The US and France are desperate to establish military bases in Nigeria, because our sister countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad and Niger have kicked them out. The US is sending its troops to Nigeria under the guise of fighting terrorism. But which country has most exploited the employment of violence for political ends more than the US? Is it in its establishment, seizure of Mexican lands, or the colonisation of Puerto Rico and various hapless territories?
Information filtered through a few weeks ago, that “a small team” of United States (US) soldiers were in Nigeria. On Tuesday, 10 February an additional information was that 200 American soldiers are being deployed to provide security for the small team. I am sure that soon these 200 would need a thousand US soldiers to give them cover.
The troop numbers are nothing to worry about, except that this was the same story of American involvement in Vietnam. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower sent 740 soldiers to that country. A decade later, President John Kennedy sent 9,000. Eventually, a total of 2.7 million American soldiers “served” in the Vietnam War. So, the US tradition of swelling the rivers of its troops is, like we were taught in kindergarten, “Little drops of water forms the mighty ocean.”
|
|
The Nigerian Defence Headquarters spokesman, Samaila Uba, announced that the US troops will not be involved in combat operations. That is how US intervention starts: their troops are usually “advisers.” Before it became a full military intervention in Vietnam, the US had 16,000 “advisers” there.
As explained by the Nigerian leadership, the American military is not in Nigeria to fight. Rather, its mandate is “capacity building, professional military education, intelligence sharing, logistics support and strategic dialogue aimed at addressing shared security concerns, including terrorism and transnational threats.”
|
|
|
|---|
The issue is not the number of American troops, but the fact that there are foreign boots on Nigerian soil. This is the same issue that our nationalists had fought against. A major battle Nigerians fought immediately after independence in 1960 was against a so-called Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact under which the departing colonial Britain was to maintain military presence in the country. We did not want to become some Banana Republic.
Nigeria had a tested military, which immediately after independence, went on peace-keeping operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo for four years. Nigerian General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi was the Force Commander of that UN force in 1964. Since then, Nigeria has contributed to over 40 global military missions, including in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Mali, Gambia and last year, Benin Republic. There is little the US can teach the Nigerian military in terms of conventional warfare that would warrant our being turned into a banana state. In such wars, the US record is not a shining one. It was roundly defeated in Vietnam, Cuba and more recently, Afghanistan. This is despite deploying all its intelligence and military tactics. The US only specialises in the opportunistic bullying of weak countries.
The trojan horse that the US is using to establish a military base in Nigeria is its African Command (AFRICOM) contraption, which Nigerians had rejected 25 years ago in a push led by the then Chief of Army Staff, General Victor Malu. Malu had argued that: “Americans did not come here to train us for peace-keeping. They came to get information on a country that, in spite of all the sanctions on it, could still achieve what we achieved in Sierra Leone… The Americans insisted on staying in the barracks with our soldiers. I said “over my dead body”.”
The trojan horse that the US is using to establish a military base in Nigeria is its African Command (AFRICOM) contraption, which Nigerians had rejected 25 years ago in a push led by the then Chief of Army Staff, General Victor Malu. Malu had argued that: “Americans did not come here to train us for peace-keeping. They came to get information on a country that, in spite of all the sanctions on it, could still achieve what we achieved in Sierra Leone… The Americans insisted on staying in the barracks with our soldiers. I said “over my dead body”.”
The matter was also taken before the Council of States, which rejected it. So, which body or authority in Nigeria has now approved the deployment of troops on Nigeria soil?
The US and France are desperate to establish military bases in Nigeria, because our sister countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad and Niger have kicked them out. The US is sending its troops to Nigeria under the guise of fighting terrorism. But which country has most exploited the employment of violence for political ends more than the US? Is it in its establishment, seizure of Mexican lands, or the colonisation of Puerto Rico and various hapless territories?
Contemporary terrorism, as we know it, was established by the US. In its attempts to unseat the pro-Soviet government of Nur Mohammed Taraki of Afghanistan in 1978, the US recruited Muslim youths across the world for a “Jihad”. Warehoused in Pakistan, the youths, which included Osama Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia, were called the Mujahedeen. They assumed it was truly a Holy War but realised after victory that it was just a ruse. On return to their various countries, they had expected reception as heroes, only to find themselves ostracised. They had become battle-hardened youths and their countries, which were mainly monarchies, were not ready to accept them. This was more so when the military in such countries had been mainly playing ceremonial roles, polishing their military boots and holding parades.
This led to Bin Laden fleeing Saudi Arabia for Sudan, where the US forced the Al-Bashir government to expel him and other ostracised youths. They were known as the Al-Qaeda or the Base. The only country willing to give them shelter was Afghanistan under the Taliban. The Al-Qaeda members were hunted across the globe and detained without trial by the US. Then the latter and its allies developed the crazy idea of using some of these “terrorists” to overthrow governments like Ghadaffi’s in Libya and Assad in Syria. They trained these terrorists in Jordan and recruited European Islamic extremists to join them in Iraq and Syria, where they became known as the Islamic State (ISIS).
The terrorists of Boko Haram in Nigeria and many of those in West African countries like Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, were trained by ISIS.
The claim here is not that Nigeria does not need assistance. All countries do, as there is none that is fully sufficient in itself. However, nobody should take poison because he needs a curative. Nigeria can decide the assistance it needs without selling its sovereignty or becoming a US military satellite or base.
In this region, the main arm of ISIS is called the Islamic State – West Africa Province, ISWAP.
Today, the terrorists, with US-backing, are ruling Syria. The Western-backed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was leader of Al-Qaeda for 13 years from 2003, of Al-Qaeda in Iraq for eight years, of the Al-Nusra Front for four years, of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and then Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham for eight years, and the Syrian Salvation Government. Does the US celebration of this Al-Qaeda and ISIS leader show it is serious about fighting terrorism?
The claim here is not that Nigeria does not need assistance. All countries do, as there is none that is fully sufficient in itself. However, nobody should take poison because he needs a curative. Nigeria can decide the assistance it needs without selling its sovereignty or becoming a US military satellite or base.
The way out for Nigeria is clear. We are at war and there is no room for diversions such as claims that what we are witnessing are farmers-herders clashes.
Our enemies are the terrorists and bandits, no matter their ethno-religious origins or profession.
Also, the best way to overcome these criminals is a mass peoples’ war, in which self-defence is key.
There is no alternative to self-reliance. Relying on fair weather friends can be no solution; the hawk and the hen can make declarations of partnership but ultimately, cannot have the same interests.
Owei Lakemfa, a former secretary general of African workers, is a human rights activist, journalist and author.
