Chibok: The case for foreign intervention

Also published in Daily Trust  

The excitement expressed by many Nigerians and the outright rejection voiced by many others over the possible United State’s intervention to help rescue Chibok abducted girls subsided when it appeared that the US would not actually commit combat troops to engage the insurgents, after all. Instead, its intervention and that of the other countries which offered to help would be limited to aerial surveillance and advice on counter-insurgency tactics.

Consequently, though the foreign military experts have since arrived the country and are presumably executing their mission, not much is expected from them since  the actual battle is still expected to be executed by the same Nigerian troops who are, honestly speaking and to a large extent quite understandably, too downhearted to tackle the increasingly audacious Boko Haram terrorists.

The recent show of anger by some angry soldiers in Maiduguri who fired at their General Commanding Office, Major-General Ahmed Mohammed, was a warning sign of a growing sense of disillusionment among them, which could trigger mutiny, if care is not taken. This also explains why Boko Haram terrorists and other identified and unidentified terror gangs perpetuate and indeed escalate their mass murder campaign, virtually unhindered, while Nigerian military personnel and other security agents continue to prove unfortunately incapable of defeating them.

Incidentally, to be fair to the military, the persistent decline of the hitherto professional Nigerian army and the other security agencies comes within the context of the general decline of all the other public institutions and agencies, which operate interdependently and make up the virtually dysfunctional Nigerian state. Besides, their interdependence on each other necessarily means that no institution (e.g. military) or agency can be reformed in isolation from the others, which basically underscores the need for a comprehensive reform drive that will cover all the institutions and agencies simultaneously.

Therefore, since this kind of reform is not likely to begin anytime soon, an alternative means has to be urgently explored and adopted in order to end the current insurgency and the other organized crimes in the country, lest the situation triggers uncontainable security turmoil across the country.

Obviously, under the current circumstances, foreign military intervention to help end the current insurgency appears to be the only realistic alternative, even though it is not yet advisable to launch rescue operation in order to free the abducted girls, for it may prompt the abductors to massacre them all. This is especially considering the fact that, the terrorists have offered to release them in return for releasing their fellow terrorists detained by the government.

Therefore while efforts to secure their release peacefully continue, the insurgency can only be ended by series of intense, sustained and carefully targeted and simultaneous ground and aerial military attacks that would systematically eliminate the terrorists’ leadership and subdue the surviving followers, without causing collateral damage. Also, though dialogue remains an indispensable part of the process to end the crisis for good anyway, it is noteworthy that, only such military measures can create the appropriate circumstances against the backdrop of which the dialogue can yield positive results.

After all, with the deteriorating combat readiness and the declining ability of the Nigerian army, the increasingly arrogant Boko Haram terrorists are not likely to voluntarily agree to enter into dialogue with the government especially considering how they outmanoeuvre and in several occasions defeat the army.

By the way, my insistent emphasis on the need for launching attacks of such intensity and magnitude is borne out of my concern that, the foreign military intervention may not be strong enough to end the insurgency once and for all, after all. This is even though it is obvious that nothing else than total crushing of the insurgents would do. In other words, a shallow commitment would simply and unnecessarily prolong the crisis and can’t check the wave of indiscriminate killings and displacement of people being committed by Boko Haram terrorists.

In any case, in the absence of any military power that has the required advanced military capabilities and expertise to execute this task in the West African sub region and the continent at large, there is obviously no alternative to Europeans or Americans who, notwithstanding their notoriety due to their sometimes unjustified military interventions, adventures and excesses in some countries, are expected to accomplish it as long as they are willing to engage accordingly.

Interestingly enough, considering the profound gravity of the atrocities committed by Boko Haram terrorists who falsely claim to act according to Islam, and in view of the persistent failure of Nigerian’s security forces to safeguard people’s lives, properties and dignities, there is no religious or legal injunction that illegalises seeking support from elsewhere to challenge those bloodthirsty terrorists and check their campaign of mass murder.

In other words, provided that the foreign military intervention can crush the terrorists and create appropriate atmosphere for dialogue with the surviving ones, any Islamic injunction quoted by some gullible Muslims or some misinformed Muslim scholars to purportedly illegalise such foreign military intervention under the current circumstances is either quoted out context or simply misinterpreted. After all, Boko Haram harms Islamic religion by distorting its teachings and tarnishing its image more than anti-Muslim bigots. Also, Muslims suffer the most from the heinous atrocities of the terrorists. 

Moreover, the so-called “respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty” under the pretext of which many Nigerians seek to challenge the idea of the need for foreign intervention to tackle Boko Haram terrorists is equally ridiculous, because how could a country that can’t protect its citizens and fails to provide the basic atmosphere for its citizens to live in dignity claim any sovereignty, in the first place?  Besides, what sovereignty does the average Nigerian enjoy in a country that deprives him of his basic fundamental human rights? For instance, any light-skinned foreigner in the country can simply harass and abuse him with impunity, and even literally unleash the largely corrupt security agents on him to illegally persecute him?

Therefore, foreign military intervention in Nigeria to crush Boko Haram is actually overdue, in fact I look forward for the formulation and ratification of necessary legal amendments in international law to establish an international legal and administrative framework that will allow for the prosecution of corrupt leaders in appropriate international courts, and even temporary takeover of the administration of any country where its leaders fail to provide suitable environment for the citizens to live in peace, prosperity and stability according to the country’s resources and potential.