Vacuous uninformed criticism trailed my initial post "Truth about United States Military Aid to Nigeria". Vacuous for only two respondents relevantly challenged raised issues questioning my take and discoursed issues concerning the overall state and composition of the Nigerian Armed Forces vis-à-vis international peacekeeping.

From the two challenging responses, only Mr. Gerry Ikhazabor’s prompting, to discourse not issues and problems with the armed forces but aspects to be improved upon to enhance the overall capacity of the Nigerian Armed Forces attracts my attention.

Previously, certain relevant issues effecting Nigeria’s military composition and conduct vis-à-vis peacekeeping and otherwise were considerately overlooked in "The Truth about United States Military Aid to Nigeria" for several reasons.

An important aspect I’ll now briefly discourse is the issues of legality and the rule of law. Firstly, I believe the current state and composition of the Nigerian Armed Forces truthfully reflects our socio- cultural identity.

That identity is undergoing transformation. My worry is transformation to what? There’s a process and an attempt but the socio-ideological direction isn’t defined. There is talk about democracy. Good. But how many politicians really have and understanding of what democracy is. Are we really pursuing democracy? Or are we pursuing capitalism?

While the uncertainties are ignorable as per how they effect civil society the same cannot be the case as it effects the military component of society because of the military’s nature.

Law or its semblance is the mainstay of any culture or civilization. Law or its semblance is the mainstay of any society. The transcending personality of law is apparent not only by the way it shapes and regulates individuals and society but by the way international law now attempts to shape and regulate the conduct of warfare.

This regulation however appear utopian to most Armed Forces in the "New South" countries (developing nations). So discussing how law should interactively regulate the conduct of the Nigerian Armed Forces didn’t seem appropriate especially without the necessary capacity to facilitate due process.

Thus my observation that doctrinal principles of the Nigerian Armed forces be revised, modernized, made scientific and socio-compatible.

For, while internationally. Guiding principles of international law enshrined in the principles of the Geneva Conventions, its additional protocols and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter seek to enforce issues such as Rules of Engagement, strictly defining combatants status in conflict theaters. The applicability of these principles world over are continually challenged especially in conflicts in the "New South" regions.

Using the Nigerian Armed Forces as a case study in this instance. A force so doctrinally weak, whose ethos, command and control structures or its semblance are eroded, one wonders how enforceable these international legal principles covenants and conventions are.

Especially in Nigeria’s case, without an effectively functional process or regulatory mechanism even in issues of social interaction between the armed force, its personnel who are first and foremost components of society and citizenry and the general society.

I’ll briefly discourse issues from my last article. Firstly, for lack of alternative. I’m insisting on the positivity of Western assistance to capacity building component units and operational capability of the Nigerian Armed Forces. See chapter 5 page 5 of 8, Abiodun Alao’s-Sierra Leone: Tracing the Genesis of A Controversy (briefing # 58 June 1998) to get a clearer understanding of the operational/inter-operational and projection capability of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

Secondly, my statement on the non-importance of Nigeria or indeed any African country (South Africa and Egypt aside) except in an African context stands. Refer to literature and articles on world-international response to the Rwanda and Sierra Leone conflicts. The "world-international community" stood by as genocidal orgies prevailed in "these" strategically unimportant countries.

The policy of the western powers and strategic establishment is and always will be. "African solutions for Africa’s problems". Africa or indeed Nigeria is just not in the league, talk less of the big league of nations. Those of you living in the west and involved in or interactive with happenings in international development or politics will have better understanding.

Further note, the policy shifts in most western countries. As the United States leans towards isolationism in a sense. Liberal democracies like Canada are scaling down on tactical and operational level peacekeeping operations outside its sphere of geo-political or economic interest. Implications are countries such as Nigeria. Redefine and realign its foreign policy to reflect world shifts and its socio-economic interest.

Questions arising from a strategic perspective are why the Nigerian Armed Forces intervened initially in Liberia and then as an ECOMOG components force is Liberia and Sierra Leone? If that is answerable the next question is, most western and United Nations peacekeeping operations are planned with an exit date and plan. Does Nigeria have one in its involvement with ECOMOG? Finally, do Nigerians. The populace, have an understanding of why "their troops" should remain in Sierra Leone. As part of ECOMOG?

Finally, uninformed and insistent views that the Nigerian Armed Forces carried out successful peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone or even Liberia is a fallacy. A myth generated by a system dominated by "old think", a system that refuses to acknowledge its own shortcomings and failures.

Truth is, the Nigerian Armed Forces is capable. Very capable. And ongoing capacity building programs will further accentuate these capabilities.

Comparatively, the Nigerian Armed Forces isn’t the worst in Africa? A capability comparison with the Armed forces of Chad and Togo is proof. However, in comparison to the South African or Egyptian Armed Forces the other dominant regional armed forces on the African continent the state of our armed forces leave a lot to be desired.

