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.
No comments:
Post a Comment