viewed as powerful men with clout among the people. The lives of the people killed have to be elevated and valued above the lack of ability of the government to retaliate.
Jordan, by the way is not a wealthy or powerful country. It has strong ethnic divides, but, it does practice peace and welcomes refugees. There is no reason why the African governments cannot act in the same way and push their people into stronger ties to law and order rather than identities with rebel causes.
What can happen in Africa once there are judicial findings?
Ever hear of Private 'for hire' military unites that operate within a country to solve it's problems? So long as African governments are seeking out sincere criminals for apprehension and not simply rounding up people and killing the oppressed angry with their government's neglect; law and order might even have a chance.
Training Nigerians as if Iraqis is a losing game. It won't happen. Nigeria and nations like it need ready trained soldiers. Nigeria needs 'strike forces' that actually know how to carry out arrest warrants to bring profound criminals to justice. It is too late to train anyone. The shift has to occur and until there is something positive happening for the people to close power vacuums while they advance their society; the idea a USA unit is going to achieve long term stability is not at all the answer.
The problem as it exists today? NEGOTIATIONS and prisoner releases to bring the girls home. It is too dangerous otherwise and the girls won't make it home.
