Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.
Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control. What was so wrong with regime control, anyway? Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change? Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life? Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing. Libya didn't descend into hell overnight. The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists. As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all. Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya. Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end? Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder? The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances. To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans. What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya. We are supposed to support the good guys, remember? The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution? I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists. I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States. Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya. I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.
Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander. What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata. More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern. As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief. Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya? Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers. Nothing useful can be accomplished without force. In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy. But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers. But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe. Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers. By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis. We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?
Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya. The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans. May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted. How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development? Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself.
Showing posts with label Kenya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kenya. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2015
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Al-Shabab Makes A Statement.
Link: Al-Shabab Attacks University in Eastern Kenya.
On Thursday of last week, Somalian-based terror group Al-Shabab orchestrated an attack against unarmed, innocent students and teachers at Garissa University (College) in Garissa, Kenya. To date, authorities state that 148 persons died in the attack, along with many if not all of the gunmen. Since the attack included the taking of hostages (with Muslims and non-Muslims being separated), and some students are still listed as missing, Kenyan officials are hesitant to provide an exact number of gunmen. I have received a bit of flack from visitors to my blog, because of the amount of attention I give to Africa. I don't deny that I'm an Africaphile, but my focus on the continent as far as the blog is concerned, is solely related to the issue of terrorism. To be more precise, I am concerned about the spread of the Islamic extremist message, and also the potential for recruitment of operatives. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize that young men who have no jobs and very little hope for the future, are prime candidates for recruitment by these groups. And young men looking for work is something that Africa, unfortunately, has way too many of.
The blog has addressed the increased presence of Al-Shabab in Kenya in numerous postings during the previous three months. The International Media noted that Al-Shabab had taken a huge hit in their home country of Somalia, and an attitude seemed to creep in that maybe, just maybe, Al-Shabab was finished. You can separate terrorist groups into countless sub-categories, but for the sake of this post, lets point out that there are two types of terror organizations: the ones who fight solely for the cause; and the ones that use their actions to also make a living. Al-Shabab was never going to disappear, because they fit into the second category. Too many members of Al-Shabab had found a way to feed themselves and their families, at a time and place where food is scarce. Besides, Al-Shabab has too many operatives and too much equipment and too many friends to no longer be considered useful by Al-Qaeda. Hence to move away from Somalia and into Kenya. Analysts have been expecting a minor explosion in terrorist activity in Kenya for some time, probably because of its proximity to Somalia combined with the permanent state of economic stagnation. I have been more concerned with the probability of recruitment in the vast townships outside Nairobi. Whatever the vehicle, it is imperative that the Kenyan authorities realize that Al-Shabab is in the midst of relocating from Somalia to Kenya.
Many folks in Europe and the United States will automatically assume that by attacking shopping malls and college campuses, Al-Shabab is crippling its image among all the people of Kenya. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Forgive me if my comment appears to be ethnocentric (I don't believe it is), but sub-Saharan Africans don't automatically adopt the same perspective as westerners. In many cases, they approach issues very differently. By conducting the operation in Garissa, Al-Shabab was providing an example of its strength and power. Likewise for the attack at the shopping center in Nairobi. Where was the government? Where were the police and the military? Authorities in Nigeria have had a real problem dealing with the same predicament. Some northerners (Muslims, to be sure) were beginning to support Boko Haram, because they certainly were looking like a winner. Al-Shabab can provide a hungry, disillusioned young man with three essential things: food, a weapon, and a cause.
An important factor that should never be far from any discussion of Al-Shabab, is Al-Qaeda. Just how close are these two groups? I guarantee you that the analysts in Langley know. If we take a quick look at Al-Qaeda's modus operandi regarding relations with other organizations, it would appear to be always be a one-sided relationship. I think we will soon discover, though, that the "new" Al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a bit more willing to be interactive with like-minded groups. In the last few years of Osama bin-Ladin's life, the organization became very isolated and secretive, and for good reason. I believe that Zawahiri believes in the philosophy of the struggle, just as much as he does the actions being taken. I think we will see more instances of Al-Qaeda communicating with the Boko Harams and the Al-Shababs, and trying to lay the groundwork for a uniting message. I believe a great deal has already been accomplished along this path, and the various groups on the ground in Syria are not nearly as separate from each other as they would lead the western media to believe. Nothing lives forever. Even Al-Qaeda will eventually disappear. The key is the message. It must resonate and be strong enough to live forever. The message can survive long journeys across mountain ranges and oceans, when men cannot. The message can survive the battles when all the combatants lie dead on the field. Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda will depend upon the Boko Harams, and the Al-Qaeda in Magrebs, and the Al-Shababs, to be the caretaker and delivery system for that message. And the message never changes. it continues to be about domination, intolerance, hatred and bigotry. It would behoove us to take down the caretakers before they really get a handle on the message.
On Thursday of last week, Somalian-based terror group Al-Shabab orchestrated an attack against unarmed, innocent students and teachers at Garissa University (College) in Garissa, Kenya. To date, authorities state that 148 persons died in the attack, along with many if not all of the gunmen. Since the attack included the taking of hostages (with Muslims and non-Muslims being separated), and some students are still listed as missing, Kenyan officials are hesitant to provide an exact number of gunmen. I have received a bit of flack from visitors to my blog, because of the amount of attention I give to Africa. I don't deny that I'm an Africaphile, but my focus on the continent as far as the blog is concerned, is solely related to the issue of terrorism. To be more precise, I am concerned about the spread of the Islamic extremist message, and also the potential for recruitment of operatives. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize that young men who have no jobs and very little hope for the future, are prime candidates for recruitment by these groups. And young men looking for work is something that Africa, unfortunately, has way too many of.
The blog has addressed the increased presence of Al-Shabab in Kenya in numerous postings during the previous three months. The International Media noted that Al-Shabab had taken a huge hit in their home country of Somalia, and an attitude seemed to creep in that maybe, just maybe, Al-Shabab was finished. You can separate terrorist groups into countless sub-categories, but for the sake of this post, lets point out that there are two types of terror organizations: the ones who fight solely for the cause; and the ones that use their actions to also make a living. Al-Shabab was never going to disappear, because they fit into the second category. Too many members of Al-Shabab had found a way to feed themselves and their families, at a time and place where food is scarce. Besides, Al-Shabab has too many operatives and too much equipment and too many friends to no longer be considered useful by Al-Qaeda. Hence to move away from Somalia and into Kenya. Analysts have been expecting a minor explosion in terrorist activity in Kenya for some time, probably because of its proximity to Somalia combined with the permanent state of economic stagnation. I have been more concerned with the probability of recruitment in the vast townships outside Nairobi. Whatever the vehicle, it is imperative that the Kenyan authorities realize that Al-Shabab is in the midst of relocating from Somalia to Kenya.
Many folks in Europe and the United States will automatically assume that by attacking shopping malls and college campuses, Al-Shabab is crippling its image among all the people of Kenya. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Forgive me if my comment appears to be ethnocentric (I don't believe it is), but sub-Saharan Africans don't automatically adopt the same perspective as westerners. In many cases, they approach issues very differently. By conducting the operation in Garissa, Al-Shabab was providing an example of its strength and power. Likewise for the attack at the shopping center in Nairobi. Where was the government? Where were the police and the military? Authorities in Nigeria have had a real problem dealing with the same predicament. Some northerners (Muslims, to be sure) were beginning to support Boko Haram, because they certainly were looking like a winner. Al-Shabab can provide a hungry, disillusioned young man with three essential things: food, a weapon, and a cause.
An important factor that should never be far from any discussion of Al-Shabab, is Al-Qaeda. Just how close are these two groups? I guarantee you that the analysts in Langley know. If we take a quick look at Al-Qaeda's modus operandi regarding relations with other organizations, it would appear to be always be a one-sided relationship. I think we will soon discover, though, that the "new" Al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a bit more willing to be interactive with like-minded groups. In the last few years of Osama bin-Ladin's life, the organization became very isolated and secretive, and for good reason. I believe that Zawahiri believes in the philosophy of the struggle, just as much as he does the actions being taken. I think we will see more instances of Al-Qaeda communicating with the Boko Harams and the Al-Shababs, and trying to lay the groundwork for a uniting message. I believe a great deal has already been accomplished along this path, and the various groups on the ground in Syria are not nearly as separate from each other as they would lead the western media to believe. Nothing lives forever. Even Al-Qaeda will eventually disappear. The key is the message. It must resonate and be strong enough to live forever. The message can survive long journeys across mountain ranges and oceans, when men cannot. The message can survive the battles when all the combatants lie dead on the field. Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda will depend upon the Boko Harams, and the Al-Qaeda in Magrebs, and the Al-Shababs, to be the caretaker and delivery system for that message. And the message never changes. it continues to be about domination, intolerance, hatred and bigotry. It would behoove us to take down the caretakers before they really get a handle on the message.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part II)
Links: A. ISIS supporting Al-Shabaab in Africa?
B. ISIS eager to recruit South Africans.
In Part II we will focus on the Islamic State (IS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Muslim states of West Africa are vitally important, because they will discreetly provide financial and material support to Islamic extremist groups, while publicly disavowing any involvement or knowledge of these organizations.
Mauritania. To start, Mauritania is a bit of a mystery. The government gives the appearance of being deeply observant of all Islamic Laws and traditions. At the same time, Mauritania has steered a very moderate course diplomatically, snuggling up to France in particular. In truth, Mauritania is a lightly-populated country that consists almost exclusively of SAND. Eventually, the engineers and researchers will find oil in Mauritania, mark my word.
