Buhari’s first major decision in office was the relocation of military HQTRS to Maiduguri from Abuja. He will leverage on this reposition to achieve his avowed pledge to defeat Boko Haram.
Since he gave the order, many people have in the media criticised the descision as no necessary strategy to win the battle against the killer group.
Other people have, however, hailed the president on the descision.
I want to rejoin this way: while I won’t disapprove of the descision the newest president in the world has taken, my approach, as I like to recommend to any president who is really serious on the war on terror will depart from Buhari and Jonathan’s aproaches.
The other time, I was locked in some arguments with one of my journalist friends, Rafiu Ajakaye, whether the approach Obama adopted in his war on terror, to the effect that he had to break another country’s territorial sovereignty, to get Osama in Pakistan, was right or wrong.
Ajakaye wanted the US to arrest Osama, try him in a law court and prove him guilty before killing him, and not to use solders to kill him head on where he was found in Abuttabad.
But I argued that fighting terrorists obviates all such protocol because war on terror is understood to be a new form of war and so it shall be entirely taken and seen; a new form of war that relaxes all known international laws for the war prosecutor to succeed.
Yes, of course, the law stipulates that a suspect is not guilty until so proven beyond all doubts in a court of law, yet not in a circumstance like fighting terror in a kind of war in which an attempt by the police to arrest say Shekau or Osama could trigger him to detonate suicide bombs that terrorists are known to be tying around their bodies to kill themselves and all other people arround them including the police who have gone to arrest them.
So, my submission would be that wherever the terrorists are found – or their leaders – they should be killed before they explode.
My approach, which is different from Jonathan’s and Buhari’s relocation of the military hqtrs is this: we know that we all kill mosquitos. Isn’t it? The reason we kill them is because they encroach on our rights as humans to live. When mosquitos bite they give malaria and malaria kills. Anything, therefore, that encroaches on our rights to live itself has no right to live. Boko haram like mosquitos have no right to live.
If we have established that terrorists have no right to live they must also have no right of fair hearing or no matter what the lawyers will want to say on this.
Now comes goodluck Jonathan’s mistake. Recall that before Boko Haram kidnapped the Chibok girls, the former president was asked to use superlative force to tame the insurgents, in fact massacre them. But he refused for the fear that he would be prosecuted for genocide. Jonathan failed in this regard.
As for Buhari, you cannot ask him ourightly to use chemical weapon to cleanse Sambissa forest, their hideout, because if the Chibok girls are there with them you wouldn’t know. This makes it a bit difficult for Buhari to fight to massacre the terrorists’ head-on the way anyone like me would want.
However, use of chemical weapon is still the most fashionable for Buhari if we all agree that terrorists have no right to live.
So, how should he go? I opine that he seeks Americans’ help to identify where the terrorist fighters are heavily concentrated, cordon it off and use WMD on them? But care should be taken so that such area shouldn’t be where the kidnapped girs are held so as not to kill them alongside in the operation. Or what do you say?