Playing Politics With Nat. Security …How Not To Honour Nigerian Troops

When, following the terror attacks on the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York September 11, 2001, United States President George. W. Bush described US security forces as unrivalled protectors’ of  human lives and freedom; he was merely underscoring the vital role  the armed forces play in the civilization of nations.
By their brief, such security men and women are charged  with the responsibility of securing American lives and property. But in other instances, they are often in faraway lands either battling to protect American interests in other climes or  helping to defend the natural liberties of men and women in political bondage.
To succeed, such men and women in uniform ought to be assured that their labours would not be in vain; that their families would not be abandoned in course of accidents or deaths. Most importantly, that they will be appreciated by their government and peoples.
It is this rare support that often stands out the average American soldier as one of the most patriotic, daring and caring in battle. It is indeed why most American troops put in their very best in line of duty and for which each American death is a national loss and indeed demonstrated as such.
There, the political class is often united on issues of national security and are not easily given to vain talks that not only demoralize their troops but indeed are capable of undermining American safety. Such is the level of maturity often displayed by politicians in the country whose democratic model Nigeria seeks to replicate.
Strangely, the Nigerian political class has yet to stand up to that high national expectation as what seems to matter the most to it, is political gains. And to achieve same, the average Nigerian politician can make all manner of comments without first pondering the ripple effects of such talks.
The other day, the Borno State governor inadvertently berated the Nigeria Army by alluding that the Boko Haram insurgents were better equipped and more inspired than the Federal troops.
The first question that came to mind was whose interest would a Boko Haram victory serve? Nigeria’s or some other country’s, or who suffers the ultimate loss of such defeat? President Jonathan?
Those who think in the line of the latter miss the point. A victorious Boko Haram can never be controlled with or without President Jonathan. Instead, like every monster groomed by man, it would out-grow its owners.
Not too long ago, Nigerian troops, in course of defending country and peoples in battle against Boko Haram were accused of genocide. Infact, some alluded that innocent Nigerians were being killed by the same soldiers that should protect them and indeed called on the international community to institute a probe.
Interestingly, countless  Nigerian troops have lost their lives to the Boko Haram insurgency, through terrorists ambush and veiled attacks. None, no group of people has staged rallies in solidarity and support of the troops. None demonstrated against the danger the troops daily face and in particular, for those who lost their lives or were maimed in course of ensuring  that others lived peacefully.
But as soon as the news broke that more than 200 students of Chibok School in Borno, had been abducted, politicians garbed as civil society groups found a strong reason to blame Nigerian troops and the Commander-in-Chief. Some even ordered government to ‘bring  back our girls’, as if the girls were willingly sold out by either the troops or the government.
Apparently seeking same relevance after years of condoning what has grown to become Boko Haram, some politicians under the aegis of Northern Elders decided to tie the security challenges which Nigeria today face to the individual ambition of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. They infact issued an ultimatum saying, if the security issues were not totally cleared by October this year, incumbent President Jonathan should not seek re-election.
It is true that as  President and Commander-in-Chief, Jonathan has the responsibility to ensure the  security of lives and property of Nigerians and all others who live and do business in the country. The buck indeed stops at his desk. That is, where all things are equal.
Terrorism, by its nature thrives on fear mongering. It grows on people’s subservience and support. It is most destructive when potential targets are divided amongst themselves, as Nigerians are today.
But the biggest challenge of fighting terror is the seeming invincibility built around the terrorist and his tendency to build human shield around his bases. And because terrorists are not conventional armies, it requires proper intelligence, planning and probing to identify enemy targets and foes.
Even more disturbing is the fact that such terrorists are also Nigerians who move about freely during the day as civilians and soldiers at night. This means, if such ‘terrorists’ unknown to neighbours as such becomes a casualty, he would be described as an innocent Nigerian.
But perhaps the most delicate part of the troops’ challenges, is the expected release of the Chibok girls from captivity. The troops have repeatedly explained that using force would endeanger the lives of the girls, just as trading them for Boko Haram insurgents in custody  is  a fatal plan, as such insurgents would still remain a potent danger to society.
The troops have, instead, solicited the patience and understanding of Nigerians as they tinker workable ways of saving the girls:
In all this however, it must be understood, that fighting terror is a relatively strange responsibility that the Nigerian army is today saddled with. It will require  time, training and capacity building to perfect the skills for the task.
It is not like prosecuting conventional warfare – identify enemy targets, pound and keep pounding until total surrender.
In the case of terrorists, they attack and return to basis, predominantly residential areas and use defenceless men, women and children as human shields. To spare such shields will be to spare the terrorists who will lives another day to inflict greater harm.
Yet to attack is to record civilian casualties and be accused of genocide.
This, indeed is not easy. It never has been in other lands. It took the whole of the Bush’s, two term US Presidency to search for Osama Bin Ladden, mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks on America. It took nearly four years of Obama’s Presidency to finally find and kill him; making nearly 12 years.
In Afganistan’ Iraq, Pakistain, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine among others, it has not been easy, because the peoples are divided by ethnic and religious divides. That division is what terrorism requires to thrive.
To fight and win the war against terror therefore, all Nigerians must forget their political and ethnic differences and persuations and rally round our troops in support and solidarity.
They must avoid comments and actions capable of heating up the polity and further polarizing the citizenry across Northern and Southern lines and across Christian and Moslem, divides.
All must appreciate the reality of the dangers we face: That terror has no real friend and that anyone could be a target.
This is why I find it regrettable that oldmen under the aegis of that Northern Elders Forum would rather than advance suggestions towards ending the insurgency tie it to the individual ambition of Jonathan, as if his non-involvement in 2015, will automatically bring to an end Boko Haram. Or will it?
My Agony is that the Northern Elders seem so certain that it will. What this means is that there is no need searching for sponsors of the terror group, who alone can determine when it dies. So, let them do the needful, not issue threats.

Soye Wilson Jamabo

Kenneth Minimah and Suleiman Abba