 |
Another Angle on the War on Terror: Nigeria |
 |
We can see the idiocy of the war on terror through its failures: Iraq, Afghanistan, now Pakistan. But we can also see it by looking at places where the war on terror could have gone, but didn’t. In some of the most problematic areas in the world, the lack of American intervention has prevented outright chaos.
Consider Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country. In the predominately Muslim north, the application of shari’a law at the state level has been widely criticized by human rights activists. Rebel groups in southern Nigeria, meanwhile, have used terrorism to threaten US oil interests.
What separates Nigeria from Iraq? Outgoing president Obasanjo was not Saddam Hussein, but he was a former military dictator turned civilian president who often ruled through force. President Bush commended Obasanjo’s decision to hold elections last April. True, Obasanjo stepped down - in favor of his hand-picked successor. And his influence in government remains strong. To call Nigeria a democracy would be partly accurate at best.
So if Nigeria has massive corruption, oil, Islamic law, human rights violations, and terrorism, why isn’t it a front in the war on terror? Aren’t we worried Al Qaeda might be there? Aren’t we worried about the spread of Muslim extremism in a country with more Muslims than Saudi Arabia?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions, but if you want an answer as to why we never talked about attacking Nigeria, one possibility is that it’s because the public could have never been sold on it…or that the war in Iraq is partially about flexing military muscle to intimidate other Middle Eastern nations, something the administration didn’t feel it needed to do in Africa. And, of course, there’s the truth: that Nigeria is not a threat to us. But then again, neither was Iraq.
More importantly, I’ll bet Nigerians, Africans, and human beings in general are thanking God that Nigeria wasn’t part of the war. Just think what would happen if American forces went into a country like Nigeria - utter chaos, sectarian violence, thousands of American deaths, and an insoluble quagmire. Sounds almost ridiculous, doesn’t it?
Nigeria isn’t perfect, and its problems will likely continue for some time, but military intervention in Nigeria would have produced a situation remarkably similar to Iraq. Compare the two countries today, and see which one is better off. See the effects of disastrous, misplaced unilateral interventionism in action. And see why the war on terror has been a terrible mistake.
Powerful stuff here. Striking parallels between the countries. One can only imagine how badly things could have gone had Bush had an axe to grind in Nigeria.
Question: Any pretense of Nigeria developing or having WMDs? This seems to be the omission that justifies the difference in policies. Obviously, the manipulation of intelligence and outright deceit is well documented with regards to Iraq. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
I don’t think this is credible, but here’s one link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/nigeria/index.html
There’s always rumors. And Nigeria, of course, borders on the infamous Niger.