Boko Haram Terror Attacks: Nigerian President Calls for Immediate Military Intervention

The activities of Nigeria’s terrorist group Boko Haram has been a consistent series of suicide bombings, shootings and massacres dating back to 2009, when the insurgent group first emerged as a militant organisation. In July, we reported on Boko Haram’s ‘week of terror’, when over 200 innocent civilians were killed in two consecutive suicide bombings and a mass shooting over a week of attacks.

Now the finger is being pointed at Boko Haram for further deaths, this time in the village of Maiduguri in Borno State where 50 people were killed in a bomb attack on 11th August. Although nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack, officials say it bears the hallmarks of Boko Haram.

This comes after change at the head of the militant group. The absence of the former Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, from recent Boko Haram videos has lead authorities to believe he has been killed. In his place, it seems, has arisen new leader Mahamat Daoud, who has expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Chad government, although no such arrangements have been publicized.

Whilst the death toll continues to rise under Boko Haram, new Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari believes that an end to the violence can be achieved through military force and has issued a three-month deadline to his troops for the complete suppression of Boko Haram. As well as an increase in attacks since the new president was inaugurated, Boko Haram terrorism has also been seen spreading into neighbouring states, making the issue of Boko Haram terror one that concerns Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon.

The decision to fight terror with terror is one that will undoubtedly cause much debate. For some, the show of power and the determination to ‘not give into terror’ justifies the continuation of warfare as a resolution and military force may be viewed as necessary to gain control. For others, including the OWP, there are greater considerations at hand.

Since the emergence of Boko Haram, there have been over 17,000 civilian deaths and, whilst Buhari urges troops to act lawfully in the fight against Boko Haram, it is inevitable that there will be further disruption and tragedy in the lives of innocent citizens if military retaliation is initiated.

In a lecture given to students in March 2015, Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, New York, highlights just some of the shortcomings in the military response of Nigeria’s troops towards Boko Haram under former Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan:

“… In spite of this significant budget [£4 billion annually], the Nigerian armed forces were out-gunned and out-resourced by Boko Haram, a situation that generated the Goodluck Jonathan administration’s request for an additional $1billion for the defence budget. We are yet to see the result of this spending, because Boko Haram continued suicide bombing as well as attacks on communities like Baga, where an estimated 2,000 people were killed and the town razed. The survivors are now internally displaced, as well as refugees, who fled into Cameroonian territory.

What are the institutions of the Nigerian state doing to provide relief for these IDPs and refugees? Do we even have the right statistics for the dead, maimed, IDP, and refugees? Do we have any tabulation of losses of life so far? Are there cumulative figures for IDPs and refugees? Is there any verifiable assessment for the service provision by state agencies? The question is worth answering: If people don’t have physical security, how can they possibly have human security?”((A Cause for Alarm: The State, Human Security and National Security in Nigeria, March 21, 2015, //www.mojubaolu.com/2015_03_01_archive.html))

Yet, whilst Okome’s statements were made to comment on the fragility of the Nigerian government, I think her observations are very astute in assessing the value of military retaliation in general and that her questions deserve answers. Firstly, despite a huge annual military budget, the Nigerian government has a history of being unsuccessful in suppressing Boko Haram with military force. Funds that could be spent on tackling poverty, a lack of education and relocating internally displaced persons within Nigeria has had little effect when spent on military action. Furthermore, Okome raises important questions about the welfare of the Nigerian people whilst a military focus is at the forefront of governmental concern. What support is there for the internally displaced Nigerian people? What recognition is there for the dead and injured civilians of Nigeria?

Whilst a military response may provide a temporary shift of power in the government’s favour, the security and wellbeing of Nigerian civilians should also be taken into consideration. After six years of terror, a respite from violence may be a better solution than a military response and the very likely escalation of violence, of which the innocent civilians of Nigeria are the continual victims. Whilst a military suppression of Boko Haram may provide temporary security for these civilians, the cycle of attack-and-retaliation which has been seen between the Nigerian authorities and Boko Haram ever increases the likelihood of innocent deaths in the crossfire between them. An end to the violence on both sides is necessary for real security in Northeastern Nigeria and immediate support for the victims of Boko Haram and all subsequent military intervention should be considered an immediate governmental priority in Nigeria.

Related