A nation at war (1)

Aliyu Musa

President Goodluck Jonathan’s resolve to guarantee Nigeria’s indivisibility and newfound will to tackle the Boko Haram insurgence appears quite courageous and inspiring notwithstanding the president’s vague war proclamation and countless other liabilities like an ill-prepared but bully military and a police force shattered by years of corruption and general incompetence. A pertinent question, therefore, is how ready are we to conclusively end the insurgence without incurring further huge human and material cost?

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks on America President George W Bush declared the US was at war. In prosecuting the war one of the first moves he made was the invasion of Afghanistan although his original plan was to blame it on Saddam Hussein and attack Iraq. In the end even without logically concluding the war in Afghanistan he led America into Iraq. But more than a decade after, neither of the wars has been concluded despite the wartime president stopping short of proclaiming victory in the Iraq war as far back as May 2003.

In his speech earlier this week President Jonathan similarly declared Nigeria was officially at war with terrorists and insurgents who have taken over parts of the northeast and have sworn allegiance to authorities other than the Nigerian state. He warned that the insurgents plan to use their success as a launch pad for wresting control of much of Nigeria from his government.

It will be completely naïve of one to underestimate the damage the Boko Haram insurgence is inflicting or will further inflict on Nigeria. At the moment economic and social activities in the affected areas have been effectively truncated. But more disturbing is the colossal loss of lives, mostly of innocent men, women and children.

While much of the atrocities are blamed on the insurgents it is also imperative to recall the role the state has played especially through the use of its weapons of violence as symbolized by the military and the police to fuel the insurgency. From the violence of July 2009, of which footages of extrajudicial executions were widely circulated to the massacre in Baga, which despite attempts to obfuscate glaring evidence and conceal the extremity of the atrocities, facts have emerged indicting the state.

In previous commentaries I explained important steps the government needed to take to control the situation. While not attempting to pre-empt the president’s new approach, it is my humble opinion that it might not work unless there is a proper strategy to win several of the battles ahead of winning the war.

As military hardware and an unprecedented number of soldiers are deployed to the region to match the president’s tough talk with action, one will curiously but prayerfully wait to see the outcome. Perhaps it won’t be like the recent misadventure of our police in Alakyo. Perchance it won’t be a repeat of the toxic orgy in Baga.

There is nothing as depressing as having a military that cannot differentiate between civilians desperately needing protection and insurgents – one that maximizes civilian casualties as a deliberate retribution.

If the president had not declared war and ordered the military to heavily crush the rebellion and if our police were not in such a disgraceful state one would expect them to be in the foreground of tackling the insurgents. But, again, our police are largely to blame for amplifying the crisis. The appalling manner they first handled the uprising was what robbed us of the uncommon opportunity to get to the root of the problem and it was what energized the vendetta schema of the sect.

Despite being roundly devastated by some village thugs, our police deserve our sympathy because they are victims of their own intrigues as well as the ills of our society. That is why their Alakyo and Boko Haram thumping should be considered a clarion call to overhaul the system and revamp the force.

Postscript:

This piece was also published in the Blueprint newspaper of Friday May 17, 2013.