Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse.

(It will be noted that the phrase I have used for the title didn't work out too well for the guy who originally said it, but I have more confidence in my prescriptions here.  We do this time know exactly who and what we're fighting.)

As the USA gears up at a glacial pace to do something about ISIL, Boko Haram has taken inspiration from ISIL's success of late and declared a caliphate of their own in northern Nigeria. This at first glance is alarming, (and certainly it is at the pointy end) but a closer examination of the circumstances of each shows much vulnerability for each group.

The irony of their success is that they have by acquiring property and infrastructure tied themselves down and made them easier to find and kill. Looking at the origin of these two caliphates, the essential ingredients in the constitution (making of, not document) of each is instability, diversity and incompetence.

Instability pretty much speaks for itself, as power of some sort will always fill a vacuum. Diversity was a factor as they both play on differences, mostly in religion to sow discord and divide to conquer. Incompetence is related to instability, but a competent military force can hold things together against insurgents even against a background of political instability, NATO forces in Afghanistan and French forces in Mali as recent examples.

Of possible options to salvage Nigeria, the only plausible one I see right now is a military coup. Ideal would be some sort of replacement of the current corrupt government with something else, but that's called colonialism and it's apparently a bad idea. The Nigerian Army has been starved for resources by a government (not unrealistically) afraid of letting it get too powerful. The irony of an armed takeover of much of a country which weakens its' army to prevent a military coup is not lost on me, but they may not be seeing it in that light right now.

So, the real challenge with either of these situations is not crippling the respective caliphates; that is tactically dangerous for the operators and troops, but we know how to break things. The trap is the nation-building that was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. Northern Iraq gives us the Kurds, who are this iteration's "Northern Alliance" and if we stay in long enough to remove the existential threat to them we'll have done enough, barring some residual SOF presence to help them with flare-ups.

Nigeria is another matter. They have all of the resources (natural, financial and human) to sort this themselves so I don't see a pressing need to put our guys on the line there. It occurs to me that this is an ideal situation for mercenaries. As stated, the Nigerians have a problem which requires a military solution, but are loathe to give the military the resources necessary, thus threatening the state. Executive Outcomes isn't around anymore, but I'm sure there's someone(s) else to fill that role for the government in Abuja if the latter are willing to pay.

By Christmas the Islamic State will be a thing of the past [update 14 Oct 14: maybe not], but of course the residue will remain troublesome. Boko Haram is more complex for the simple reason that less influential (powerful) parties care enough to get involved, leaving out the attitude of the Nigerian government and Armed Forces to foreigners doing the dirty work in their country. Regardless, three weeks of professional military operations with air support and intel could bring that caliphate crashing down too. It's just a question of "who" and "when".

Ebola Haram and war in al Sham

The #bringbackourgirls bullshit has of course failed the test of real-world effectiveness and Boko Haram continues its' depredations in northern Nigeria. Some of the girls "escaped" (read: were quietly ransomed) but the rest face an unpleasant future.

Today's topic lead-in was triggered by reports from a couple of sources about Nigerian soldiers refusing orders to deploy against/fight BH, the reasons given being general lack of support (mostly weapons and equipment). Groups like Boko Haram are notoriously difficult to eradicate, but if events in the "Islamic State" are any indication (and Afghanistan c. mid-2001 is further evidence if needed) they have to be at least severely disrupted before they metastasize into countries of their own.

Sticking with West Africa, the latest Ebola outbreak is the worst (on record) to date with over 1300 fatalities and counting and the baffling sack of an Ebola quarantine ward in Liberia raises the possibility of rampant infection in a crowded urban slum. Ebola is currently complicating everything, extending into Nigeria and slapping travel restriction all over the continent and beyond. The point was raised in one of the articles I read that Ebola is only one of umpteen deadly diseases in the region and the disruption in the healthcare system will lead to knock-on effects as immunizations are neglected, etc.

All of that, and with much more attention on ISIL/IS these days, means that Boko Haram will remain a threat for the foreseeable future. This brings up the meat of any of my rants here, the "So what?"

West Africa, sub-Saharan Africa in general, is in objective terms of no great import to Canada's national interest and the same goes for the US. Europe will have an uptick/surge in migrants, but that is a local problem, albeit one that the EU bureaucracy will prevent any effective measures to counter. In any event, the situation in Syria and Iraq has their attention, as does that in Ukraine.

