Understanding Chad's intervention in Nigeria
February 15, 2015 3:18 AM   Subscribe

On Thursday morning, January the 29th, news percolated through social media that Chadian forces, with the tacit consent of the Nigerian government, had crossed the international frontier and recaptured Malam Fatori – a north-eastern Nigerian town that had been captured by Boko Haram in October last year. This was a watershed moment. For the first time in Nigeria’s 54 years as an independent country, foreign troops are conducting major military operations inside the country. Similarly, with Chad’s intervention, the war against Boko Haram has entered a new phase, and possibly presages a wider regional intervention – the balance sheet of which can only be properly assessed in the fullness of time.
So why did Idriss Deby send Chadian troops into Nigeria? How are we to make sense of this bold gambit?
posted by MartinWisse (41 comments total) 20 users marked this as a favorite
 
That was really interesting, thanks for posting.
posted by contrarian at 6:48 AM on February 15, 2015


Ditto. This passed remarkably unreported in the US, as far as the news sources that I usually glance at on a day to day basis. The question, which wasn't really asked or answered, will the Chadian military do better against the Boko Haram than the Nigerian?
posted by Atreides at 6:54 AM on February 15, 2015


Of course Chad's military will do better, because Boko Haram is tacitly supported by the president of Nigeria, and outright supported by factions in Nigeria's military.
posted by Oyéah at 7:06 AM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Andrea Seabrook's Decode DC recently ran a story on the complexities of fighting Boko Haram either directly, or by supplying the "legitimate" government. Based on conversations with a former ambassador to Nigeria and the director of a well-respected NGO (The name of which escapes me), the opinion of those in the know appears to be, "There's no immediate way out of this nightmare." The episode reminded me of the religious and economic disparity that led to "The Troubles."
posted by endotoxin at 7:20 AM on February 15, 2015


I liked this and shared it on Facebook. My African peacekeeping friends responded immediately:
Soo... the great mystery is that a state ruler might want to help quash an insurgency that could spill over into his country?

NEXT: WHY IS PAKISTAN SO INTERESTED IN AFGHANISTAN?? WHO CAN READ THE INSCRUTABLE MIND OF THE EASTERNER?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:35 AM on February 15, 2015 [16 favorites]


Sarky get.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:52 AM on February 15, 2015


The War Nerd had an interesting piece on Boko Haram and why it was so successful too.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:55 AM on February 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


@relevant: Yesterday I watched this explainer Understanding Boko Haram
posted by growabrain at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Wow! Great piece from the war nerd!
posted by Oyéah at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2015


Meanwhile Female suicide bomber kills ten in Nigeria's Damaturu
posted by adamvasco at 8:49 AM on February 15, 2015


I believe I read a couple days ago (from the BBC, maybe?) that Boko Haram had been raiding villages in Chad. I'm not sure from the timeline who got into whose business first, but Boko Haram seems very much to be Chad's problem now.
posted by backwards compatible at 9:08 AM on February 15, 2015


Yes but Pakistan, by supporting the Taliban, is making things worse in Afghanistan not more peaceful. And, it turns out lately, making things worse for themselves.
posted by Bee'sWing at 9:25 AM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Counterpunch unravelling the mystery of Boko Haram.
posted by adamvasco at 9:46 AM on February 15, 2015


That war nerd thing was informative, yeah. I learned that the war nerd has been right about Boko Haram and Nigeria before it was cool, and the left is too busy cuddling islamo-fascists to notice.

Also some history.
posted by notyou at 9:48 AM on February 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


And ethnic stereotypes!
posted by XMLicious at 10:10 AM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


" left is too busy cuddling islamo-fascists to notice."

Yeah, the right would never do such a thing.

(US foreign policy, while very often awful, is generally quite bipartisan).
posted by el io at 10:25 AM on February 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


Thank you for posting this. It feels like this would all have been super obvious to me had I known more about the region.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:34 AM on February 15, 2015


Oh for the love of...

As an actual professional military historian, that 'war nerd' guy makes my skin crawl. As far as I can tell, he's a guy who has an undergrad-level understanding of military affairs, knows how to use google, and who doesn't have the imagination to know either a) what war is actually like or b) how little he really knows.

Just look at how he represents other commentators. Sure, I disagree with some pundits and journalists myself, but I don't imagine they actually support Boko Haram. You want to trust this guy?

Just look at how he talks about war. He slobbers all over himself about how awsomecool it is. As anybody who's actually spent more than five minutes engaging with the subject will tell you... not so awesome really. You want to trust this guy?

Just look at the sheer breadth of subjects upon which he claims to be a world-leading expert (indeed, the only significant thinker in a world which ignores him). I count myself a highly-educated professional, and I would never claim to be an expert on Boko Haram. Is he an expert? Well I don't know, but I would expect a genuine expert to be engaging with other experts, engaging with primary sources, citing major works on the subject, drawing out new information from detailed knowledge of the local area and local people. He, interestingly enough, does none of these things, but instead spends his time rebutting 'cool lefty bloggers who love to cuddle Sahel jihadis'. You want to trust this guy?

