UPDATE: US Sends Troops to Nigeria

On Wednesday the 21st April 2014, the White House announced that 80 members of the United States armed forces had been deployed to Chad to aid in the search of kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls. These personnel, according to CNN, “…will support the operation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area”.

Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby stated in an interview on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that the troops deployed were not combat infantry.

“These folks are there to support the reconnaissance mission,” he said.

He then went on to explain the geographical challenges the landscapes of Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon present. Boko Haram militants may be dispersed in an area the size of West Virginia between the borders of these three countries which would make a ground-based search nearly impossible. Adm. Kirby attributes friendly ties with the government of Chad as to why troops will be stationed there. An unarmed predator drone will be accompanying these personnel but the United States already has a drone base in Niger, a deal signed in January of 2013 according to The Times. The map below displays all known US military bases on the African continent as of 2013.

 The fact that many people are not even aware of this vast military presence does bode well for the continent. The case studies of US military involvement actually benefiting any country are few and far between although some may argue differently.

The vastness of this presence is perhaps merely suggestive of the vastness of the United States armed forces which has the largest navy and air force in the world with almost 1.5 million active personnel. Based on statistics from 2009, if one were to add up all the militaries of Africa, a continent of 1 billion people, and compare them to that of the United States. Without factoring in equipment, training and machinery, the number of active military personnel in Africa make up almost a fifth.

When thinking about how many people the US war machine employs, it becomes clear that in actual fact the United States has to go to war and they have to do so constantly. If not hundreds of thousands of people would be without a job in a country only just recovering from a brutal economic recession. War brings money into the United States economy in many ways. US arms manufactures benefit from the constant need for weapons, unfavourable governments with unfavourable economic policies can be removed and replaced, but by also employing so many people the United States has found a way to use war as a means of uplifting their own citizens at a grassroots level.

As the world finally shifts its gaze to the plight of Africa and the calls of help no longer seem to fall on deaf ears, what will truly come from an increased United States military presence in Africa? What are your thoughts? Please share your views by clicking the speech bubble above.



A Brief History of Boko Haram and al-Shabaab

Yesterday on the 20th of April 2014, two car bombs ripped through a market place in Jos, Nigeria, killing at least 118 people. According to an article published by the Daily Mail, the bomb blasts were timed 30 minutes apart in order to maximise fatalities. As of yet, no one has claimed responsibility for the attack but many suggest the most likely culprit is the terrorist organisation; Boko Haram. This follows a reported suicide bombing in the city of Kano the previous day in which 4 people were killed, one of whom was a girl of 12. Kano, the second largest city in Nigeria, has become a flashpoint for conflict with Boko Haram claiming responsibility for many attacks in the city including a car bomb that killed 22 people in March last year and the kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls on the 14th of April this year.

Five thousand kilometres east in Kenya another Islamist terrorist group, al-Shabaab, is also becoming more active. Their attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, on the 21st of September 2013 in which 67 people were killed, shocked the world. But more recently Reuters reported that, on Monday the 19th of May, at least 12 people were killed by suspected al-Shabaab militants in northern Kenya. As these attacks become more frequent and more violent, it becomes necessary to understand where these terrorist organisations come from and what it is that motivates them. Like the Latin saying “ex nihilo nihil fit”, “nothing comes from nothing”.

 “…declare war on Boko Haram,” Nigerian President Paul Biya said during a summit in Paris last weekend.

Artist Arnold Platon’s impression of the Boko Haram logo.

 Boko Haram militants pose for the camera. (Image courtesy of International Business Times)

The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad is also known by its Hausa name, Boko Haram. Hausa is a Chadic language and one of the most spoken in Africa. According to a video posted by Al Jazeera, Boko Haram aims to create an Arab Emirate between the northern borders of Cameroon and Nigeria. It was started in 2002 by Mohammed Yusuf, who is a fierce proponent of Sharia law. Many scholars agree that Sharia law is a far cry from the teachings of Islam and that in many cases it stems from radical fanaticism. In Nigeria and Cameroon there are both Muslim and Christian citizens but there is a Muslim majority in the north of both states. Conservative Muslims who live in this area tend to see alcohol and girls going to school as a westernisation of their cultural beliefs. It appears Boko Haram has transpired out of those views.