As in my first post "The truth about United States Military Aid to Nigeria". I’m writing with joy because of the Guardian article Nigeria, UK to strengthen military ties (Thursday, May 31, 001). Obviously the benefit of a democratic Nigeria is finally bearing dividends even to the Nigerian military, which once held the nation to ransom.

I’m hoping the soon to be signed Memorandum of understanding on military co-operation will encompass conceptual frameworks on wholesome sustainable institution development and building to support ongoing security sector reforms. Importantly, I’m hoping for a change in strategy. Continues emphasis on ad hoc capacity building initiatives such as obtainable now will ultimately weaken Nigeria’s defense mechanism.

The strategic objective of our defense portfolio managers should be while re-training component forces and disciplines. The sustainable institutional re-development and re-building of strategic institutions like the National War College, the Command and Staff College, the National Institute for Policy and strategic studies, the Nigerian Institute for Intentional Affairs, the Nigerian Military school and the Foreign Service Academy etc. Programs in these institutions require scientific and quantitative evaluation re-evaluation and redevelopment.

Also important is while true that the armed forces concern itself with its constitutional tasks. And ongoing effort’s are directed to professionalizing and re-equipping the three component disciplines at the tactical and operational levels there is dire need to capacity build the strategic (decision making) level of the armed forces to ensure maintenance of positive control. There’s a high level of non-literacy amongst that Corp and that Corp appears more concerned with the mundane things of life.

Also, while government stresses the need for the armed forces to face its constitutional duties, government should facilitate a defined agenda for constitution, shape, doctrine and peacekeeping strategy for the armed forces and not only insist the armed forces stay away from the reins of power and public rulership.

Chido Okafor’s article "Army Deploys Troops to Warring Communities" (Guardian May 28, 001) perhaps represents the confused thinking in government circles. The response initiative sends negative signals especially to the international community.

It is reflectively bad when combat troops are continually sent in as peacekeepers in internal inter/intra communal or ethnic disputes/conflicts. A duty clearly for the civilian police.

Reason being that for conflict intervention or mediation to achieve peace and security within a community, law or the semblance of law must exist.

The three approaches to achieving peace in conflict situations are by Peacekeeping peacemaking and peace building. These approaches entail attempts to peaceably deescalate and resolve conflicts to achieve a level of security.

While peacekeeping and peacemaking are interactive in operation peace building aim’s at re-establishing trust through interaction. The objective being to achieve socio-economic interaction between the belligerents/antagonists.

The principles, skill sets and competencies to achieving peace, we know by nature, doctrine, training command and control. The Nigerian Armed Forces lacks. The armed forces aren’t trained nor equipped for matters of civil disobedience. Matters of civil disobedience are primarily meant for the civilian police.

If the government continually emphasizes on the constitutional role of the armed forces for the armed forces. The same government should adhere to the principle that the armed forces being a strategic force be applied only in situations of principle external threat to sovereignty, centers of gravity (key socio-economic installation’s) or geo-strategic spheres of interest.

By relevant issues I’m referring to issues pertinent to the Nigerian Armed Forces. Short and long term issues needing address to enhance capacity.

Primarily and of importance is the need for decision-makers policy formulators and strategic portfolio managers to rely on the principles of informed decision-making.

Principles based on strategic valuation consideration and possibly on Napoleons concept of "Tri-age"-expidiency.

For example, researched reasons for Nigeria’s initial intervention in Liberia range from the absurd to comments that then President I. Babangida sent Nigerian troops in support of his old course mate whose government was under threat? The question in this case being what informed strategic interest the then Nigerian government was protecting?

Other issues are to sustainbly seek to build defense and defense related institutions to ensure long-term gains. When the current trainers depart Nigeria the onus will fall on these institutions to continually train and build capacities to meet international standards. A task these institutions are currently ill-equipped and illfacilitated for

Further issues include the armed forces need to develop a viably funded strategic research unit to evolve research develop and operationalize the "Lessons Learned" capacity for the armed forces scientifically.

Finally continues recruitment of and appointment of officers to positions based on ethnic or geo-political affiliations should cease. I understand the need to consider variables in appointing to key military positions but these considerations should be assessed with the knowledge that quality, ethos, discipline and credibility of the services is at stake.

Conclusively, as I continually discourse the importance of the assistance to build the capacity of the Nigerian Armed Forces I’m hoping the government understands the strategic reasoning behind current western assistance.

I’ll quote from Prof. Claude Ake; "Africa is not winning the battle to control its development agenda, because the battle has been construed too narrowly as one over economic and political power. But it is much more than that. It also a struggle of ideas and knowledge…to begin with we ourselves have no faith in the power of scientific knowledge or in the ability to use it to solve problems…It is not very useful to lament incessantly the persistence of traditional and unpopular attitudes, which are detrimental to the production, and utilization of scientific knowledge. Why not problematize these problems scientifically and devise a means for changing these attitudes…. Without articulation, how to proceed and why, our march to development cannot really begin. " – From knowledge, public policy and development: The case of social science.20

.