Military affairs is a serious subject, studied seriously by serious people. This guy is the military affairs equivalent of a self-described 'medical expert' on an anti-vaxxer site.
posted by Dreadnought at 11:28 AM on February 15, 2015 [26 favorites]


That war nerd thing was informative, yeah. I learned that the war nerd has been right about Boko Haram and Nigeria before it was cool, and the left is too busy cuddling islamo-fascists to notice.


the problem with all of these sorts of discussion is that the connection between say, the american citizenry, and what the US government does on the world stage is roughly equivalent to fans arguing about plot directions on a somewhat obscure tv show.

you used to be able to read the "war nerd" as a satire of the kind of self-pleasuring pontificating "fans" of foreign policy engage in, particular military foreign policy: a parody fan blog of sorts. but, at some point he crossed over into what appears to be an attempt at sincere commentary.

your opinion about what happens on TV doesn't mean practically anything. commentary is about building viewer/consumer engagement with the product and has nothing to due with policy/plot.

How are we to make sense of this bold gambit?

as with all of these things: who do you mean "we"?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:34 AM on February 15, 2015


Military affairs is a serious subject, studied seriously by serious people. This guy is the military affairs equivalent of a self-described 'medical expert' on an anti-vaxxer site.

umm... the serious people who brought us the Iraq War, the "surge", the COIN magical musical tour? military affairs is studied mainly by nerds who get off on violence and power. some of them are even in uniform.

and the history of military affairs shows that the war nerds are more often than not, desperately and tragically wrong about the next war.

either way you read him, the good thing about "the war nerd" is that he plays up just how noxious the hobby is.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:38 AM on February 15, 2015


the serious people who brought us the Iraq War, the "surge", the COIN magical musical tour? military affairs is studied mainly by nerds who get off on violence and power.

See, this is exactly what I mean. Do oncologists get this kind of crap? "Oh, you only study cancer because you think that melanomas are awesome and you get off on tragic illness."

"A criminologist, eh? You guys are just robbery-enthusiasts who don't have the guts to be real gangsters."

Or here's a better parallel to what you say above: "Climate scientists are terrible people, because they made the greenhouse effect happen, and now they want to shut down the economy with cap-and-trade or blow up the earth with geoengineering!"*

People don't take military affairs seriously because they read things like the 'war nerd' and they think that's what the study of military affairs is. It isn't. It's hard, thankless, necessary work to understand one of the most dangerous and influential forces in human affairs.

*ie. highly technical, controversial, but by no means universally discredited ideas that most people don't have the background to understand without much dedicated study but nonetheless think they understand because they saw it on the news
posted by Dreadnought at 12:18 PM on February 15, 2015 [15 favorites]


most people don't have the background to understand without much dedicated study but nonetheless think they understand because they saw it on the news


example?
posted by sammyo at 12:27 PM on February 15, 2015


Sorry if that wasn't clear. ennui.bz used COIN (COunter INsurgency warfare) as an example of something that military affairs experts would foolishly promote (like invading Iraq in 2003). I compared this to cap-and-trade and geoengineering: other ideas about which people have strong opinions even though they don't really understand the details. People have very strong opinions pro- and anti-COIN. Experts tend to have a much more ambivalent view, with qualified support or qualified rejection.
posted by Dreadnought at 12:36 PM on February 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


Dreadnought, you should at least be aware when discussing Gary Brecher that the columns are written using a deliberately parodic persona. Some of what you're addressing is deliberate. For the most part, it's probably useful to consider the War Nerd columns as a sort of intentional mirror universe of conventional punditry. He links to enough stuff that you can check things out yourself and draw your own conclusions, itself a kind of inversion of the punditry norm.

If you want material that is more in keeping with a professional, detached military history worldview, go to War on the Rocks. It's also concerned with countering conventional wisdom, although less so with advancing a particular set of values.
posted by dhartung at 1:27 PM on February 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


It's hellish difficult to look at what's going on in the world's troublespots and even inform oneself enough to have the beginnings of a defensible opinion. Take Ireland, which is blessedly now a long way from its worst times. I'm English, have a semi-serviceable working knowledge of British history for an amateur and through happy circumstance personal access to a very fine professional historian who specialises in the early modern side of our islands' political and religious background. I've also been within earshot of (I think) seven IRA attacks on London, one very close to where I was working and one on a tube station about three hundred yards away from my flat (slept through it and the police evacuation, woke up to birdsong rather than traffic noise...). I've had Irish girlfriends and worked alongside quite fanatic Irish nationalists, and I've read respectably deeply into the whole business. I also have a semi-professional working interest in the security services, and have had plenty of contact with the UK military, being on drinking terms with squaddies and social/professional terms with various officers. So: I am motivated to know why people tried repeatedly to kill me and what is going on with other people who try to stop them, and I have good access to the wherewithal to research and question.

I would still be very loath to express an opinion about most of the history of Irish/GB conflict, because the more I know, the more I realise that unless you live it you really do not have a very good chance of peeling away the onion. People are complicated, and exponentially so across historical time, and warfare is chaotic and rarely does what the people waging it would like. It's a monster, a true beast.