Al-Qaeda in the Magreb. Al-Qaeda remains active in West Africa, in Mali and Niger in particular. In 2013, Al-Qaeda more-or-less surprised everyone by hopping the coat tails of a Tuareg insurrection in northern Mali. The Tuaregs, who had made repeated complaints to the government in Bamako, were suffering from private French companies occupying oases and disturbing traditional Tuareg trading patterns. The Tuaregs felt that they had no choice but to take up arms, at least long enough to attract the European press. But before you can say, "Camel Fart", Al-Qaeda had hijacked the Tuaregs little rebellion. The Tuaregs quickly faded away, but Al-Qaeda in the Magreb (AQM) meant business, attacking Malian military and government installations as far south as Timbuktu. In steps the French, who roll up AQM in record time (not many prisoners taken, from what I understand). In the Fall of 2014, AQM, taking advantage of a government focused exclusively on combating Ebola, popped back up in northern Mali. And this time, they were better armed and willing to involve others. AQM repeatedly crossed the border into Niger and conducted raids against simple villages, along with the usual attacks against government and civilian targets in Mali. Again, the French military has arrived on the scene, and I expect and even more thorough accounting of AQM. I can hear you now, asking, "why all this AQM bullshit when the post is supposed to be about the IS"? The answer is simple; the post is about the IS. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are, for all practical purposes, the same organization. They are both Sunni-based, violent, terrorist groups dedicated to the removal of infidels from their "Holy Land". They communicate with each other, they assist one another, and they play-up the western media's insistence on separating the two. As always, this is only my opinion. Come see me in a year and remind me how wrong I was.
Al-Shabaab. One fact that is not debatable is that the IS was born into the Al-Qaeda family. In its former life, it was known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed as the leader of the organization, and a new name, "the Islamic State in the Sham" (ISIS) was chosen. Folks, I'm leaving out all sorts of important background to the genesis of IS, but this post has to stay within reasonable limits. Al-Baghdadi really began to make the IS about himself, and let it be known to Al-Qaeda head Ayman Al-Zawahiri, that IS was able to function on its own. Now this is as close to a complete rift with Al-Qaeda as ever occurred. Zawahiri didn't have much to bitch about because the IS was kicking ass and taking names all over Iraq and Syria. More recently, as the organization stretches its legs a bit, relationships have been established with like-minded Sunni extremist groups around the world, including Africa. Al-Shabaab, that nasty bunch of turds that tried to turn Somalia into an Islamic State ruled by Islamic Courts (sounds wonderful, doesn't it?), have established themselves in the townships of Kenya, which are ripe recruitment areas. Social Media is the master at bringing people together, and the IS and Al-Shabaab have been expressing support for one another for some time. These two groups need each other. Al-Shabaab needs the organizational skills, the discipline, and the funding of the IS, and the IS needs the geographic reach, and the potential recruitment opportunities available to Al-Shabaab. They are both Sunni based, therefore there will be no trouble finding ideological (read: idiot-logical) common ground. Al-Shabaab has established a presence as far south as South Africa and as far west as Namibia.
Boko Haram. Ehen the Nigerian based terrorist organization, "Boko Haram", announced its support for the IS, the news was treated as a truly important development. During the same week, the combined military forces of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin inflicted defeat after defeat on Boko Haram, who was now only in control of four northern communities (from twenty just the week before). It was no surprise that Boko Haram (BH) wanted to change the headline, and the press obliged. The poor Nigerian Army; after months of getting raked over the coals by the domestic and international press, they finally have a very successful strong of victories, and they get upstaged by BH's announcement of love for the IS. The truth is, even though BH has very recently received a black eye and a bloody nose, this organization is built similar to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and it is more than able to retreat into the jungle and reconstitute itself. I find BH to be the most dangerous terrorist group on the continent, and that includes north Africa. Anyone engaged against BH needs to be familiar with its history, as BH is very loyal to its founding principles and the accompanying religious ideology. The organization was originally established in support of providing Islamic education in northern Nigerian schools. At the time, there was a need for a bit of a "siege mentality", as the Islamic community in Nigeria had many opponents. Through concentration of resources and discipline, the Islamic community in northern Nigeria was able to effectively establish a network of Islamic schools. As is often the case, this well-meaning effort got out of hand. BH quickly morphed into a organization that allowed no disagreement and enforced the strictest of Islamic codes. Instead of living peacefully with the Christian community, BH made every effort to either drive them off or convert their children. When it became apparent that the Nigerian authorities were either unwilling or unable to respond, BH began large-scale forced conversions. Instead of focusing on education, BH became a para-military organization, bent on proselytizing extremist Islam. At the zenith of its reach, BH was smart enough to reach out to other like-minded organizations, which will provide a lifeline, if the Nigerian military is successful in forcing BH out of Nigeria. BH is present in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, and in the Cameroon. Many of his soldiers are "brainwashed" teens, some not much older than ten, eleven years of age. In many cases, these young fighters are the most dedicated. I won't mention the fate of the young girls that are randomly kidnapped. Suffice to say that the lucky ones are forced into sometimes plural marriages with men usually many years older.
Because of the growing population rate in sub-Saharan Africa, the pressure on the various national economies will only increase. At the moment, even the most optimistic economies like South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia, Botswana, Gabon and Ghana, have unemployment rates for post-high school males as high as forty percent. This group of unemployed, bored, many times hungry, unable to afford university fees, young men are the perfect targets for the IS. Since the Islamic faith has done such an outstanding job introducing Islam to poorer African communities, many of these young men are already halfway home.
B. ISIS eager to recruit South Africans.
In Part II we will focus on the Islamic State (IS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Muslim states of West Africa are vitally important, because they will discreetly provide financial and material support to Islamic extremist groups, while publicly disavowing any involvement or knowledge of these organizations.
Mauritania. To start, Mauritania is a bit of a mystery. The government gives the appearance of being deeply observant of all Islamic Laws and traditions. At the same time, Mauritania has steered a very moderate course diplomatically, snuggling up to France in particular. In truth, Mauritania is a lightly-populated country that consists almost exclusively of SAND. Eventually, the engineers and researchers will find oil in Mauritania, mark my word.
Al-Qaeda in the Magreb. Al-Qaeda remains active in West Africa, in Mali and Niger in particular. In 2013, Al-Qaeda more-or-less surprised everyone by hopping the coat tails of a Tuareg insurrection in northern Mali. The Tuaregs, who had made repeated complaints to the government in Bamako, were suffering from private French companies occupying oases and disturbing traditional Tuareg trading patterns. The Tuaregs felt that they had no choice but to take up arms, at least long enough to attract the European press. But before you can say, "Camel Fart", Al-Qaeda had hijacked the Tuaregs little rebellion. The Tuaregs quickly faded away, but Al-Qaeda in the Magreb (AQM) meant business, attacking Malian military and government installations as far south as Timbuktu. In steps the French, who roll up AQM in record time (not many prisoners taken, from what I understand). In the Fall of 2014, AQM, taking advantage of a government focused exclusively on combating Ebola, popped back up in northern Mali. And this time, they were better armed and willing to involve others. AQM repeatedly crossed the border into Niger and conducted raids against simple villages, along with the usual attacks against government and civilian targets in Mali. Again, the French military has arrived on the scene, and I expect and even more thorough accounting of AQM. I can hear you now, asking, "why all this AQM bullshit when the post is supposed to be about the IS"? The answer is simple; the post is about the IS. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are, for all practical purposes, the same organization. They are both Sunni-based, violent, terrorist groups dedicated to the removal of infidels from their "Holy Land". They communicate with each other, they assist one another, and they play-up the western media's insistence on separating the two. As always, this is only my opinion. Come see me in a year and remind me how wrong I was.
Al-Shabaab. One fact that is not debatable is that the IS was born into the Al-Qaeda family. In its former life, it was known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed as the leader of the organization, and a new name, "the Islamic State in the Sham" (ISIS) was chosen. Folks, I'm leaving out all sorts of important background to the genesis of IS, but this post has to stay within reasonable limits. Al-Baghdadi really began to make the IS about himself, and let it be known to Al-Qaeda head Ayman Al-Zawahiri, that IS was able to function on its own. Now this is as close to a complete rift with Al-Qaeda as ever occurred. Zawahiri didn't have much to bitch about because the IS was kicking ass and taking names all over Iraq and Syria. More recently, as the organization stretches its legs a bit, relationships have been established with like-minded Sunni extremist groups around the world, including Africa. Al-Shabaab, that nasty bunch of turds that tried to turn Somalia into an Islamic State ruled by Islamic Courts (sounds wonderful, doesn't it?), have established themselves in the townships of Kenya, which are ripe recruitment areas. Social Media is the master at bringing people together, and the IS and Al-Shabaab have been expressing support for one another for some time. These two groups need each other. Al-Shabaab needs the organizational skills, the discipline, and the funding of the IS, and the IS needs the geographic reach, and the potential recruitment opportunities available to Al-Shabaab. They are both Sunni based, therefore there will be no trouble finding ideological (read: idiot-logical) common ground. Al-Shabaab has established a presence as far south as South Africa and as far west as Namibia.
