[color=#000099][/color][i][/i] Like all Nigerians, the performance of the Nigerian
Army against the Boko Haram insurgents has greatly depressed me. However, unlike most people, I have not been too surprised. It had been obvious for a couple of years before the conflict that the Nigerian Army is both a poorly trained and inadequately equipped force.
A lot of people will be quick to disagree with this
assertion. "Didn't the Nigerian Army perform brilliantly in peacekeeping missions in Liberia and Sierra Leone?" they will ask. Well, the peacekeeping missions in those two countries were supported and financed by the
United Nations, with Nigerian troops enjoying US air, reconnaissance, logistic, and intelligence support. It's true that our soldiers fought bravely, but you need
more than chivalry to win a complex counterinsurgency campaign. I'll give you two examples... During the Vietnam War, a US Marine Corps company (about 150 soldiers) found itself ambushed by a Viet
Cong rebel light brigade (about 2000 rebels). No matter how brave 150 soldiers are, they cannot survive a
firefight with 2000 rebels without help. So, what
happened? The Marine Corps company commander
communicated with his brigade headquarters that he was in trouble, the brigade commander radioed the
division headquarters, and the division's commanding officer alerted the Air Force and Armoured Corps.
Within 10 minutes, fighter jets and army helicopters
had arrived at the scene, pummeled the rebels, and
rescued the estranged soldiers...
A similar scenario happened during the last Israel -
Hamas conflict. An Israeli Army Golani Brigade force was pinned down by Hamas fighters in the Shuajaiya neighbourhood of Gaza. Before the Israelis could blink, three of their soldiers were dead. The Israeli Armoured Corps was alarmed. Within five minutes, three
armoured brigades rained down brimstone and fire on Shuajaiya. After ten minutes of intense artillery fire,
everywhere was quiet, and the remaining Israeli
soldiers were quickly rescued.
Did you get the gist? In both examples, the US Marine Corps company and Israeli Army Golani Brigade force would have been massacred without fast
communication and air support. Notice that the
intervention is not about victory / defeat, it is about
morale: the US Marine Corps could have sent a whole division of soldiers to defeat the rebels and rescue
their soldiers, and the Israeli Army Golani Brigade
could have continued fighting to victory in Shuajaiya...
But those victories would have come at a heavy price.
What is the benefit of winning a battle when 45 of your soldiers are dead?
To get things into perspective, let's assume that a
Nigerian Army platoon of 65 soldiers has been sent to secure a village. At night, 600 Boko Haram fighters
attack the village with guns and rocket propelled
grenades. The best you can expect of such soldiers
(even if they are US soldiers) is to hold their ground for about 10 or 15 minutes, communicate with their
headquarters, and hope for air support and
paratroopers to help them. But what happens if you're in Adamawa and the nearest combat helicopter is in
Maiduguri? You either fight and die or run for your
dear life. Imagine Israeli soldiers in such a situation: within 10 minutes, Apache helicopters and paratroopers will be on ground to help them, and they can fight with confidence, knowing that they will receive help.
So, if you're a Nigerian soldier in Yobe under attack
from a massive Boko Haram force, and you know that help will not arrive within four hours, why should you fight at all? Why not just jump into the bush and save your life? Then, the next day, you'll see it on the coverpage of The Guardian "Boko Haram chase soldiers out of Damaturu, kill 85 civilians". The fault is not yours, but the system's.
The Nigerian soldiers fighting Boko Haram are as brave as those that fought in Sudan, but they do not have the US/UN support the Sudanese peacekeepers had, and that is all that makes the difference...
Culled from a friend's article on boko haram.[color=#000099]

wonderful article,wonderful analysis and wonderful conclusion.. the only problem I have with this article is dat the problem was nt addressed... y are these boko haram fighting with so much impetus, have u asked ur self?.. who is boko haram..
Nigeria has always relied on the northern states to produces d nations armies and warlords. Only a few percentage of them come from the east and west.. dats one problem.. now I also think some body in Govt is behind d activity of these insurgents we really need to fish out these pple and den deal with this animals, then the last point shud be dat our military sometimes supply and tell the soldiers wat to do and wat nt to do.. some confessions of some soldiers say dat dey were given strict orders not to go here and there.. ... so how do we fight who we are assisting... or else where do boko haram get these weapons from if dey are also being blocked at cameroon.. we are our problems.. thank u

You can't win a war by wounding up dead.

Demol0:
[color=#000099][/color][i][/i] Like all Nigerians, the performance of the Nigerian
Army against the Boko Haram insurgents has greatly depressed me. However, unlike most people, I have not been too surprised. It had been obvious for a couple of years before the conflict that the Nigerian Army is both a poorly trained and inadequately equipped force.
A lot of people will be quick to disagree with this
assertion. "Didn't the Nigerian Army perform brilliantly in peacekeeping missions in Liberia and Sierra Leone?" they will ask. Well, the peacekeeping missions in those two countries were supported and financed by the
United Nations, with Nigerian troops enjoying US air, reconnaissance, logistic, and intelligence support. It's true that our soldiers fought bravely, but you need
more than chivalry to win a complex counterinsurgency campaign. I'll give you two examples... During the Vietnam War, a US Marine Corps company (about 150 soldiers) found itself ambushed by a Viet
Cong rebel light brigade (about 2000 rebels). No matter how brave 150 soldiers are, they cannot survive a
firefight with 2000 rebels without help. So, what
happened? The Marine Corps company commander
communicated with his brigade headquarters that he was in trouble, the brigade commander radioed the
division headquarters, and the division's commanding officer alerted the Air Force and Armoured Corps.
Within 10 minutes, fighter jets and army helicopters
had arrived at the scene, pummeled the rebels, and
rescued the estranged soldiers...
A similar scenario happened during the last Israel -
Hamas conflict. An Israeli Army Golani Brigade force was pinned down by Hamas fighters in the Shuajaiya neighbourhood of Gaza. Before the Israelis could blink, three of their soldiers were dead. The Israeli Armoured Corps was alarmed. Within five minutes, three
armoured brigades rained down brimstone and fire on Shuajaiya. After ten minutes of intense artillery fire,
everywhere was quiet, and the remaining Israeli
soldiers were quickly rescued.
Did you get the gist? In both examples, the US Marine Corps company and Israeli Army Golani Brigade force would have been massacred without fast
communication and air support. Notice that the
intervention is not about victory / defeat, it is about
morale: the US Marine Corps could have sent a whole division of soldiers to defeat the rebels and rescue
their soldiers, and the Israeli Army Golani Brigade
could have continued fighting to victory in Shuajaiya...
But those victories would have come at a heavy price.
What is the benefit of winning a battle when 45 of your soldiers are dead?
To get things into perspective, let's assume that a
Nigerian Army platoon of 65 soldiers has been sent to secure a village. At night, 600 Boko Haram fighters
attack the village with guns and rocket propelled
grenades. The best you can expect of such soldiers
(even if they are US soldiers) is to hold their ground for about 10 or 15 minutes, communicate with their
headquarters, and hope for air support and
paratroopers to help them. But what happens if you're in Adamawa and the nearest combat helicopter is in
Maiduguri? You either fight and die or run for your
dear life. Imagine Israeli soldiers in such a situation: within 10 minutes, Apache helicopters and paratroopers will be on ground to help them, and they can fight with confidence, knowing that they will receive help.
So, if you're a Nigerian soldier in Yobe under attack
from a massive Boko Haram force, and you know that help will not arrive within four hours, why should you fight at all? Why not just jump into the bush and save your life? Then, the next day, you'll see it on the coverpage of The Guardian "Boko Haram chase soldiers out of Damaturu, kill 85 civilians". The fault is not yours, but the system's.
The Nigerian soldiers fighting Boko Haram are as brave as those that fought in Sudan, but they do not have the US/UN support the Sudanese peacekeepers had, and that is all that makes the difference...
Culled from a friend's article on boko haram.[color=#000099]

This is a masterpiece

evanscheck:
wonderful article,wonderful analysis and wonderful conclusion.. the only problem I have with this article is dat the problem was nt addressed... y are these boko haram fighting with so much impetus, have u asked ur self?.. who is boko haram..
Nigeria has always relied on the northern states to produces d nations armies and warlords. Only a few percentage of them come from the east and west.. dats one problem.. now I also think some body in Govt is behind d activity of these insurgents we really need to fish out these pple and den deal with this animals, then the last point shud be dat our military sometimes supply and tell the soldiers wat to do and wat nt to do.. some confessions of some soldiers say dat dey were given strict orders not to go here and there.. ... so how do we fight who we are assisting... or else where do boko haram get these weapons from if dey are also being blocked at cameroon.. we are our problems.. thank u

the article wasn't about who is responsible for/funding Boko Haram.... That is strictly a political issue. I dealt with the military aspect of the conflict. Of course, every counterinsurgency strategy should have a political dimension, but the political part is up to the politicians, not me.

seankay:

This is a masterpiece

Well, I really hope it gets to front page.

The problem i see here is that some nothner people are stupid, pls some one should tell me how can u win a war when the people you are protecting they were the one giving information to their enemy. It will b very difficult