It started with gunfire erupting in a boarding school in the rural town of Chibok in Borno State, in the northeast of Nigeria. Over 200 young school girls were abducted, most of whom have not been seen since. With this one act, Boko Haram secured its place under the international spotlight, cementing its already infamous reputation as a brutal and ruthless terrorist organization willing to go to any lengths to enforce its extremist brand of Islam.
In many ways, this sounds like another organization that we have all come to know and love (I mean hate) over the past few years. That’s right, you guessed it — ISIS. Although their message may not be identical, ISIS and Boko Haram have largely achieved the same gains in recent months: being able — through scores of killings, military gains, and brutal consolidations of new-found power — to become a de facto state in their respective regions. In fact, Boko Haram recently swore allegiance to ISIS as part of its effort to become part of the global caliphate, with all of the notoriety and resources that brings along with it.
Given the course of events thus far, I am worried by what looks like no action — or at best, very limited action — on the part of the U.S. to stem the tide of these growing movements that continue to metastasize into proto-states.
More worrying to me than the reluctance of the U.S. to take substantial action against either ISIS or Boko Haram, is the presence of mercenaries on the field of battle as part of the intervening force of African nations. While Nigeria has acknowledged the presence of “foreign contractors” from Chad and Niger ostensibly to assist with training and to provide logistical support, it has not acknowledged the South African mercenaries who have begun to take on the bulk of the fighting.
Politically, this makes sense for two reasons. First, it allows Nigeria to claim that it is taking on Boko Haram mainly by itself, only receiving “support” from other nations in the fight, and secondly, it allows them to appear to be adhering to international law, which specifically prohibits mercenaries in any way, shape or form.
Just because the Nigerian government won’t publicly admit to the presence of mercenaries doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Their presence isn’t so bad at the moment, given that their tactical skills have been largely responsible for the rolling back of Boko Haram in the region. The question becomes one of the post-conflict order. Perhaps Nigeria will become a proxy state for South Africa, as Iraq is becoming a proxy state for Iran due to the presence of its Shiite militias — which are also taking up the bulk of the fighting, in that case against ISIS.
Even more dangerous than a proxy state would be a second “African world war,” which would drag most of the countries on the continent into a war over the resources that Nigeria has to offer, which include large amounts of oil and natural gas.
This situation can be used as an analogy that gets to the heart of why this intervention by African nations is so dangerous: A mission which has all of the outward trappings of being both morally sound and strategically necessary has the potential to spiral into a never-ending conflict over natural resources, territory and political power. While this may have started out as a fight by legitimate state forces against the illegitimate actions of terrorists and criminals masquerading as a state, it could turn nasty really quickly.
That is why the intervention of France and the U.S. is needed as well, in order to assist and protect those in need. These interventions have started in very limited terms, with the U.S. maintaining a presence mainly through advisors and Special Forces. Let me be clear: I am not making the claim that Africa is incapable of handling its own resources or political affairs. Rather, I am pointing out that history indicates a tendency for African nations not being able to settle issues of territory, political sovereignty and natural resources in a rational and non-violent manner, especially if a non-state actor is present in the mix.
So even as Nigeria and its African partners in the region make progress against Boko Haram, the U.S. needs to commit to both the moral and the strategic necessity behind fighting Boko Haram, as Gen. David Rodriguez, AFRICOM commander, makes clear.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter
