George Reisman stated in his book "Capitalism": "America is not a geographical location, but a body of knowledge and values." He is particularly fond of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and rational self-interest, reason, individual rights and private property. What is your philosophy, your "body of knowledge and values" dear Sahelians? Learn it!!!
Although I agree that a centralised state with a monopoly on violence is the ideal solution, I'm afraid striving for that is unrealistic in the Sahelian conflicts.
From what I understand, most of the violence comes from agriculturalists vs nomadic pastoralists fighting over land. You didn't elaborate on how the civil militia system works, but a village level militia might be only viable solution at the moment. That's after all how Jamestown and many subsequent American towns were organised. You get guns and a citizen's assembly and you use these tools to defend your property from the natives. National conscription might also be necessary to check the authority and corruption of the centralised military.
You might claim that setting up a civilian militia for land owners will make state centralisation in the long run harder even if the short term problem is sorted out. But, as they say, in the long run we're all dead anyways.
1) Then what is the major driver of conflict in the Sahel?
2) Then what is your solution to the persistent ethnic and regional conflict in Sub Saharan African countries? I will admit I might more sympathetic to separatist movements since my country is the only one that managed to get unilateral succession after the formation of the UN.
1) I think you have an unrealistic expectation for African states. State formation is a very long and often very brutal process. It's done via military competition.
2) You might have more expertise in this field and I respect that. But you can't say something as retarded as "read these three books". You're the academic here. If you read a bunch of books and can't summarise the content to a layman, what exactly did you learn exactly. That's literally your job.
Yeah, the above suggestion (citizen militiae) would basically just outsource the genocide of nomads, and then greatly exacerbate the (more serious) ideological/religious conflicts.
What happens when the villagers decide they are now proud warriors for Allah? Or jiahdists notice there are a few men with guns who can be gang-pressed into service by essentially taking the whole village hostage?
The reason you don't see many militiae outside American history is not because Americans have the unique self-reliance gene, it's because in any other contexts those militiae would have been swallowed by a bigger force almost immediately
Related comment- there is a strong pull across nearly every counter-insurgency operation I’ve studied to involve civilians-regardless of whether the COIN campaign was conducted by a “strong” and “weak” states. US and French forces utilized local militia in various forms in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria. Admittedly it often ended up being a bad idea- but the drive to equip these forces is often driven by communal fighters grasp of local dynamics as much as the need for additional forces. Kalyvas’ “logic of violence in civil wars” really lays out this dynamic of local-national alliance making as being the core dynamic behind civil war violence (and not a result of pre-war state “weakness”)
Uganda (arrow boys) and Rwanda (LDF) have often been able to strike a better balance of utilizing local actors and without stoking inter communal tensions- but it’s really hard and they have also seriously messed up (in Ituri).
Given that both strong and weak states use local armed militia kind of shows the wisdom of the tatic. There are obviously problems with such a set-up but you have to compare it against the alternative. Besides America tried to create a centralised state in Afghanistan and threw a trillion dollars at the problem and didn't create a sustainable state institution. Sahel is debately harder to govern.
This is the Sahel and you have to make the best out of a bad situation.
I sort of half agree. I guess I also think that most of the existing African countries shouldn't exist. There should be smaller countries formed that reflects the ethnic characteristics of African populations. I know this is going to be a messy and violent process but I don't see they're supposed to move toward otherwise.
Well, I was curious. I saw that you wrote that your country gained independence after the UN was formed. So, I put 1 and 1 together. In any case, I am from Nigeria which is across the border from Niger. Ken Opalo, who from Kenya, a few thousand miles away in East Africa, obviously does not fully understand the conflicts raging in the Sahel.
In Mali, there are two parallel conflicts. The one conflict is 60-year-old ethnic conflict between Tuareg secessionists and the Malian state. The other conflict is between terrorist jihadists and the Malian state. In Chad, it is also a dual conflict--Tuareg Separatists vs Chadian State and Jihadi terrorists vs Chadian State. In Burkina Faso, it is straightforward Jihadists vs the Burkinabe State.
So, I don't understand what he is arguing when he says that juntas are not harnessing popular sovereigntist sentiments to make the political case against the insurgencies. Jihadists don't give a damn about "sovereigntist sentiments". They are terrorists who have openly declared their alliance with Al-Qaida and ISIS
I see. Why are so many of these countries incapable of managing this jihadist problem? Are they popular or at least tolerated in the population? Are they funded by foreign international organisations? Is the government just incapable in establishing law and order?
A sober but extremely clear article. Thank you Ken!
A great article! On negotiating with the insurgents in Mali I wrote this a few years ago: https://dandurand.uqam.ca/publication/retablir-le-cycle-precedents-historiques-et-avenir-potentiel-des-negociations-de-paix-au-mali/
Niger, Biden's Second Military Extraction Blunder After Afghanistan https://shorturl.at/cgnB8
George Reisman stated in his book "Capitalism": "America is not a geographical location, but a body of knowledge and values." He is particularly fond of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and rational self-interest, reason, individual rights and private property. What is your philosophy, your "body of knowledge and values" dear Sahelians? Learn it!!!
Although I agree that a centralised state with a monopoly on violence is the ideal solution, I'm afraid striving for that is unrealistic in the Sahelian conflicts.
From what I understand, most of the violence comes from agriculturalists vs nomadic pastoralists fighting over land. You didn't elaborate on how the civil militia system works, but a village level militia might be only viable solution at the moment. That's after all how Jamestown and many subsequent American towns were organised. You get guns and a citizen's assembly and you use these tools to defend your property from the natives. National conscription might also be necessary to check the authority and corruption of the centralised military.
You might claim that setting up a civilian militia for land owners will make state centralisation in the long run harder even if the short term problem is sorted out. But, as they say, in the long run we're all dead anyways.
Always great to see your comments.
You are wrong on the drivers of conflicts. And also wrong on the idea that Africa needs more countries.
I would highly recommend reading the books I included in the footnotes.
1) Then what is the major driver of conflict in the Sahel?
2) Then what is your solution to the persistent ethnic and regional conflict in Sub Saharan African countries? I will admit I might more sympathetic to separatist movements since my country is the only one that managed to get unilateral succession after the formation of the UN.
State weakness. And the solution is to strengthen African states instead of imagining that ever smaller states will somehow be stronger.
I know no one likes to read these days, but if you are interested in understanding this question I really recommend the reading list below.
1) I think you have an unrealistic expectation for African states. State formation is a very long and often very brutal process. It's done via military competition.
2) You might have more expertise in this field and I respect that. But you can't say something as retarded as "read these three books". You're the academic here. If you read a bunch of books and can't summarise the content to a layman, what exactly did you learn exactly. That's literally your job.
To be fair, it’s not my job to answer your questions. Always great seeing you in the comments, though.
And in my day job, I typically recommend reading when a student is new to a topic then we discuss it having gotten over elementary basics.
That was the spirit here.
Fair enough
The main drivers of issues in Sahel (really just Mali/Niger) have both external and internal issues:
External:
Violent extremists who came in to Mali/Niger post Algerian Civil War (2002) and post Libyan Civil War(2011)
Internal:
Tuareg oppression and lack of opportunities.
Yeah, the above suggestion (citizen militiae) would basically just outsource the genocide of nomads, and then greatly exacerbate the (more serious) ideological/religious conflicts.
What happens when the villagers decide they are now proud warriors for Allah? Or jiahdists notice there are a few men with guns who can be gang-pressed into service by essentially taking the whole village hostage?
The reason you don't see many militiae outside American history is not because Americans have the unique self-reliance gene, it's because in any other contexts those militiae would have been swallowed by a bigger force almost immediately
Related comment- there is a strong pull across nearly every counter-insurgency operation I’ve studied to involve civilians-regardless of whether the COIN campaign was conducted by a “strong” and “weak” states. US and French forces utilized local militia in various forms in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria. Admittedly it often ended up being a bad idea- but the drive to equip these forces is often driven by communal fighters grasp of local dynamics as much as the need for additional forces. Kalyvas’ “logic of violence in civil wars” really lays out this dynamic of local-national alliance making as being the core dynamic behind civil war violence (and not a result of pre-war state “weakness”)
Uganda (arrow boys) and Rwanda (LDF) have often been able to strike a better balance of utilizing local actors and without stoking inter communal tensions- but it’s really hard and they have also seriously messed up (in Ituri).
Although it definitely takes the “weak state” outsourcing violence frame (which to be clear is not wrong, just incomplete imo) flagging ICG’s report on the subject: https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/sierra-leone/251-double-edged-sword-vigilantes-african-counter-insurgencies
Loved the article Ken- always so refreshing to read something honest and not a blind rehashing of the same 2-3 points that dominate the discussion.
Given that both strong and weak states use local armed militia kind of shows the wisdom of the tatic. There are obviously problems with such a set-up but you have to compare it against the alternative. Besides America tried to create a centralised state in Afghanistan and threw a trillion dollars at the problem and didn't create a sustainable state institution. Sahel is debately harder to govern.
This is the Sahel and you have to make the best out of a bad situation.
I sort of half agree. I guess I also think that most of the existing African countries shouldn't exist. There should be smaller countries formed that reflects the ethnic characteristics of African populations. I know this is going to be a messy and violent process but I don't see they're supposed to move toward otherwise.
I take it you are from Bangladesh?
Yeah?
Well, I was curious. I saw that you wrote that your country gained independence after the UN was formed. So, I put 1 and 1 together. In any case, I am from Nigeria which is across the border from Niger. Ken Opalo, who from Kenya, a few thousand miles away in East Africa, obviously does not fully understand the conflicts raging in the Sahel.
In Mali, there are two parallel conflicts. The one conflict is 60-year-old ethnic conflict between Tuareg secessionists and the Malian state. The other conflict is between terrorist jihadists and the Malian state. In Chad, it is also a dual conflict--Tuareg Separatists vs Chadian State and Jihadi terrorists vs Chadian State. In Burkina Faso, it is straightforward Jihadists vs the Burkinabe State.
So, I don't understand what he is arguing when he says that juntas are not harnessing popular sovereigntist sentiments to make the political case against the insurgencies. Jihadists don't give a damn about "sovereigntist sentiments". They are terrorists who have openly declared their alliance with Al-Qaida and ISIS
I see. Why are so many of these countries incapable of managing this jihadist problem? Are they popular or at least tolerated in the population? Are they funded by foreign international organisations? Is the government just incapable in establishing law and order?