"Far called our Navy slips away, on distant headland sinks the fire,

Lo all our pomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre"

A century plus in the future from Recessional and NATO is finally waking up to what is going on in the world around it. France (OK, technically not NATO) is still in Mali, and that requires essentially a constant European troop presence. Libya is a vortex of armed disorder for which NATO has no-one to blame but themselves, but Algeria and Egypt can help keep that localized. Turkey is slipping from NATO and anything one might consider "Western" interests as Erdogan tries to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The former Warsaw Pact members of NATO are nervous about Russia, and Ukraine is either headed for a general war with the latter and/or some sort of Finlandization. Whatever the result of that contest, in the near to medium term NATO needs to place a viable conventional deterrent in the territory most threatened, e.g. the Baltic States, Poland, Romania.

Since that's not enough, back to the erstwhile, and at the moment de-facto Islamic State. Support is finally going to the Kurds so ISIS' gains (including the Mosul dam) are being trimmed back. The video beheading of and Anglo-American journalist by ISIS in the last couple of days appears to be one of those things that finally gets attention, the thousands of locals ISIS has already gruesomely executed somehow less important. What this results in will be at best more US and UK contribution to the fighting, further diluting the resources to deal with anything else.

Canada is already schlepping gear into that theatre with our CC-117 Globemasters (and maybe CC 130J Hercs, I'm not sure) so at least we're able to do something useful albeit non-kinetic. Whether or not Bismarck ever said that thing about the Balkans not being "worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier" it's true, and it begs the question of what exactly is worth the risk of our blood and treasure.

Should Canada commit ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS? As far as I know this is not being seriously considered so it's probably moot. I'd be surprised if none of our SOF guys have been at least in Kurd territory so far, but we can't even scrape up the mech brigade group we once had in Germany during the Cold War, so I don't see more than that happening. It would be good experience in ground support for our fighter jocks, but I see that as only slightly less likely than sending in a Battle Group a-la Kandahar. [27 Oct 14: this is why I don't put money on this stuff]

The same question could be asked about Nigeria in terms of keeping the Islamist threat down.  BH is no threat outside the area for now, and the Nigerians have the resources to deal with them if they can manage their corruption enough and overcome the government’s distrust of the Army.  Backing up our allies by providing credible kinetic forces (also known as “hard power”) to delineate our sphere of influence to the Russians should rank higher in geopolitical calculus than either of the above conflicts.  That said, the overlap is obvious when those same allies see a threat to all, e.g. Afghanistan, so horse-trading such as providing strategic airlift has its’ place in that math.

The Americans remain the lynchpin of international military action, so we’re not likely to do much if they don’t.  A new President might make a difference, but it might not so NATO will have to seriously consider its’ raison d’être which I would argue has been wandering since about 1991.  War with Russia is a worst-case scenario to be avoided, but not at the cost of the smaller fish around them.  Another way to send a message to Putin (besides the aid already going to Ukraine) is to send some EW (electronic warfare) aircraft to help out the Ukrainian air force and supress the heavy stuff that the Russians sent, like the one which shot down that Malaysian airliner. This scheme would keep troops out of direct contact but is still adding warfighting strength.  

With all of this going on, North Korea is sending tanks to the border with China, sure to slip under the general media radar, but a radical departure from past relations.  Not a NATO problem and certainly not Canada’s, but it’s not a boring world we live in at least.   

Token (non) Forces

I'll continue with yesterday's Boko Haram situation by looking at what is happening vs. the options I suggested for effective action.  From Time:

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the team “could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations and hostage negotiations, help facilitate information sharing and provide victim assistance. It would include U.S. military personnel, law-enforcement officials with expertise in investigations and hostage negotiations, as well as officials with expertise in other areas that may be helpful to the Nigerian government in its response.”

Not sounding promising; what else?

White House press secretary Jay Carney said President Obama and Kerry would discuss the ongoing effort to locate the girls in their meeting Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not considering at this point military resources,” Carney said, saying the military personnel being sent are to take on an advisory role for the Nigerian government.
“What I can tell you is that it is certainly Nigeria’s responsibility to maintain the safety and security of its citizens,” Carney added.

Emphasis mine.  The last point about Nigeria being responsible for its' citizens is of course correct, however dismally the government has discharged that responsibility.  I will state that unless things are more than they seem here, precious little will actually be accomplished toward the necessary goal of neutralizing these jihadist assholes.  Getting the girls back is morally imperative but a tactical (bandaid) action.  Smashing the Boko Haram organization (like AQ was smashed in Iraq, and AQIM has been smashed in Mali) is the strategic objective, and only "military resources" can achieve that.

