World leaders reacted with gusto to the news of the death of the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, following a raid on his hideout in the Syrian village of Barisha. He had detonated an explosive vest after running into a tunnel in an escape bid as US forces’ trained dogs went after him. The euphoria his ignoble exit was apparently informed by the thinking that the world would now have some respite from the brutal activities of a terrorist group that has spread its fangs across the world.
In this report, a security expert and policy analyst, author, former director, Nigerian Airforce and former Special Advisor, National Security Affairs to the National Security Adviser in the Presidency under three consecutive Nigerian governments, Dr Dan Mou examines the consequences of al-Baghdadi’s death, the place of Boko Haram in the comity of terrorists and why the Nigerian government has not been able to eradicate insurgency. Mou is currently the Executive Chairman for the Centre for Poverty Eradication, Development and Equal Opportunity, Abuja.
Mou agrees that world leaders had reason to jubilate though “we shouldn’t technically jubilate the death of a person.” He explained his position thus: “It has become normal practice because terrorists have terrorised us for a long time, anytime any of their leaders or any key member of their group dies, it looks as if everybody feels happy about it, it is as if part of the problem has been taken away. We shouldn’t technically jubilate the death of a person. But when it is a terrorist, because they don’t care about others, anybody becomes their victim that is why terrorism is very dangerous. To terrorists, everybody is their enemy, and they don’t care whether it is soft target or civilian target or civilian population, whether it is children or women. So, anytime their leader is destroyed or killed or commit suicide, we see it as a blessing because the level of atrocities has been reduced. So, basically that was how I interpreted his death, God has taken that one away and I hope it should bring weakness in their leadership and reduce the atrocities that they are committing.
Even as he approved the jubilation that trailed al-Baghdadi’s death, Mou insists that it will have only a momentary positive impact on the fight against terrorists’ world-wide. “Every time a terrorist leader dies, it can only but has momentary impact. The reason is because they always have deputy commanders, assistant commanders that they have trained over the years. They also have loyalists, it is just like a normal conventional force.
“For example, the fact that the Chief of Defence Staff or Chief of Army is dead does not mean that members of the entire force are dead, there are always deputies and assistants that can take over from there. But what it does is that when a leader is destroyed, it takes time for them to regroup or reorganise themselves. So, I expect that it will be the same situation.
“Now that al-Baghdadi is dead, I expect that his deputies will reorganise themselves before they take over. So, the fact that there is a group now saying that they are prepared to take over from there is an indication that he has some loyalists and deputies who will continue with the fight. Most of them know they are going to die, so they start to train leadership even while they are alive, that has become the problem of terrorism in the West.”
Mou was quick to explain the leadership qualities of terrorist groups, using Boko Haram to drive home his argument. “In the case of Boko Haram in Nigeria , when its founder and first leader, Mohammed Yusuf was killed or died in police cell as the case was, it did not take long before a successor, Abubakar Shakau took over and that was a sign of a leader.
“They may be doing negative things but they have leadership qualities. Three of the most important qualities are that 1. You have deputies that know what you are doing and know the vision and share the ideological position of the movement. 2. You have those that have committed themselves to take over from you when you are gone and 3. There are those you reveal to, the source of funding, arms, etc you are getting.
“So, there are many reasons why they can easily take over after a momentary lull in their activities. Therefore, I’m not expecting a difference. Of course, it will affect some people who are loyal to him, who may carry on.
Mou however points out the period of the momentary lull that takes place after the leader of a terrorist group dies should be exploited by national governments to act and destroy the group. “But it is a good opportunity when a leader dies, at that time if the national military fighting them can act immediately is a good time to destroy them. But if you give them some time, they can regroup as it has happened in Nigeria and come back even as a more dangerous group
Is Mou suggesting that the United States and other countries like Nigeria have not acted fast hence groups like Islamic State and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) emerged after the death of Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden and Boko Haram’s leader Muhammed Yusuf respectively?
“You see, that’s part of the problem. We tend to jubilate too much the passing away of a terrorist leader or the killing of a terrorist leader. What I’m saying is that terrorism is done as group and they have hierarchies. You will realise that when you have a leader, deputy, inner caucus who have committed themselves to the course and (you know) they go into secret pact, including blood covenant, etc, it is true that sometimes, government wants to give the impression that they are doing well, including the United States and other governments.
“So, when a leader dies, they over blow the significance of what has happened. But the truth of the matter is that if a leader dies and you did not take immediate action to finish the group, they can regroup themselves and the terrorism will continue. You have to realise that you are not fighting one person, you are fighting a group that has hierarchy. We have to learn to appreciate that better.”
Ask Mou what how he would advise national governments, particularly the United States and Nigeria how to completely eradicate insurgents linked to al-Baghdadi’s enclave now that he is dead, he said: “I will ask them to do three things: 1. To intensify the fight on the remnants of the troops that he left. Even in a conventional military when the commander is killed, there is a momentary confusion. Under that process of momentary confusion, if you attack them, they are more venerable. They become more venerable when they lose a leader because when they lose a leader, it takes a while for them to reorganise.
2. That when a leader like this is lost, it is also an opportunity to get some of them to surrender their arms because those who are not very close to the leader when they hear that the leader is gone, particularly the general troops, they will think that t is the end of the battle. If you can get some of them and even lobby them, they will lay down their arms and surrender.
“It is also a good opportunity at that time because it is an ideological battle and the leader normally has the most fundamentalist ideological position. Some of the followers may not be that radical while there are some who may be more radical, so it depends, you will need to study the situation case by case to be able to understand what to do.
“In this particular case, the reason why President Trump was able to get the Islamic State out of Iraq was because once there was such a vacuum, he now used the local force that was fighting along with US forces to move against them. So, they were able to crush them. Remember that they went to reorganise. Therefore, if the US and its allies, including Nigeria can act immediately when a leader of a terrorist group has been destroyed or has destroyed himself or has been killed in battle, it is best opportunity to take control of such terrorist organisation(s) and destroy them.
When asked pointedly if he sees the Nigerian military taking advantage of momentary lull in IS camp following the death of al-Baghdadi to launch a more forceful push into Boko Haram enclave, Mou answer was an emphatic “no.”
“No. We always forget that we are fighting an ideological battle. There are four different types of terrorist activities in the world: 1. there is the religions terrorism. Religious terrorism is based on the belief that if you die in battle, Allah will accept you and give you good conditions in heaven, so it is an ideological thing. Religious terrorism is the most difficult one to control.
2. Herdsmen kidnapping in Nigeria is classified internationally as terrorist group. But this one is economic expansionist terrorists who are looking for better areas for themselves and better territories to conquer. These ones are less dangerous and easier to control than religious terrorism.
3. Then, you have economic territory defense terrorism like the one we use to notice in the Niger Delta. They want to protect their economic resources against the Death government and other people taking them from them.
4. Also, we have separatist terrorist movement whose target is to have an independent nation out of an existing nation. So, there are different types of terrorism and they are not the same. The point I’m making here is that Islamic terrorism is the most difficult one because their ideology is based on what they call the Koran, whether it is true or not.
“But other Muslims say it is not true, they are able to explain that the fundamentalist position that the Islamic terrorists are taking is not the position of Islam and that Islam is for peace. But the fact that they believe that if they die, Allah will accept them and give them better conditions in heaven, so it is an ideological thing. And that is why you cannot win them just in the battle front, you also have to fight an ideological battle.”
AFP NEWS