Boko Haram. Ehen the Nigerian based terrorist organization, "Boko Haram", announced its support for the IS, the news was treated as a truly important development. During the same week, the combined military forces of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin inflicted defeat after defeat on Boko Haram, who was now only in control of four northern communities (from twenty just the week before). It was no surprise that Boko Haram (BH) wanted to change the headline, and the press obliged. The poor Nigerian Army; after months of getting raked over the coals by the domestic and international press, they finally have a very successful strong of victories, and they get upstaged by BH's announcement of love for the IS. The truth is, even though BH has very recently received a black eye and a bloody nose, this organization is built similar to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and it is more than able to retreat into the jungle and reconstitute itself. I find BH to be the most dangerous terrorist group on the continent, and that includes north Africa. Anyone engaged against BH needs to be familiar with its history, as BH is very loyal to its founding principles and the accompanying religious ideology. The organization was originally established in support of providing Islamic education in northern Nigerian schools. At the time, there was a need for a bit of a "siege mentality", as the Islamic community in Nigeria had many opponents. Through concentration of resources and discipline, the Islamic community in northern Nigeria was able to effectively establish a network of Islamic schools. As is often the case, this well-meaning effort got out of hand. BH quickly morphed into a organization that allowed no disagreement and enforced the strictest of Islamic codes. Instead of living peacefully with the Christian community, BH made every effort to either drive them off or convert their children. When it became apparent that the Nigerian authorities were either unwilling or unable to respond, BH began large-scale forced conversions. Instead of focusing on education, BH became a para-military organization, bent on proselytizing extremist Islam. At the zenith of its reach, BH was smart enough to reach out to other like-minded organizations, which will provide a lifeline, if the Nigerian military is successful in forcing BH out of Nigeria. BH is present in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, and in the Cameroon. Many of his soldiers are "brainwashed" teens, some not much older than ten, eleven years of age. In many cases, these young fighters are the most dedicated. I won't mention the fate of the young girls that are randomly kidnapped. Suffice to say that the lucky ones are forced into sometimes plural marriages with men usually many years older.
Because of the growing population rate in sub-Saharan Africa, the pressure on the various national economies will only increase. At the moment, even the most optimistic economies like South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia, Botswana, Gabon and Ghana, have unemployment rates for post-high school males as high as forty percent. This group of unemployed, bored, many times hungry, unable to afford university fees, young men are the perfect targets for the IS. Since the Islamic faith has done such an outstanding job introducing Islam to poorer African communities, many of these young men are already halfway home.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Combating The Spread Of Extremism In The Third World (Part II)
Links A. Impact of The Repudiation Of Third World Debt
B. Council On Foreign Relations Comments Regarding Terrorism And Debt
(Part II)
I'm not an economist, though I have followed up on the arguments for and against the dissolution of all foreign debt in Africa. From my simple perspective, I imagine that the elimination of all debt will loosen up capital for job creation, education reform, infrastructure development, hydro-electric projects, and much more. Some individuals more cynical than myself, have argued for conditions on any debt relaxation agreement. The concern is that once the constraints are removed, the inmates will be uncontrollable. And why would that development automatically be considered a negative? We want uncontrolled growth. Granted, certain European and North American commodities might face some unexpected competition in the international marketplace. Another concern is that providing African nations with control of so much of their own revenue (without that revenue automatically disappearing in loan payments) will encourage a return to the days of political despots. The concern being, that if you remind the Africans of just how much wealth they have, that inevitably tribal conflict will return, along with the Idi Amins, Mobutu Sese Sekos, Jean-Bedel Bokassas, and the Robert Mugabes (wait a second....that crazy old rooster is still around, isn't he?). I say, "Racist much?" This type of thinking proceeds on the assumption that congenitally, the blacks of Africa (regardless of tribe, heritage or language), are unable to learn enough from the errors of the recent pass to avoid repeating those mistakes. Having spent a decent amount of time in Africa (by the way, six months living in the leafy Pretoria suburbs of Waterkloof or Brooklyn, shopping at the conveniently located Checkers and Menlyn Park Mall, and dining at Priva Gastrolounge, does not constitute "Africa" in my book), I think the people of this continent are ready for a change. And I don't think they will hesitate to remove anyone who tries to turn back the clock to the days of endemic corruption. The world is much smaller, and our leaders are much more accessible. Africans (especially the younger generation) are ACHING for the opportunity to start with a "Coup de Torchon", a clean slate. Most the these young people don't remember Daniel arap Moi, Kenneth Kaunda, or PW Botha. The amazing advances in communication technology has revolutionized education on our planet. Young people receive lessons in Cultural Geography and Social Studies every time they access the internet on their phone. In the past, the list of options regarding future employment was limited by many factors. Today, young people are beginning to accept the idea that they can achieve anything that they're willing to sacrifice and work for.
One particular argument against eliminating the debt of African nations is that it will discourage lenders from getting involved in Africa. Who wants to make a loan that can be erased twenty years down the road? No doubt Africa needs continued access to loans from wealthy countries, and its easy to understand how this decision could impact African nation's access to international currency. But lets approach this dilemma seriously. If the decision were made to dissolve all debt currently owed by African countries (including to each other), it would be a decision that could only be repeated again by the same group of people/organizations. If there was a legitimate concern that this one isolated decision would create some contagion effect, removing debt from Latin America (I already have a solution for Latin America...just dump everyone's debt into Christina Fernandez Kirchner's bank account) being next on the list, I would oppose this initiative. But as long as rational thought properly influences the decision making process of everyone involved, I believe that a one-time elimination of all African debt, would not create expectations of the same decision being made in other places. No one can convince me that Africa would become "persona non grata" with the international banking community. Companies exist for the sole purpose of negotiating international loan agreements. Personally, I would consider Africa to be one of the safest places to make a loan, if the international community had just agreed to a one-time elimination of all African debt. Certainly that event won't be repeated in our lifetimes, so any new investment would be safe. The idea that African countries would no longer have access to the IMF and the international banking community is bogus. Africa will continue to provide endless opportunities for making money, and plenty companies and organizations looking to make a profit, will line-up to loan money to African nations.
My opinion on this subject has evolved. When I was younger, I had a strong conviction regarding agreements between people. Someone's word, and someone's signature, had to be worth something. I believed that since countries had borrowed (and spent) the money, that they should pay it back. A bit of research later, and I had discovered that many African countries were using new loans to pay the interest on previous loans. Reminds me of me in my younger days. Its all become a bit of a mess. But technology has given Africans new hope for the future. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Mali, and an encouraging number of other African nations are discovering oil reserves (mostly off the coast). The process of fracking has also started to have an impact on a continent that has always been dependent on energy imports. Once again, thanks to technology, we have confirmed that West Africa is home to more deposits of Gold and Diamonds than previously thought. And I haven't even mentioned all the sensitive metals and minerals that sit under the African soil. If African nations are relieved of the repressive debt obligation, then they would be better-positioned to create their own exploratory companies to access all of this hidden wealth. But some players in the game don't want self-sufficiency in certain market places. They want to locate, dig, retrieve, and sell whatever particular resource of the moment, and pass back to the host nation a modest one-time payment. That is the way it has always been done. An elimination of African debt might just provide the impetus that encourages Mali to explore the north of the nation for oil on its own, not under the foot of a French company. Wouldn't it be something if Guinea and Botswana cleaned and processed diamonds themselves, instead of relying on Dutch and Israeli companies? In truth, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'm grasping, folks. I'm looking for an opportunity to be excited for the future. With Islamic Extremism expanding so rapidly, I welcome any change of circumstances. Relieving Kenya of its international debt, will allow Nairobi to institute immediate job creation programs in the slums of Kibera. The government of Kenya can win the battle against Al-Shabaab/Al-Qaeda for the hearts and minds of its young people. The same argument can be made in Uganda and Nigeria. Young people will gravitate to a legitimate opportunity to create a successful career, before they will agree to picking up an AK-47 and randomly killing people. Call me foolishly optimistic, but this is what I believe.
The international banking community, including the IMF, should immediately institute a blanket forgiveness of all African debt, to include Mauritania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and South Sudan.
B. Council On Foreign Relations Comments Regarding Terrorism And Debt
(Part II)
I'm not an economist, though I have followed up on the arguments for and against the dissolution of all foreign debt in Africa. From my simple perspective, I imagine that the elimination of all debt will loosen up capital for job creation, education reform, infrastructure development, hydro-electric projects, and much more. Some individuals more cynical than myself, have argued for conditions on any debt relaxation agreement. The concern is that once the constraints are removed, the inmates will be uncontrollable. And why would that development automatically be considered a negative? We want uncontrolled growth. Granted, certain European and North American commodities might face some unexpected competition in the international marketplace. Another concern is that providing African nations with control of so much of their own revenue (without that revenue automatically disappearing in loan payments) will encourage a return to the days of political despots. The concern being, that if you remind the Africans of just how much wealth they have, that inevitably tribal conflict will return, along with the Idi Amins, Mobutu Sese Sekos, Jean-Bedel Bokassas, and the Robert Mugabes (wait a second....that crazy old rooster is still around, isn't he?). I say, "Racist much?" This type of thinking proceeds on the assumption that congenitally, the blacks of Africa (regardless of tribe, heritage or language), are unable to learn enough from the errors of the recent pass to avoid repeating those mistakes. Having spent a decent amount of time in Africa (by the way, six months living in the leafy Pretoria suburbs of Waterkloof or Brooklyn, shopping at the conveniently located Checkers and Menlyn Park Mall, and dining at Priva Gastrolounge, does not constitute "Africa" in my book), I think the people of this continent are ready for a change. And I don't think they will hesitate to remove anyone who tries to turn back the clock to the days of endemic corruption. The world is much smaller, and our leaders are much more accessible. Africans (especially the younger generation) are ACHING for the opportunity to start with a "Coup de Torchon", a clean slate. Most the these young people don't remember Daniel arap Moi, Kenneth Kaunda, or PW Botha. The amazing advances in communication technology has revolutionized education on our planet. Young people receive lessons in Cultural Geography and Social Studies every time they access the internet on their phone. In the past, the list of options regarding future employment was limited by many factors. Today, young people are beginning to accept the idea that they can achieve anything that they're willing to sacrifice and work for.
One particular argument against eliminating the debt of African nations is that it will discourage lenders from getting involved in Africa. Who wants to make a loan that can be erased twenty years down the road? No doubt Africa needs continued access to loans from wealthy countries, and its easy to understand how this decision could impact African nation's access to international currency. But lets approach this dilemma seriously. If the decision were made to dissolve all debt currently owed by African countries (including to each other), it would be a decision that could only be repeated again by the same group of people/organizations. If there was a legitimate concern that this one isolated decision would create some contagion effect, removing debt from Latin America (I already have a solution for Latin America...just dump everyone's debt into Christina Fernandez Kirchner's bank account) being next on the list, I would oppose this initiative. But as long as rational thought properly influences the decision making process of everyone involved, I believe that a one-time elimination of all African debt, would not create expectations of the same decision being made in other places. No one can convince me that Africa would become "persona non grata" with the international banking community. Companies exist for the sole purpose of negotiating international loan agreements. Personally, I would consider Africa to be one of the safest places to make a loan, if the international community had just agreed to a one-time elimination of all African debt. Certainly that event won't be repeated in our lifetimes, so any new investment would be safe. The idea that African countries would no longer have access to the IMF and the international banking community is bogus. Africa will continue to provide endless opportunities for making money, and plenty companies and organizations looking to make a profit, will line-up to loan money to African nations.
My opinion on this subject has evolved. When I was younger, I had a strong conviction regarding agreements between people. Someone's word, and someone's signature, had to be worth something. I believed that since countries had borrowed (and spent) the money, that they should pay it back. A bit of research later, and I had discovered that many African countries were using new loans to pay the interest on previous loans. Reminds me of me in my younger days. Its all become a bit of a mess. But technology has given Africans new hope for the future. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Mali, and an encouraging number of other African nations are discovering oil reserves (mostly off the coast). The process of fracking has also started to have an impact on a continent that has always been dependent on energy imports. Once again, thanks to technology, we have confirmed that West Africa is home to more deposits of Gold and Diamonds than previously thought. And I haven't even mentioned all the sensitive metals and minerals that sit under the African soil. If African nations are relieved of the repressive debt obligation, then they would be better-positioned to create their own exploratory companies to access all of this hidden wealth. But some players in the game don't want self-sufficiency in certain market places. They want to locate, dig, retrieve, and sell whatever particular resource of the moment, and pass back to the host nation a modest one-time payment. That is the way it has always been done. An elimination of African debt might just provide the impetus that encourages Mali to explore the north of the nation for oil on its own, not under the foot of a French company. Wouldn't it be something if Guinea and Botswana cleaned and processed diamonds themselves, instead of relying on Dutch and Israeli companies? In truth, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'm grasping, folks. I'm looking for an opportunity to be excited for the future. With Islamic Extremism expanding so rapidly, I welcome any change of circumstances. Relieving Kenya of its international debt, will allow Nairobi to institute immediate job creation programs in the slums of Kibera. The government of Kenya can win the battle against Al-Shabaab/Al-Qaeda for the hearts and minds of its young people. The same argument can be made in Uganda and Nigeria. Young people will gravitate to a legitimate opportunity to create a successful career, before they will agree to picking up an AK-47 and randomly killing people. Call me foolishly optimistic, but this is what I believe.
The international banking community, including the IMF, should immediately institute a blanket forgiveness of all African debt, to include Mauritania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and South Sudan.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Al-Qaeda In Africa
Link: A. Al-Qaeda Presence In African Countries
(Today's post is the first in a four-part series to begin 2015. This series will discuss the current state of affairs for the various Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups around the globe. The next in the series will be the Middle East, followed by Southeast Asia, and concluding with Europe/United States. Somewhere along the line I will throw out a few comments about Al-Qaeda's presence in Latin America, especially as it relates to drug trafficking, smuggling and the tri-borders region.)
When I originally googled "Al-Qaeda" and "Africa", I expected to find a Wikipedia page full of useful dates and details. Have a look at the link so you can share in my disappointment. No matter; Al-Qaeda is so active at present that a review of any international news provider should bear fruit. Surprisingly, the link from Wikipedia doesn't even identify Mali as a location of interest, and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been stirring the pot in the north of the country for a few years now. But enough criticism of Wikipedia. It is an invaluable resource that I would hate to lose, so follow my example and give them a few dollars whenever they start one of their fund-raising drives. Back to Al-Qaeda and Africa.
Personally, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 were the first time that I connected the terrorist group Al-Qaeda to the African continent. I was aware of the organization, mainly because I was already employed for an Intelligence Agency, and I was working in a counter-terrorist branch at the time. Having spent some time in Kenya and Tanzania, I was immediately useful, as street maps were spread out over desks and rolled-up, dusty maps were pulled out from behind cabinets. Interestingly enough, I can't remember a time when the group Al-Qaeda was not synonymous with Osama bin-Laden. Even then in the early years pre-9/11, everyone was already referring to the two as inseparable evils, and with good reason. Bin-Laden carried his organization on his back, figuratively and literally. He had spent some time in Afghanistan and trained in the Sudan and Yemen. I can't be sure but I believe the planning for 9/11 was already in place when the embassy bombings occurred. I believe another attack was intended, one involving multiple airliners that were to be hijacked out of Manila, and these three attacks (Kenya, NYC, Manila) were going to deliver a message to the West. The third operation never got off the ground, thank goodness.
Since the 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been active in Africa. When Somalia descended into post Siad-Barre hell, Al-Qaeda positioned itself to become an integral part of the conservative and extremist Islamic Courts Union, which was the de facto government in Moqdishu for a while. Once the African Union and the Ethiopian Army removed the Courts from Somalia, they found a comfy exile in Eritrea. I just don't understand the government of Eritrea, why they would want to announce to the world that they are friendly with Al-Qaeda. Obviously this is just another case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the Eritreans despise the Ethiopians with a venom that is hard to match. Presently, with Puntland trying to sort itself out, and the Somali government in Moqdishu just trying to get the power back on, the bad guys, who have morphed from the "Islamic Courts Union", to "Al-Shabaab", are doing what they can to cause trouble in Kenya. Don't be fooled; Al-Shabaab is an unpolished, illiterate, ill-trained version of Al-Qaeda, and they understand the importance of establishing a presence in Kenya. The unemployment rate in Kenya is so high, I don't think the Kenyan government bothers to log it anymore. Most young men, at an age when they are supposed to be the most physically productive, are playing soccer in the townships and smoking hash behind the shabeen. The first time I ever saw someone wearing an Osama bin-Laden t-shirt was in Kibera, the huge township that feeds and feeds off of Nairobi. They are hungry in Mombasa as well, and in Nakuru and Kisumu. Al-Qaeda has always intended on taking advantage of the squalor and hopelessness of the third world, to recruit and spread its anti-west, anti-glutton message. But for some reason they have never really succeeded in appealing to the masses. But Africa, and Kenya in particular, give them an ideal opportunity. For Al-Qaeda, Somalia is over. The question is, to relocate the operatives and resources to Sudan and Yemen (and Eritrea), or to make a real push in Kenya.
In west Africa, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has caused quite a bit of heartburn. A few years back in Mali, the Tuaregs attempted a bit of a revolution. These usually non-confrontational, private nomads were having their traditional way of life negatively impacted by the activities of various French oil and mineral exploratory operations. They complained to the government in Bamako, but the Euro talks, and the Camel walks, so to speak. So the Tuaregs started a bit of a rebellion. Almost from the start it was hijacked by AQIM, and before long, the Tuaregs had been basically muscled out of the conflict altogether. AQIM proved too much for the Malian Army, so Mother France was called, and to make a boring story short, the French military sorted out AQIM in short-order. In the summer of 2014, when all of west Africa was focused on the anti-Ebola campaign, AQIM popped up again, and this time began attacking targets in Niger. Fortunately the French military always seems to be available, and it is yet to be determined if AQIM will acquit itself in a more positive way this time around. Unfortunately, the French can only be in so many places at one time, and AQIM has a habit of attacking Malian military targets, separate from a French military presence.
Boko Haram has been described as "Al-Qaeda in Nigeria", which is not far from the truth. Originally, Boko Haram was created as a method of educating and providing security for Muslim communities in northern Nigeria. A change in leadership was instrumental in Boko Haram's evolution into an Islamic extremist group, and they have quickly silenced the Islamic opposition (what there was of it). I have never considered Al-Qaeda to be overly religiously motivated, but they won't pass an opportunity to hijack a conservative Islamic movement, as they have demonstrated many times. In reality, I don't think Al-Qaeda has any input into the actions of Boko Haram. They make a bunch of noise and get a good deal of press, but until Boko Haram takes control of the Nigerian Oil Industry and starts pumping that oil to fill Al-Qaeda's coffers, I don't see the possibility of an Al-Qaeda initiative here (unless the U.S. and Nigerian security is lax and the embassy becomes a target of opportunity).
Africa can be a dangerous place for Americans. Because of the ease in which a person can cross one border after another, the U.S. Diplomatic Security folks have to always be on their game. Africa is useful to Al-Qaeda for three reasons: targets of opportunity, training, and recruitment. We know about the first two, but just how much success have the bad guys had at recruiting operatives in Africa? Up to now, I think it has been negligible. But that could change this year. Keep your eye on Kenya.
(Today's post is the first in a four-part series to begin 2015. This series will discuss the current state of affairs for the various Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups around the globe. The next in the series will be the Middle East, followed by Southeast Asia, and concluding with Europe/United States. Somewhere along the line I will throw out a few comments about Al-Qaeda's presence in Latin America, especially as it relates to drug trafficking, smuggling and the tri-borders region.)
When I originally googled "Al-Qaeda" and "Africa", I expected to find a Wikipedia page full of useful dates and details. Have a look at the link so you can share in my disappointment. No matter; Al-Qaeda is so active at present that a review of any international news provider should bear fruit. Surprisingly, the link from Wikipedia doesn't even identify Mali as a location of interest, and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been stirring the pot in the north of the country for a few years now. But enough criticism of Wikipedia. It is an invaluable resource that I would hate to lose, so follow my example and give them a few dollars whenever they start one of their fund-raising drives. Back to Al-Qaeda and Africa.
Personally, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 were the first time that I connected the terrorist group Al-Qaeda to the African continent. I was aware of the organization, mainly because I was already employed for an Intelligence Agency, and I was working in a counter-terrorist branch at the time. Having spent some time in Kenya and Tanzania, I was immediately useful, as street maps were spread out over desks and rolled-up, dusty maps were pulled out from behind cabinets. Interestingly enough, I can't remember a time when the group Al-Qaeda was not synonymous with Osama bin-Laden. Even then in the early years pre-9/11, everyone was already referring to the two as inseparable evils, and with good reason. Bin-Laden carried his organization on his back, figuratively and literally. He had spent some time in Afghanistan and trained in the Sudan and Yemen. I can't be sure but I believe the planning for 9/11 was already in place when the embassy bombings occurred. I believe another attack was intended, one involving multiple airliners that were to be hijacked out of Manila, and these three attacks (Kenya, NYC, Manila) were going to deliver a message to the West. The third operation never got off the ground, thank goodness.
Since the 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been active in Africa. When Somalia descended into post Siad-Barre hell, Al-Qaeda positioned itself to become an integral part of the conservative and extremist Islamic Courts Union, which was the de facto government in Moqdishu for a while. Once the African Union and the Ethiopian Army removed the Courts from Somalia, they found a comfy exile in Eritrea. I just don't understand the government of Eritrea, why they would want to announce to the world that they are friendly with Al-Qaeda. Obviously this is just another case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the Eritreans despise the Ethiopians with a venom that is hard to match. Presently, with Puntland trying to sort itself out, and the Somali government in Moqdishu just trying to get the power back on, the bad guys, who have morphed from the "Islamic Courts Union", to "Al-Shabaab", are doing what they can to cause trouble in Kenya. Don't be fooled; Al-Shabaab is an unpolished, illiterate, ill-trained version of Al-Qaeda, and they understand the importance of establishing a presence in Kenya. The unemployment rate in Kenya is so high, I don't think the Kenyan government bothers to log it anymore. Most young men, at an age when they are supposed to be the most physically productive, are playing soccer in the townships and smoking hash behind the shabeen. The first time I ever saw someone wearing an Osama bin-Laden t-shirt was in Kibera, the huge township that feeds and feeds off of Nairobi. They are hungry in Mombasa as well, and in Nakuru and Kisumu. Al-Qaeda has always intended on taking advantage of the squalor and hopelessness of the third world, to recruit and spread its anti-west, anti-glutton message. But for some reason they have never really succeeded in appealing to the masses. But Africa, and Kenya in particular, give them an ideal opportunity. For Al-Qaeda, Somalia is over. The question is, to relocate the operatives and resources to Sudan and Yemen (and Eritrea), or to make a real push in Kenya.
In west Africa, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has caused quite a bit of heartburn. A few years back in Mali, the Tuaregs attempted a bit of a revolution. These usually non-confrontational, private nomads were having their traditional way of life negatively impacted by the activities of various French oil and mineral exploratory operations. They complained to the government in Bamako, but the Euro talks, and the Camel walks, so to speak. So the Tuaregs started a bit of a rebellion. Almost from the start it was hijacked by AQIM, and before long, the Tuaregs had been basically muscled out of the conflict altogether. AQIM proved too much for the Malian Army, so Mother France was called, and to make a boring story short, the French military sorted out AQIM in short-order. In the summer of 2014, when all of west Africa was focused on the anti-Ebola campaign, AQIM popped up again, and this time began attacking targets in Niger. Fortunately the French military always seems to be available, and it is yet to be determined if AQIM will acquit itself in a more positive way this time around. Unfortunately, the French can only be in so many places at one time, and AQIM has a habit of attacking Malian military targets, separate from a French military presence.
Boko Haram has been described as "Al-Qaeda in Nigeria", which is not far from the truth. Originally, Boko Haram was created as a method of educating and providing security for Muslim communities in northern Nigeria. A change in leadership was instrumental in Boko Haram's evolution into an Islamic extremist group, and they have quickly silenced the Islamic opposition (what there was of it). I have never considered Al-Qaeda to be overly religiously motivated, but they won't pass an opportunity to hijack a conservative Islamic movement, as they have demonstrated many times. In reality, I don't think Al-Qaeda has any input into the actions of Boko Haram. They make a bunch of noise and get a good deal of press, but until Boko Haram takes control of the Nigerian Oil Industry and starts pumping that oil to fill Al-Qaeda's coffers, I don't see the possibility of an Al-Qaeda initiative here (unless the U.S. and Nigerian security is lax and the embassy becomes a target of opportunity).
Africa can be a dangerous place for Americans. Because of the ease in which a person can cross one border after another, the U.S. Diplomatic Security folks have to always be on their game. Africa is useful to Al-Qaeda for three reasons: targets of opportunity, training, and recruitment. We know about the first two, but just how much success have the bad guys had at recruiting operatives in Africa? Up to now, I think it has been negligible. But that could change this year. Keep your eye on Kenya.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Most Miserable Place Known To Me
Links A. Data On Former Soviet Republics
B. East Africa And Endemic Poverty
C. The Favelas Of Sao Paulo, Brazil
D. Child labor In Bolivia
When I chose this particular subject to write about, I was careful to limit the list of candidate-locations to places that were familiar to me. Lets be honest; anyone can make a list of shit-hole cities. I was careful in my selection. I try diligently to avoid overly long posts. If my friend Joe can't start and finish reading a post while he is on the train home from work, then its too long. Having Joe fall asleep while reading a post is also something I hope to avoid. It will be difficult for even the hardiest of people to fall asleep during this commentary.
In 1990, when the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc began to crumble, many of us in the west had no idea what to expect after a close inspection of life under communism. The image I am unable to remove from my mind's eye is row after row of ugly, gray buildings. Communism wanted everyone to have the same exact living quarters (no one should have something nicer than their neighbor), so in many former Eastern Bloc cities like Warsaw, Belgrade, and Bucharest, it is not uncommon to still see the endless rows of gray apartment buildings, although much of the old architecture has been torn down. The municipal buildings fit the same mold: bleak, gray and utilitarian. In some of the poorer nations in eastern Europe, the former municipal buildings are still in use. Attempts are made to brighten the appearance with a bit of paint and some flower boxes, but the true effect is deep and permanent. There is no cure for the "gray building disease". The patient must be euthanized at the earliest opportunity. I find much of eastern Europe depressing, even two decades after the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Some cities have made tremendous progress regaining the appearance of pleasant, traditional European communities, Warsaw in particular. For the purpose of this post, I must pick one particular city that I would describe as "miserable". I choose Mitrovica, Kosovo. I see no need to deliver a history lesson. Kosovo was a province of Serbia with a predominantly Albanian population. In 1998, the province descended into civil war, eventually involving Europe and the United States. Since that time, Kosovo has declared its independence, although many of the communities with large Serbian populations are loath to break away from mother Serbia. Mitrovica is a prime example of just such a community. It is located in the north of the former province and has a population roughly evenly split between Albanians and Serbs. And the last time I checked, they hated each other with a passion. The Ibar River separates the two ethnicities, and a beautiful, new bridge was built in an attempt to foster forgiveness and economic integration. Events have not followed the intended script, as fighting between the two groups has left Mitrovica resembling a Mad Max, post-apocalyptic town, with electricity outages, garbage in the streets, and vehicles that had seen better days pre-Hitler. Some of the houses on both sides of the river (Serbs to the north, Albanians on the south) have started to deteriorate, others have already crumbled into a pile of bricks and mortar. The residents of this community stare at each other across the river with distrust and anger. I'm happy to admit that I haven't visited Mitrovica in almost a decade, so its possible that the city has come together and created one community working towards safe streets, refuse collection, functioning schools, and the creation of one central business district. But for my dollar, Mitrovica deserves to be on the list of most miserable places.
Kibera is a community just north of Nairobi, Kenya. It is a slum-like collection of informal houses, shacks, and lean-tos, with a population that varies from 100,000 to 1 million, depending on the source. Kibera is a Town Planner's nightmare, as no one really knows which neighboring, smaller communities are part of Kibera and which ones are not. Ideally, the government of Kenya would task government Town/Urban Planners to map Kibera, street by street and house by house. As many homes as possible will be left standing, but any effort to bring services to Kibera and upgrade the roads and the existing facilities will require the destruction of most shacks and shanties. Some of those shacks and shanties house families of ten or more. The effort to put Kibera on the grid, build real hospitals and schools, and create safe housing will never begin in earnest until the community itself is ready to make the necessary sacrifices. Until then, segments of Kibera will improve, one section at a time. At least its progress for some. For the majority of the residents of Kibera, life is a struggle that is impossible for most westerners to comprehend. Finding food is a daily adventure, especially when you have a family to feed. Living in large townships can be very dangerous, and anyone who has anything of value is smart to keep it out of sight. Sanitation is basically non-existent, although water is available from pipes that have been laid by the city. My memory of Kibera is of a place that is full of children. And interestingly enough, they were always laughing and playing soccer. The Kenyan government has good intentions regarding Kibera, but it will take a tremendous infusion of state resources, and the complete cooperation of the people of Kibera, to remold this community into a safe, recognizable suburb.