Salafists/jihadists, what-have-you are vermin, and like vermin they can be managed but not exterminated.  There is little to stop the determined lone-wolf terrorist (Boston Marathon bombings as an example), but when they are roaming the countryside in large groups wearing stolen army uniforms with armoured vehicles, the threat has metastasized and requires serious bombs and drones-type action.

The drones are of course a modern tool, guys with infantry weapons and determination have and can still do the job without them. I guess Obama's team figures this gives them a fig leaf to hide behind and say "Look, we did something!", but that's all I see here.  Hostage rescue negotiators? Seriously?

In the slightly-less-useless category we have the ongoing Western response to events in Ukraine.  Canada has sent "several dozen" ground troops to Poland for exercises while six more CF-18s are bound for Romania.  It was confirmed that the planes will not be flying armed, BUT the Chief of Defence Staff was explicit about the weapons being available should the situation change from a "training" one.  That is already more ballsy than the American administration has been; the NATO commander is an American who knows what needs to be done so I won't blame their armed forces.

Things are hotting up in Ukraine and it's already a low-level civil war.  When it gets to the real deal the Russians will move in officially, and then we'll have an actual war to decide what to do about.  Ukraine has decided to fight, and if it comes to it I'm a bit conflicted on if we should help them directly or not.  Geopolitically it should be Europe's problem; that's way above my pay grade, moving into UN Chapter VII territory. 

Legion Etranger a louer?

The world (e.g. mainstream media) has finally figured out that Boko Haram is an unpleasant organisation.  Think of them as Al-Queda of the sub-Sahara and you get the idea; they've been running amok in Nigeria for a few years now, so everyone posting "Bring Back our Girls" to Facebook are both behind the times and useless to the actual situation.

As is my wont, I don't simply enumerate problems, I propose practical solutions.  Knee-jerk response is for Nigeria to get its' head out of its' ass and send the entire army on a search and destroy mission to wipe BH from the face of the earth.  Rank corruption and incompetence make that impractical or it would have happened already, so something else then.

The French have shown the way in Africa (Mali and most recently Central African Republic), and as un-PC as it is, it's 1st-World armies to solve 3rd-World problems.  In my world, if it's locals causing the problem, opposed locals should be able to solve it with minimal assistance.  People on Facebook seem to think this is America's responsibility, a default option with surprisingly racist undertones if you think about it.  Normal media racism is directed solely against whites (damn all that privilege!) but when you assume that Western armies are the only ones capable of dealing with African problems, that's a flat-out colonial attitude.  What's worse is that it's demonstrably true (Rwanda's RPF in 1994 an exception).

The key to an effective military is professionalism, something that the anarchy and crony despotism of most African states doesn't produce a lot of.  I'm reminded of a report I saw from the mess in South Sudan earlier this year.  In an army column sent to rout some rebels there was one young Sandhurst-trained Lt who appeared to know his business, but the rest of them were hopeless.  Individual platoon commanders led by crony generals don't get much done, however.

So Nigeria needs western troops to do the job right, but the West is broke, tired and overstretched, not likely to jump into things.  The necessary ingredients for a successful intervention are:

1. Competent, motivated troops;
2. Political will, and;
3. Money.  

"We" have 1, Nigeria has 3 (pay us in oil if need be), and as long as Nigeria has 2 as well, we can make something work.

I think this was the origin of "Hammer's Slammers" but using our trained volunteer troops as mercenaries is as close to an optimal solution to this problem as we are likely to see.  There is no shortage of type-A adrenalin junkies in Western armies to volunteer for a unit like this and putting an English-speaking international Brigade Group together is feasible, however unlikely it may be. 

Failing that, maybe it's time to bring "Mad" Mike Hoare out of retirement.  He's a bit past it of course, but he and the other Congo Mercenaries showed how it could be done.  Nigeria is unlikely to hire a bunch of primarily white mercs for this job, but I wonder how close we are to the point where the government and the populace will countenance anything that will get the job done?  As things stand, the government is the problem so I don't hold out much hope for improvement in the near term.

Update: the Yanks are sending people to help out at the request of the Nigerian government, so we'll see if they provide the nucleus of a force to wipe Boko Haram off the map. I'm willing to be surprised.