“…it is clear after the Westgate attack that the world must unite as never before in the fight against the spread of violence by al-Shabaab outside Somalia.” These words were published by The Wall Street Journal, in an opinion piece written by the Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta, on 6 March 2013.

The logo of Al-Shabaab.

 Al Shabaab militants sing the Kenyan national anthem.

Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (HSM) translates to “Movement of Striving Youth”. The shortened name more commonly used, al-Shabaab, translates to “The Youth” or “The Youngsters”. The organisation was started in 2006 and is currently based in Somalia. Al-Shabaab began as an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) which was the main judicial system in Somalia after its government collapsed in 1991. In 2006 however, after losing much territory due to conflict, the ICU was replaced by the Transitional Federal Parliament and later the Federal Parliament of Somalia. The more radical members of the ICU refused to give up their attempts to instate Sharia law in Somalia  and formed militant groups such as al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, while more liberal members went into exile in Eritrea and Djibouti.

 As large scale military operations are carried out against terrorist organisations well-armed and well-versed in the art of guerrilla warfare, what more should be done to aid those most affected? Is the African Union doing enough to prevent terrorism? Do African countries need help from foreign militaries such as those of the US or France? Please share your views by clicking on the speech bubble above.

Does Africa Need a Presidential Age Limit?

In an article published by BBC News Magazine, Ruth Alexander, suggests that it is unlikely for a president to die while in office. She goes on to state that this has occurred 13 times worldwide since 2008. Of these 13 leaders, 10 have been from Africa.  This seemingly large discrepancy may be attributed to the age of many presidents on the African continent.

If one had to calculate the average age of just five of the current African presidents ranging from highest to lowest; President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is 90, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is 77, President of South Africa Jacob Zuma is 72, Uhuru Kenyatta President of Kenya is 52 and Malian President Moussa Mara is 39. This works out to an average of 66 years of age. All the members of this sample have been elected in the past two years. The difference in age between Robert Mugabe and Moussa Mara, the oldest and youngest African presidents, is a staggering 51 years. Robert Mugabe also became the oldest president to be in elected in Africa last year at the age of 89 while Joseph Kabila became president of The Democratic Republic of Congo in 2001, age 29.

Across the continent people such as Kwaku Obosu-Mensah, from GhanaWeb, feel that the older generation are wiser. Our varying cultures have uniformly deemed their significance as knowledge bearers and custodians of wisdom, and it is perhaps for this reason that many of our national leaders are well above commonly accepted ages of retirement.

While this may not be a bad thing, the physical ailments that seem to plague many of Africa’s leaders are a cause for concern. According to an article published in the New York Times, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika suffered a minor stroke and there is now a much greater chance of him suffering another, more harmful, stroke in future. This has created uncertainties about whether or not he is fit to lead. Dr George Leeson, a gerontologist from the University of Oxford, explains.

“African presidents, before they have been elected, will have led a relatively disadvantaged life, and disadvantageous lifestyle, and that will impact on their life expectancies at subsequent ages,” he says.

“So once they get into the presidential office, even though they will be living a lifestyle far far far removed from their fellow citizens, which would increase their life expectancy in relation to those fellow citizens, they do have an accumulated disadvantageous lifestyle which they have to pay back on at some time.”

And while this may not be the case for all African presidents, this statement certainly alludes to a situation many face. These health concerns are not the only threat to administrative stability.  Many people also fear that people above the age of 70 are not as open to change and that perhaps in the digital age we need a presidential age limit.

What are your thoughts? Please comment by clicking on the speech bubble.