So when I try to use my skill and wit to look at the Middle East, or Islamic Africa, or Ukraine, I have very little expectation of being 'right' on any point apart from the bleeding obvious ones about how much shit there is. I don't think I'm alone, and I feel very much for those poor sods whose job it is to frame and implement foreign policy. I have less sympathy for those who regurgitate strong opinions or advice - but even here, that's part of practical politics, where doing nothing is as dangerous a decision as any other, but you must have reasons to tell the people.

Gotta keep trying, though. This stuff matters.
posted by Devonian at 1:49 PM on February 15, 2015 [7 favorites]


I would still be very loath to express an opinion about most of the history of Irish/GB conflict, because the more I know, the more I realise that unless you live it you really do not have a very good chance of peeling away the onion

There's many a squaddie or IRA-sympathizer who did live through it, and whose opinion I would nonetheless dismiss as uninformed or partisan. Living through it is no guarantee of knowledge.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:51 PM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Devonian, Dreadnought - thanks for all that; really helpful. So what and who *should* I be reading? Quite seriously, this would be a great place to dump some links to some resources you value.
posted by cromagnon at 3:11 PM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Background report Boko Haram pdf (May 2014)
Psychological makeup of Mohammed Yousuf
Fifty years after it gained its freedom from France, some say Chad is being subjected to a new form of colonialism.
How does Boko Harum get it's funding?
posted by adamvasco at 4:03 PM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


This guy is the military affairs equivalent of a self-described 'medical expert' on an anti-vaxxer site.

Gary Brecher isn't a real person; the name is currently thought to be a pseudonym for John Dolan.

The author keeps signalling that his columns are a bit of a joke, but that doesn't mean your criticism is invalid. The War Nerd columns are aimed at the soft spot between parody and seriousness that lets the author say pretty much anything, while retaining the right to say "haha! only kidding!" The problem the author has is, the more factual he gets, the less funny the column; the funnier he gets, the easier it is to pick his arguments apart.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:48 PM on February 15, 2015


Is there a substantive complaint about the War Nerd somewhere in this thread? Because I read that piece about Boko Haram, and he's right, I've sure never heard anything about the Igbo before.
posted by effugas at 6:58 PM on February 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


The war nerd would be a real war nerd if he just analyzed factions, tactics, strategies, and outcomes. He literally juxtaposes Glenn Greenwald in the middle of various African conflicts. His real obsession seems to be in "enlightening" westerners which he may do for people who simply don't pay attention. Sad that this thread has turned into a referendum on the war nerd but sadly he's crossed the line from informative to obnoxious and distracting.
posted by chaz at 9:29 PM on February 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


And yet, still no specifics.
posted by smidgen at 10:17 PM on February 15, 2015


I find the "War Nerd" to be incredibly annoying, but I've also found he often provides unique information that other popular pundits/blogs don't, or occasionally has original perspectives on a situation. The author seems to equate nerdiness with self-aggrandizement, insult and hyperbole. Maybe it would be better if he wrote it as the "War Wonk" rather than nerd. From what I've seen, 'experts' who refer to themselves as 'wonks' are often very pleasant and fun to read.

as an example of something that military affairs experts would foolishly promote (like invading Iraq in 2003)

Dreadnaught, are you saying that the expert military affairs community was overwhelmingly against the war at the time? Wouldn't this community include many of the people who planned the war?

I hope you are willing/able to offer your knowledge of military affairs on metafilter from time to time. Having experts around is one of the things that makes Metafilter really great.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:17 PM on February 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


(Dreadnought)
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:29 PM on February 15, 2015


Slightly continuing the war nerd detail, but is the author really serious in thinking that western liberals are lined up to defend Boko Haram simply because it's an Islamic group, against attacks they perceive as being rooted primarily in anti-Islamic sentiment?

If this depiction of "liberals" is just a satirical base from which the war nerd persona can draw an informative article, I'm not seeing it... Isn't this idea far too entwined with the whole long argument to just be some added flavor?
posted by Nutri-Matic Drinks Synthesizer at 6:16 AM on February 16, 2015


As an actual professional military historian, that 'war nerd' guy makes my skin crawl. As far as I can tell, he's a guy who has an undergrad-level understanding of military affairs, knows how to use google, and who doesn't have the imagination to know either a) what war is actually like or b) how little he really knows.

What's your take on Brown Moses?
posted by Apocryphon at 9:37 AM on February 17, 2015


you used to be able to read the "war nerd" as a satire of the kind of self-pleasuring pontificating "fans" of foreign policy engage in, particular military foreign policy: a parody fan blog of sorts. but, at some point he crossed over into what appears to be an attempt at sincere commentary.

Kyle Smith: "How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation"
posted by Apocryphon at 10:14 AM on February 17, 2015




Wow, if they're not careful they might start losing public sympathy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:51 PM on March 7, 2015 [1 favorite]




Regional military cooperation must improve to defeat Boko Haram

@JanguzaArewa is a good follow for Nigeria and Boko Haram.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:44 AM on March 11, 2015


« Older "Let the strong wind of fish farming blow across...   |   Roots of visual mapping Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments