blog #11 US Involvement in Counter Terrorism in Nigeria

On Tuesday, November 8, the US issued a statement confirming its pledge to support fight the rise of terrorism in Nigeria by providing training for the security forces in the US. This action follows the November 5 attacks on multiple targets in the country of Nigeria which resulted in over 100 casualties, including police and civilians. The relationship between the US and Nigeria has been friendly in the security arena ever since Nigeria’s efforts to carry out peacekeeping operations in other African countries. The US has stated that the security forces are to be training in “warfare tactics” which is many speculate will be to address the issue of the fundamentalist Islamic sect called the Boko Haram. The Boko Haram have risen to the number one security threat in Nigeria, surpassing the traditional regional conflicts, and have come to dominate the oil rich Niger delta which has caused the most concern for the government until the audacious and deadly raid attack in 2009 leading the killing of 700 Nigerians. The Government of Nigeria has responded to these series of attack with swift and harsh reprisals which some have suggested has not been as effective as previously due the concerns which have led to the extremist movement to take root in the society. These concerns have evolved over “Anger at years of poor local governance, corruption and endemic poverty” which has found a voice at the mosques (Smith, 2011). The argument now is if the use of the entire fore of the military will be the best course of action, or if it will result in more terrorist attacks as the Boko Haram counter react to the government’s actions against them.

This article is significant because it illustrates two major point in highlighting US pledge of continuing with the “War on Terror” while at the same time discussing the previous rhetoric of the Nigerian government for addressing similar instances of conflict while accessing its successfulness. The US support against this terrorist organization is yet another piece of evidence towards the continuation of the US declared “War on Terror” while maintaining its distance from actual physical involvement as an effort to keep away from another costly and lengthy military involvement such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second, and more important point, is that the article point out the pattern of government reaction towards attacks of the state while at the same time illustrating the limited affect on the enemy while creating massive losses amongst the civilian populations either by state or terrorist retribution. This method of all out total military suppression of the enemy is questioned several times throughout the article and the underlining question it presumes is how will military training from the US change the eventual outcome or will it change the tactical strategy implemented by the Nigerian government currently. Ultimately US assistance is a welcome and necessary for the greater effectiveness of the Nigerian security forces to combat the insurgency yet it will not provide the solution to the underlining scar which continues to fester and motivate the Fundamentalist movement, which is the failure of the state to address structural errors in the government and its political system overall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/nigerian-taliban-us-boko-haram

Blog #1 Terrorism in Nigeria

On August 26^th a bomb was set off in the capital city of Nigeria, Abuja. The target of this attack was the offices of the United Nation (UN) which resulted in the deaths of 26 people who where closest to the blast area. This is now the second time that the capital city of Abuja has been attacked by what the government calls a growing threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. The sect which has been blamed for the series of attacks is called the Boko Haram which translates to “Western education is sinful” and has been a growing threat to the security of the government and the overall stability of the country. Nigeria’s political history is one fraught with violence and constant political change stemming from the transition of power from the military to a civil control over government. This instability has led to civil discontent which could be the contributing factor for the sudden and rapid growth of this fundamentalist group which seems to have to clear mission or ultimate goal.

As previously stated, this marks the second attack to a government instillation in Nigeria yet the significant factor is that it is the first time that this extremist group (Boko Haram) has set out to attack a international institution. The speculation for the motivation of the attack is uncertain yet we can assume that it must have to do with the growing unhappiness of the populations due to the backlash response of the government which has tried to stamp out future attack by clamping down on the population through violence and coercion. The danger of this sort of aggressive tactic is that it further isolates the people from the government and disenfranchises those whom are in support of the government which can lead to a shift in support of the people away from the legitimate government and further the terrorist cause. Nigerias case with regards to overall trend in growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Africa is of specific interest to use in the US and other Western States because it represent a continuing growth of grassroots “cells” of terrorist groups which lends itself to the question why is there a growing propensity for terrorist groups and acts in Africa? This question I believe is one that deals not with the idea of there existing an overarching pan-Islamic movement with a clear mission but rather that the issues over social inequality and the lack of government stability, which characterizes the types of countries where terrorism has been growing, is a huge contributing variable to the ability for any sort of counter institutional movement to take root. The danger is that Islamic terrorist groups have the funding and structural foundation which lends itself for filling the void that these societies seem to have as a way to act out against the actions of the government.