The favelas of Sao Paulo have received a great deal of press in recent years, although the gangs of children that seem to interest most people, have been around for decades. Favelas share many of the usual characteristics of large, urban slums. The people are the poorest of the poor, most of the housing is informal, economic activity comes in all shapes and sizes, drugs are prevalent, and every day is a struggle for survival. One factor which separates the favelas from many of the other famous slums of the world, is the presence of the gangs of children. We aren't referring to groups of kids playing soccer or stealing the odd candy from the neighborhood store. The slums of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro are inhabited by gangs of kids under the age of ten. Many of them are addicted to glue sniffing, or if they can get it, crack and heroin. They are often armed and terrorize otherwise peaceful residents of the favela. A few years ago, a scandal erupted in Brazil as it was disclosed that the police were targeting the gangs "off the record". These young kids were often armed and exhibited no fear of authority, possibly a result of being hyped-up on booze, glue and whatever else they could access. A policeman is shot here and there, and the cops feel the justification to eradicate this problem. While the targeting was in effect, no one complained. Everyone had been a victim of the gangs at one time or another, and they were seen as nothing more than a virus. The young kids, without parents probably since birth, living on the streets, dealing with underage prostitution and pedophiles, turned to each other because no one cared. And they learned how to make hunger go away by watching the shake-downs of organized crime. They formed gangs, stole weapons, and took to the streets. Some estimate that in the favelas of Sao Paulo there are at least 100,000 abandoned kids trying to find a daily meal. What a tragedy that adults act indignant when a child choses the easiest method of survival. In the favelas of Brazil, being miserable isn't an emotion, its a condition.
The last place on my list is Potosi, Bolivia, which is home to Cerro Rico, of Hill of Riches. Since the 16th century, miners have labored inside of Cerro Rico, extracting silver. The neighboring town of Potosi used to be nothing more than a small market village, but it has become a city full of the young boys and old men who venture everyday into Cerro Rico for work. Notice I didn't mention men of average age. That's because in Potosi, the men appear either very young, or middle aged. That is a result of spending upwards of 18 hours a day inside of the mountain. Laws supposedly limit the age of workers to sixteen years of age, but the reality is that boy as young as ten are working in the mine. In fact, child labor seems to be all the rage in Bolivia. I thought the latest ethnically indigenous America-hating Socialist was going to fix everything. Seems to me things have only deteriorated. But I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to these sandal-wearing pretend-farmers who managed to get themselves elected president of South American countries by blaming everything from the weather to the boil on someone's ass on the evil "Yanquis". But the fact that children are digging around in Cerro Rico, creating more wealth for rich hedge funds who have invested in the various mines that dot the landscape, is enough to make me go postal. I'm not socialist, but I can't help but wonder, just how much money do some people need? And that goes for you out in Hollywood as well, and all the athletes in the U.S. and Europe, who make more in salary and endorsements than the GDP of some countries, just for kicking around a soccer ball. Potosi is a miserable place, and thank goodness I was just passing through. The kids that work in the mines, and the ones who are shining shoes or sleeping with truck driver's in La Paz bordellos, never get to experience the joys of childhood. The kids who work in the mines get up when its dark, and they come home when its dark. Inside the mine it is dark as well, and the eyesight of these young people suffers from this unnatural existence in almost total darkness. I might not be so opposed to these kids working to help support their families, or to save money for college, if they were receiving a decent salary for their efforts. Unfortunately, they will destroy their bodies and consign themselves to blindness at an early age, for just enough money to feed the family. The name of Cerro Rico should be changed to Cerro Miserable.
I realize that some of my readers expected to find a commentary on actual geographic locations and how people struggle because of where they live. it was my intention to write this post along those guidelines. But then it took on a life of its own. I am horrified by the lives children are obliged to lead in our society, circa 2014. When it comes to this issue, I only wish I could find a reason to be optimistic.
B. East Africa And Endemic Poverty
C. The Favelas Of Sao Paulo, Brazil
D. Child labor In Bolivia
When I chose this particular subject to write about, I was careful to limit the list of candidate-locations to places that were familiar to me. Lets be honest; anyone can make a list of shit-hole cities. I was careful in my selection. I try diligently to avoid overly long posts. If my friend Joe can't start and finish reading a post while he is on the train home from work, then its too long. Having Joe fall asleep while reading a post is also something I hope to avoid. It will be difficult for even the hardiest of people to fall asleep during this commentary.
In 1990, when the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc began to crumble, many of us in the west had no idea what to expect after a close inspection of life under communism. The image I am unable to remove from my mind's eye is row after row of ugly, gray buildings. Communism wanted everyone to have the same exact living quarters (no one should have something nicer than their neighbor), so in many former Eastern Bloc cities like Warsaw, Belgrade, and Bucharest, it is not uncommon to still see the endless rows of gray apartment buildings, although much of the old architecture has been torn down. The municipal buildings fit the same mold: bleak, gray and utilitarian. In some of the poorer nations in eastern Europe, the former municipal buildings are still in use. Attempts are made to brighten the appearance with a bit of paint and some flower boxes, but the true effect is deep and permanent. There is no cure for the "gray building disease". The patient must be euthanized at the earliest opportunity. I find much of eastern Europe depressing, even two decades after the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Some cities have made tremendous progress regaining the appearance of pleasant, traditional European communities, Warsaw in particular. For the purpose of this post, I must pick one particular city that I would describe as "miserable". I choose Mitrovica, Kosovo. I see no need to deliver a history lesson. Kosovo was a province of Serbia with a predominantly Albanian population. In 1998, the province descended into civil war, eventually involving Europe and the United States. Since that time, Kosovo has declared its independence, although many of the communities with large Serbian populations are loath to break away from mother Serbia. Mitrovica is a prime example of just such a community. It is located in the north of the former province and has a population roughly evenly split between Albanians and Serbs. And the last time I checked, they hated each other with a passion. The Ibar River separates the two ethnicities, and a beautiful, new bridge was built in an attempt to foster forgiveness and economic integration. Events have not followed the intended script, as fighting between the two groups has left Mitrovica resembling a Mad Max, post-apocalyptic town, with electricity outages, garbage in the streets, and vehicles that had seen better days pre-Hitler. Some of the houses on both sides of the river (Serbs to the north, Albanians on the south) have started to deteriorate, others have already crumbled into a pile of bricks and mortar. The residents of this community stare at each other across the river with distrust and anger. I'm happy to admit that I haven't visited Mitrovica in almost a decade, so its possible that the city has come together and created one community working towards safe streets, refuse collection, functioning schools, and the creation of one central business district. But for my dollar, Mitrovica deserves to be on the list of most miserable places.
Kibera is a community just north of Nairobi, Kenya. It is a slum-like collection of informal houses, shacks, and lean-tos, with a population that varies from 100,000 to 1 million, depending on the source. Kibera is a Town Planner's nightmare, as no one really knows which neighboring, smaller communities are part of Kibera and which ones are not. Ideally, the government of Kenya would task government Town/Urban Planners to map Kibera, street by street and house by house. As many homes as possible will be left standing, but any effort to bring services to Kibera and upgrade the roads and the existing facilities will require the destruction of most shacks and shanties. Some of those shacks and shanties house families of ten or more. The effort to put Kibera on the grid, build real hospitals and schools, and create safe housing will never begin in earnest until the community itself is ready to make the necessary sacrifices. Until then, segments of Kibera will improve, one section at a time. At least its progress for some. For the majority of the residents of Kibera, life is a struggle that is impossible for most westerners to comprehend. Finding food is a daily adventure, especially when you have a family to feed. Living in large townships can be very dangerous, and anyone who has anything of value is smart to keep it out of sight. Sanitation is basically non-existent, although water is available from pipes that have been laid by the city. My memory of Kibera is of a place that is full of children. And interestingly enough, they were always laughing and playing soccer. The Kenyan government has good intentions regarding Kibera, but it will take a tremendous infusion of state resources, and the complete cooperation of the people of Kibera, to remold this community into a safe, recognizable suburb.
The favelas of Sao Paulo have received a great deal of press in recent years, although the gangs of children that seem to interest most people, have been around for decades. Favelas share many of the usual characteristics of large, urban slums. The people are the poorest of the poor, most of the housing is informal, economic activity comes in all shapes and sizes, drugs are prevalent, and every day is a struggle for survival. One factor which separates the favelas from many of the other famous slums of the world, is the presence of the gangs of children. We aren't referring to groups of kids playing soccer or stealing the odd candy from the neighborhood store. The slums of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro are inhabited by gangs of kids under the age of ten. Many of them are addicted to glue sniffing, or if they can get it, crack and heroin. They are often armed and terrorize otherwise peaceful residents of the favela. A few years ago, a scandal erupted in Brazil as it was disclosed that the police were targeting the gangs "off the record". These young kids were often armed and exhibited no fear of authority, possibly a result of being hyped-up on booze, glue and whatever else they could access. A policeman is shot here and there, and the cops feel the justification to eradicate this problem. While the targeting was in effect, no one complained. Everyone had been a victim of the gangs at one time or another, and they were seen as nothing more than a virus. The young kids, without parents probably since birth, living on the streets, dealing with underage prostitution and pedophiles, turned to each other because no one cared. And they learned how to make hunger go away by watching the shake-downs of organized crime. They formed gangs, stole weapons, and took to the streets. Some estimate that in the favelas of Sao Paulo there are at least 100,000 abandoned kids trying to find a daily meal. What a tragedy that adults act indignant when a child choses the easiest method of survival. In the favelas of Brazil, being miserable isn't an emotion, its a condition.
The last place on my list is Potosi, Bolivia, which is home to Cerro Rico, of Hill of Riches. Since the 16th century, miners have labored inside of Cerro Rico, extracting silver. The neighboring town of Potosi used to be nothing more than a small market village, but it has become a city full of the young boys and old men who venture everyday into Cerro Rico for work. Notice I didn't mention men of average age. That's because in Potosi, the men appear either very young, or middle aged. That is a result of spending upwards of 18 hours a day inside of the mountain. Laws supposedly limit the age of workers to sixteen years of age, but the reality is that boy as young as ten are working in the mine. In fact, child labor seems to be all the rage in Bolivia. I thought the latest ethnically indigenous America-hating Socialist was going to fix everything. Seems to me things have only deteriorated. But I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to these sandal-wearing pretend-farmers who managed to get themselves elected president of South American countries by blaming everything from the weather to the boil on someone's ass on the evil "Yanquis". But the fact that children are digging around in Cerro Rico, creating more wealth for rich hedge funds who have invested in the various mines that dot the landscape, is enough to make me go postal. I'm not socialist, but I can't help but wonder, just how much money do some people need? And that goes for you out in Hollywood as well, and all the athletes in the U.S. and Europe, who make more in salary and endorsements than the GDP of some countries, just for kicking around a soccer ball. Potosi is a miserable place, and thank goodness I was just passing through. The kids that work in the mines, and the ones who are shining shoes or sleeping with truck driver's in La Paz bordellos, never get to experience the joys of childhood. The kids who work in the mines get up when its dark, and they come home when its dark. Inside the mine it is dark as well, and the eyesight of these young people suffers from this unnatural existence in almost total darkness. I might not be so opposed to these kids working to help support their families, or to save money for college, if they were receiving a decent salary for their efforts. Unfortunately, they will destroy their bodies and consign themselves to blindness at an early age, for just enough money to feed the family. The name of Cerro Rico should be changed to Cerro Miserable.
I realize that some of my readers expected to find a commentary on actual geographic locations and how people struggle because of where they live. it was my intention to write this post along those guidelines. But then it took on a life of its own. I am horrified by the lives children are obliged to lead in our society, circa 2014. When it comes to this issue, I only wish I could find a reason to be optimistic.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Kenya And Its Al-Shabab Problem
Link: Al-Shabaab Killing Kenyan Civilians
We don't hear much in the news about Somalia anymore. It only makes sense that when U.S. soldiers were involved in Somalia that the American media would be much more focused on the Horn of Africa. I have no specifics, but I'm sure our military and clandestine folks occasionally have business in Somalia. It very difficult to gauge the level of progress in attempts to bring peace and stability to the Somali people. In early October 2014, soldiers of the internationally recognized government retook Barawe, which had been an important base of operations for Al-Shabaab. With Moqdishu under total government control, and the African Union (AU) continuing its anti-Al-Shabaab campaign in Somalia, I started to consider the possibility of a war-free east Africa. The events of the last week, which are highlighted in the link, brought me back to reality quickly.
On a personal level, I have greater interest in Kenya than I do Somalia. I have lived in Kenya and have numerous Kenyan friends. I'm certainly not disinterested in Somalia; its just never been on my list of "places to visit before I flatline". But as circumstances would have it, a porous border and "easy targets of opportunity" have obliged me to refresh myself on the current state of affairs in Somalia. Somali troubles have been easily exported into Kenya, and the Kenyan national defense options appear to be limited. Al-Shabaab (AS) is crossing the Kenya/Somali border at will and conducting acts of violence against Kenyan civilians. Its true that the Kenyan military is participating in the African Union initiatives in Kenya, and AS is using this as an excuse to execute innocent Kenyans. The ability of AS to conduct operations in all corners of Kenya is quite surprising and alarming (please see map in link). When AS was part of the Islamic conservative movement that attempted to govern Moqdishu at one time, they occasionally appeared to be interested in reform. Any sense of objectivity and progressive thinking has since disappeared, as AS has embraced the habit of executing non-Muslims out-of-hand. Over the past few decades, the Kenyan people have busied themselves with working towards a democratic and corruption-free electoral process. Kenyans have also been very focused on developing an economy that creates jobs and opportunity for all. The specter of terrorism reared its ugly head in 1998 with the Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, but until the last five years or so, Kenyans had no real concern that a shopping mall would get shot up, or that a taxi would be hikacked and all its occupants murdered. Al-Shabaab has brought that fear home to roost in Kenya, with attacks and fatalities in Mombasa, Nairobi, Wajir, Hindi, and Diani.
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who has been much more effective and detail-oriented than I expected, has promised that AS attacks in Kenya will only encourage the Kenyan military to be more determined with their activities in Somalia. Kenyatta seems to be sincerely pissed off regarding the apparent ease with which AS is slipping across the border. I'm not so surprised with AS' ability to cross the border at will. But I am perplexed at the complexity of the AS network in Kenya. How else would they be able to support attacks in Diani (in the southeast), Wajir up north in the rocky desert, and also in Eastleigh, just outside of Nairobi? In an otherwise accurate and valuable article, one point in the link causes a bit of heartburn. I don't think its fair to label the Kenyan security forces as "ill-equipped". Its fair to question the training and ability of the soldier assigned to whatever equipment, but I believe that the Kenyan military and security forces have recently upgraded some of its more important equipment. As is apparent to anyone who watches the international news or reads the newspaper, Kenya is a very close ally of the United States. It is also the second home (at least by heritage) of President Barrack Obama. No one can convince me that our military, et al, would allow the Kenyans to take on experienced, sociopathic terrorists with outdated or broken equipment. Its possible that I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
So Kenya has a real problem. Even as AS gets pushed to the edge in Somalia, it appears to be very mobile and effective in Kenya. Might AS move its operations from Somalia to Kenya? No doubt there are many jobless, hungry young people in the townships outside of Nairobi and Mombasa who are waiting for a message of deliverance. In order to be effective in that type of outreach operation, terrorist groups must have access to cash. Part of the seduction of the young population is the sharing of wealth. In this instance, AS will probably be limited to using the "change for the better" argument by itself, but it is possible that AS has stepped up its activities in Kenya as a prelude to relocation. To resolve this problem, Kenyatta has the option of basically putting the fight into the hands of the Americans. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that an African leader made that kind of decision. Alongside asking for planning and strategy support, Kenyatta must also ask for assistance with resources. If he effectively demonstrates that he is one hundred percent dedicated to the complete destruction of AS, he will find to better ally than the United States of America.
We don't hear much in the news about Somalia anymore. It only makes sense that when U.S. soldiers were involved in Somalia that the American media would be much more focused on the Horn of Africa. I have no specifics, but I'm sure our military and clandestine folks occasionally have business in Somalia. It very difficult to gauge the level of progress in attempts to bring peace and stability to the Somali people. In early October 2014, soldiers of the internationally recognized government retook Barawe, which had been an important base of operations for Al-Shabaab. With Moqdishu under total government control, and the African Union (AU) continuing its anti-Al-Shabaab campaign in Somalia, I started to consider the possibility of a war-free east Africa. The events of the last week, which are highlighted in the link, brought me back to reality quickly.
On a personal level, I have greater interest in Kenya than I do Somalia. I have lived in Kenya and have numerous Kenyan friends. I'm certainly not disinterested in Somalia; its just never been on my list of "places to visit before I flatline". But as circumstances would have it, a porous border and "easy targets of opportunity" have obliged me to refresh myself on the current state of affairs in Somalia. Somali troubles have been easily exported into Kenya, and the Kenyan national defense options appear to be limited. Al-Shabaab (AS) is crossing the Kenya/Somali border at will and conducting acts of violence against Kenyan civilians. Its true that the Kenyan military is participating in the African Union initiatives in Kenya, and AS is using this as an excuse to execute innocent Kenyans. The ability of AS to conduct operations in all corners of Kenya is quite surprising and alarming (please see map in link). When AS was part of the Islamic conservative movement that attempted to govern Moqdishu at one time, they occasionally appeared to be interested in reform. Any sense of objectivity and progressive thinking has since disappeared, as AS has embraced the habit of executing non-Muslims out-of-hand. Over the past few decades, the Kenyan people have busied themselves with working towards a democratic and corruption-free electoral process. Kenyans have also been very focused on developing an economy that creates jobs and opportunity for all. The specter of terrorism reared its ugly head in 1998 with the Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, but until the last five years or so, Kenyans had no real concern that a shopping mall would get shot up, or that a taxi would be hikacked and all its occupants murdered. Al-Shabaab has brought that fear home to roost in Kenya, with attacks and fatalities in Mombasa, Nairobi, Wajir, Hindi, and Diani.
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who has been much more effective and detail-oriented than I expected, has promised that AS attacks in Kenya will only encourage the Kenyan military to be more determined with their activities in Somalia. Kenyatta seems to be sincerely pissed off regarding the apparent ease with which AS is slipping across the border. I'm not so surprised with AS' ability to cross the border at will. But I am perplexed at the complexity of the AS network in Kenya. How else would they be able to support attacks in Diani (in the southeast), Wajir up north in the rocky desert, and also in Eastleigh, just outside of Nairobi? In an otherwise accurate and valuable article, one point in the link causes a bit of heartburn. I don't think its fair to label the Kenyan security forces as "ill-equipped". Its fair to question the training and ability of the soldier assigned to whatever equipment, but I believe that the Kenyan military and security forces have recently upgraded some of its more important equipment. As is apparent to anyone who watches the international news or reads the newspaper, Kenya is a very close ally of the United States. It is also the second home (at least by heritage) of President Barrack Obama. No one can convince me that our military, et al, would allow the Kenyans to take on experienced, sociopathic terrorists with outdated or broken equipment. Its possible that I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
So Kenya has a real problem. Even as AS gets pushed to the edge in Somalia, it appears to be very mobile and effective in Kenya. Might AS move its operations from Somalia to Kenya? No doubt there are many jobless, hungry young people in the townships outside of Nairobi and Mombasa who are waiting for a message of deliverance. In order to be effective in that type of outreach operation, terrorist groups must have access to cash. Part of the seduction of the young population is the sharing of wealth. In this instance, AS will probably be limited to using the "change for the better" argument by itself, but it is possible that AS has stepped up its activities in Kenya as a prelude to relocation. To resolve this problem, Kenyatta has the option of basically putting the fight into the hands of the Americans. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that an African leader made that kind of decision. Alongside asking for planning and strategy support, Kenyatta must also ask for assistance with resources. If he effectively demonstrates that he is one hundred percent dedicated to the complete destruction of AS, he will find to better ally than the United States of America.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Somalian-based Terrorist Group Al-Shabaab Threat to U.S. Interests in Uganda
Link: Uganda Foils Imminent Al-Shabaab terror Plot
To understand the particular brand of compost that makes up the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab (The Younger), Mookie Baby will have to take a quick trip through history. Somalia, which occupies the eastern Horn of Africa, was an Italian colony until the end of World War II. At one time it was home to a sizable Italian population, and would have made a strategic port for the Italian Navy. (Why does the new Italian Navy have glass bottom boats? So they can look at the old Italian Navy.) After the war it was administered as a protectorate by the Brits until Independence in 1960. In 1991 Somalia descended into the nastiest kind of civil war. In the ten years leading up the civil war, the economy had broken down, the capital Moqdishu was often without power, and the government had become more unpopular and repressive. When the government finally fell, Somalia collapsed into many separate areas of authority. A group of Islamic Courts was created to help the people work through conflicts (using Sharia Law, of course). These Courts eventually started providing aid and healthcare and adopted the name "Islamic Courts Union" (ICU). The ICU swallowed up weaker authorities and expanded quickly.
In 1999 the Courts and various affiliated groups merged to create a militia, the ICUP. At its greatest strength, ICU was in control of Moqdishu and all of south Somalia. Interestingly enough, a government run by judges is called a "Krytocracy" (thank you, Wikipedia). From 1999 to 2006, the ICU fought against a variety of different home-grown groups including a number of "Transitional Governments" supported by the Arab League and African Union. In 2006, with the ICU apparently in control of all of Moqdishu and large parts of Somalia, Ethiopia invaded. The Ethiopians had no trouble defeating the various militias aligned with the ICU. A Transitional Federal Government (TFG), supported by Ethiopia, the African Union, and apparently the UN, forced the remaining elements of ICU into the rural areas (although certain sectors of Moqdishu remained in Al-Shabaab control until 2011). The ICU splintered into a number of groups, including Al-Shabaab, which describes itself as carrying out a jihad against the enemies of Islam, the TRG, and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Al-Shabaab is known to butcher herds of elephants to raise money from their Ivory, and also collects ransoms from kidnappings. Internationally, Eritrea (Eritrea's Intelligence Service in particular), has been accused of providing support to Al-Shabaab (Eritrea hates Ethiopia, Ethiopia is at war with Al-Shabaab, therefore Eritrea supports Al-Shabaab; just another verse in the famous tune "the enemy of my enemy is my friend").
After 2006, Al-Shabaab began to resemble a smaller, more tactile terrorist group. Attacks were conducted against targets in Kenya, especially areas frequented by western tourists. Starting in 2011, Al-Shabaab began conducting small scale attacks against defenseless targets in Nairobi and also in areas of northeast Kenya. Hundreds of people were killed. In December 2013, Al-Shabaab attacked an upscale shopping market in Nairobi (frequented by ex-pats, diplomats, and wealthy Kenyans) and thirty-nine people were killed. In September 2014, a Drone strike killed Al-Shabaab leader Moktar Ali Zubayr. Operations by Kenyan police and Special Forces, with assistance from western allies, conducted many successful raids against Al-Shabaab in 2013 and 2014. It was believed by many that the death of Zubayr spelled the beginning of the end for Al-Shabaab. It might have been wishful thinking, as the link provided above details Ugandan authorities working against a suspected Al-Shabaab operation in Entebbe, Uganda. In 2012 Al-Shabaab announced a merger with a Somali-based Al-Qaeda group. Intelligence has also confirmed that Al-Shabaab is in contact with Al-Qaeda In the Maghreb (AQIM) and Nigerian Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram (see previous post on Boko Haram).
It would be unwise to consider Al-Shabaab irrelevant. In many instances, terrorist groups become more of a threat as they become smaller. They are able to travel easier and don't require much in the way of resources (although everyone needs an AK-47, a beheading knife, and a bomb or two). I can imagine the poor folks at CTC in Langley trying to make sense of all these various groups. One of the reasons they splinter in this manner is to make it difficult for the good guys to stay on top of their game. It would be much easier to follow and destroy three large terrorist networks, as opposed to the difficulty (and resources needed) to combat over one hundred different groups. The key is not to get bogged down in the different names and titles. These people all have the same basic goal, creating chaos and fear through murder and destruction. They are best confronted as one monster: International Terrorism.
To understand the particular brand of compost that makes up the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab (The Younger), Mookie Baby will have to take a quick trip through history. Somalia, which occupies the eastern Horn of Africa, was an Italian colony until the end of World War II. At one time it was home to a sizable Italian population, and would have made a strategic port for the Italian Navy. (Why does the new Italian Navy have glass bottom boats? So they can look at the old Italian Navy.) After the war it was administered as a protectorate by the Brits until Independence in 1960. In 1991 Somalia descended into the nastiest kind of civil war. In the ten years leading up the civil war, the economy had broken down, the capital Moqdishu was often without power, and the government had become more unpopular and repressive. When the government finally fell, Somalia collapsed into many separate areas of authority. A group of Islamic Courts was created to help the people work through conflicts (using Sharia Law, of course). These Courts eventually started providing aid and healthcare and adopted the name "Islamic Courts Union" (ICU). The ICU swallowed up weaker authorities and expanded quickly.
In 1999 the Courts and various affiliated groups merged to create a militia, the ICUP. At its greatest strength, ICU was in control of Moqdishu and all of south Somalia. Interestingly enough, a government run by judges is called a "Krytocracy" (thank you, Wikipedia). From 1999 to 2006, the ICU fought against a variety of different home-grown groups including a number of "Transitional Governments" supported by the Arab League and African Union. In 2006, with the ICU apparently in control of all of Moqdishu and large parts of Somalia, Ethiopia invaded. The Ethiopians had no trouble defeating the various militias aligned with the ICU. A Transitional Federal Government (TFG), supported by Ethiopia, the African Union, and apparently the UN, forced the remaining elements of ICU into the rural areas (although certain sectors of Moqdishu remained in Al-Shabaab control until 2011). The ICU splintered into a number of groups, including Al-Shabaab, which describes itself as carrying out a jihad against the enemies of Islam, the TRG, and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Al-Shabaab is known to butcher herds of elephants to raise money from their Ivory, and also collects ransoms from kidnappings. Internationally, Eritrea (Eritrea's Intelligence Service in particular), has been accused of providing support to Al-Shabaab (Eritrea hates Ethiopia, Ethiopia is at war with Al-Shabaab, therefore Eritrea supports Al-Shabaab; just another verse in the famous tune "the enemy of my enemy is my friend").
After 2006, Al-Shabaab began to resemble a smaller, more tactile terrorist group. Attacks were conducted against targets in Kenya, especially areas frequented by western tourists. Starting in 2011, Al-Shabaab began conducting small scale attacks against defenseless targets in Nairobi and also in areas of northeast Kenya. Hundreds of people were killed. In December 2013, Al-Shabaab attacked an upscale shopping market in Nairobi (frequented by ex-pats, diplomats, and wealthy Kenyans) and thirty-nine people were killed. In September 2014, a Drone strike killed Al-Shabaab leader Moktar Ali Zubayr. Operations by Kenyan police and Special Forces, with assistance from western allies, conducted many successful raids against Al-Shabaab in 2013 and 2014. It was believed by many that the death of Zubayr spelled the beginning of the end for Al-Shabaab. It might have been wishful thinking, as the link provided above details Ugandan authorities working against a suspected Al-Shabaab operation in Entebbe, Uganda. In 2012 Al-Shabaab announced a merger with a Somali-based Al-Qaeda group. Intelligence has also confirmed that Al-Shabaab is in contact with Al-Qaeda In the Maghreb (AQIM) and Nigerian Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram (see previous post on Boko Haram).
It would be unwise to consider Al-Shabaab irrelevant. In many instances, terrorist groups become more of a threat as they become smaller. They are able to travel easier and don't require much in the way of resources (although everyone needs an AK-47, a beheading knife, and a bomb or two). I can imagine the poor folks at CTC in Langley trying to make sense of all these various groups. One of the reasons they splinter in this manner is to make it difficult for the good guys to stay on top of their game. It would be much easier to follow and destroy three large terrorist networks, as opposed to the difficulty (and resources needed) to combat over one hundred different groups. The key is not to get bogged down in the different names and titles. These people all have the same basic goal, creating chaos and fear through murder and destruction. They are best confronted as one monster: International Terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)