thought-provoking discussion by two members of an extant school of
Parisian geostrategists about the increasing irrelevance of wars in
solving problems nowadays. In fact, according to one of them, we now
live in a POST-MILITARY AGE!
This sounds paradoxically counter-intuitive as there are so many flash
points and armed conflicts of varying intensity around the globe. But
the argument is instead to be understood in this wise: with the rise
of guerrilla and insurgency capabilities that military invasions by
Western powers invariably obtain in their wake, military solutions
have become increasingly unsustainable due to the costs in lives,
money, time, and (domestic) political capital that quagmires entail.
(The unsustainability of military costs, though not elaborated, is
however contained in the claim of the French futurologist and one-time
president Mitterrand's advisor Jacques Attali that future wars will
mostly be waged by mercenaries, now called by the euphemism "military
contractors".)
Military victories have become so elusive even for the world's sole
superpower despite its several mighty branches and formidable defense
budget that (to Obama's credit) it now sets its own arbitrary
definition and threshold of victory: for example, the withdrawal from
Iraq; soon, the drawdown and, ultimately, a "disengagement" from
Afghanistan (in effect, an utter fiasco of all COIN doctrines).
But, the theory of the Parisian geostrategists notwithstanding,
large-scale wars and invasions are still likely to occur--as the
recent crisis in the Korean Peninsula amply demonstrates. What's more,
a regional war is about to be waged against Côte d'Ivoire by NIGERIA
in the coming weeks, with massive U.S. logistical support.
I single out Nigeria because Ghana, the other significant military
power within ECOWAS, has already ruled out its participation in the
projected military adventure and there's a split in the regional
organization between hawks and doves.
This being said, the question at issue is whether the Nigerian
president has fully considered the basic definition of war that Carl
von Clausewitz couches in his cautionary maxim: "war is simply the
continuation of policy by other means."
What exactly is the "policy" that the permanently and firmly capped
Goodluck Jonathan wants to achieve in Côte d'Ivoire in the guise of
ECOWAS?
If the policy is to enforce "democracy," Jonathan will have to think
again and come up with a clear and satisfactory definition of that
notion within the context of West Africa. I already showed in my
previous posts on this subject, that there is no definable standard of
the term in that neighborhood, let alone in the world at large, as the
Honduran coup demonstrates. But I'd reiterate as an illustration to
flesh up my argument here just two examples I have previously given:
1) Blaise Compraoré, the president of Burkina Faso, has so
successfully emptied the notion of democracy of all its substance that
he's been clinging to power for more than two decades (thanks to his
own definition of democracy);
2) In Niger, a military junta has actually saved democracy by staging
a coup against a democratically-elected president who was about to
subvert democracy by changing the constitution so as to allow him to
stand for re-election indefinitely, just like his colleague in Burkina
Faso. And the Niger example also shows that there's nothing that
guarantees that when the time comes Ouattara wouldn't repeat his
predecessor's malpractice.
Would then Nigeria intervene in Côte d'Ivoire again and again?
Carl von Clausewitz also qualifies his definition of war by saying that:
"No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do
so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve
by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
It is obvious to me that Goodluck Jonathan has taken leave of his
"senses" as "democracy," as I have briefly shown, is not a clearly
definable notion, let alone an achievable policy goal warranting war
in the region. Even in a country with a strong civil society such as
Nigeria, democracy is still teetering on the brink of sharia,
inter-ethnic and religious violence and terror, as well as a
separatist pull in the Niger Delta. If anything, that's where Jonathan
ought to start his war for democracy, according to the old adage:
"Charity starts at home." Besides, the fact that there's not so much
of a domestic debate over the advisability of Nigeria starting this
war is in itself a commentary on Nigerian democracy.
Closely related to this point is the questionable self-appointment of
Nigeria as the "democracy" cop in the regional precinct of West
Africa. A self-appointment that shows Nigeria's hubris and ambition at
dominating West Africa. I predict that this naked ambition would end
up breaking up ECOWAS, preventing further integration within the
regional organization, and serving as a deterrent to other African
states from joining what they'd perceive as "imperial" regional
organizations...
There are also what Clausewitz calls "frictions" (impediments or
imponderables) once war starts, as no war unfolds according to plan.
Well, Abidjan and other major cities could fall without much
resistance as some anticipate that the Ivorian army might suddenly be
incentivized with money to switch sides, and Gbagbo killed or
captured.
But what if "frictions" turn out to be much costlier than anticipated,
with, among other developments, a full-blown insurgency that could
paralyze the country's economy and government, and get Nigerian troops
bogged down in a war of attrition? There's also the dangerous notion
being contemplated by some others, of having the northern rebel Forces
Nouvelles fight alongside Nigerian troops, just as the Northern
Alliance did alongside coalition troops in the invasion of
Afghanistan. Left to their own devices, Nigerian troops and security
forces are natural-born barbarians renowned for their ruthlessness and
their summary executions of civilians; summary executions which did in
fact routinely occur when Nigeria participated in ECOMOG forces in
Liberia in 1990 and still occur in Nigerian cities every day. Add to
that unstable mix the unruly Forces Nouvelles, and you get an
explosive mess that would render the military intervention a murderous
undertaking.
The solution to the Ivorian crisis doesn't lie in a military
intervention, but in the "natural" implosion of the Gbagbo regime, as
the international community is keen on seeing it fall. There are
already UN and French forces on the ground who, if given the right
mandate, are able to make sure that chaos doesn't ensue in the
process. Inviting Nigerian soldiers into the imbroglio would result in
hefty collateral damage that would discredit democracy being
brandished about so menacingly...
0 comments:
Post a Comment