Did Nigeria troops really did it?

The media and people have come to the point that Nigeria Really helped Sierra-Leone to recover from their Country crisis.

 Dear reader, Read along and you will discover the truth in my article here.

Soldiers stand guard during a military ceremony to honour war heroes (Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters)

Boko Haram’s five-year long insurgency shows no sign of abating. With the group now seemingly capable of seizing and holding territory, questions over the military’s competence have grown louder. To rescue the army’s wounded pride our military and political leaders often point to what they claim is the army’s “stellar credentials” in bringing peace to war ravaged countries. The ECOMOG missions in Liberia and Sierra-Leone in the 1990s, which the Nigerian military led, is often presented as the prime exemplar of the army’s competence in combat. I've lost count of how many times I've heard something like “our boys brought peace to Liberia and Sierra-Leone” whenever questions are raised over the badly mishandled war against Boko Haram. But just how true is this claim?

Nigeria’s commitment to restore peace and stability to the two West African countries was undoubtedly commendable – about $8 billion allegedly spent on the missions; up to 12,000 soldiers deployed; and approximately 1,500 killed-in-action, including Brigadier General Maxwell Khobe. By most estimates Nigeria provided 90 percent of the funding and about 80 percent of the total troops for both ECOMOG missions. This praiseworthy commitment notwithstanding, the fact is the military’s interventions in Liberia and Sierra-Leone failed to dampen the civil wars that ravaged those two countries.

 Brief background on Nigeria’s ECOMOG Interventions

Liberia

The civil war that destroyed Liberia lasted eight gruelling years, 1989-1997. The human toll of the conflict was shattering. Out of a pre-war population of 2.5 million, 200,000 – mostly civilians – would die, and 1.5 million would be scattered into neighbouring countries as destitute refugees.

On Christmas Eve 1989, Charles Taylor crossed into Liberia from Cote d’Ivoire with 168 armed fighters. Calling themselves the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), their stated aim was to overthrow Samuel Doe; the country’s dictator who had himself seized power in a bloody coup in 1980. The ranks of Taylor’s rebels rapidly swelled in number. Doe’s repressive and brutal decade long rule meant a significant section of the country was already seething with discontent by the time of Taylor’s incursion. The Liberian army, long crippled by decades of corruption, ethnic favouritism, and political manipulation buckled in the face of this motley band of ill-disciplined, Libyan trained, international rebel force (the nucleus of the NPFL reportedly consisted of mercenaries from an assortment of West African countries including Burkina Faso, Sierra-Leone, Gambia, Cote d’Ivoire – many of whom had received rudimentary training in Libya).

As the NPFL raced to Monrovia, the Liberian capital, they butchered civilians along the way – especially targeting Doe’s ethnic kinsmen and other ethnic groups they believed had done well under Doe. By the end of July 1990, the Liberian state had practically collapsed. With roughly 90 percent of the country under Taylor’s control, with Doe besieged in his Presidential residence, and with the NPFL and other ethnic militias having free rein in the capital, a generalized state of insecurity prevailed in the country. The Western Powers however, showed scant interest in the tragedy unfolding in Liberia; leaving West African states to scramble a sub-regional response.

In May 1990 at the behest of Babangida, Nigeria’s military ruler at the time, a five-member Standing Mediation Committee (SMC) comprising Nigeria, Ghana, Gambia, Mali, and Togo had been formed within ECOWAS to negotiate a political resolution to the crisis. Several rounds of mediation however produced no tangible results. Charles Taylor felt he was on the cusp of military victory; hence he had little incentive to commit to any political settlement that may have resulted in a power sharing arrangement. Under diplomatic pressure from Nigeria, the SMC recommended the deployment of a sub-regional peacekeeping force to intimidate the warring parties back to the negotiating table.

On the 7^th of August, ECOWAS established ECOMOG – the sub-regional force that was to enforce a ceasefire – initially comprising troops from Nigeria, Ghana, Gambia, Guinea, and Sierra-Leone. On the 24^th of August, the ECOMOG troops were inserted into Liberia: 3,000 initially, rapidly augmented to 6,000 within a month. ECOMOG forces would eventually peak at 16,000 in 1993, before tapering off to around 11,000 by early 1997. Nigeria, however, dominated the force – providing both the overall commander and between 75-80 percent of the total troops. Thus began Nigeria’s quest to pacify Liberia.

Sierra-Leone

It didn’t take long for the Liberian conflict to spill into Sierra-Leone. Sierra-Leone was a troop contributor to the ECOMOG mission in Liberia – with about 700 troops – and it had been a strong supporter of Nigeria’s muscular approach to the Liberian crisis. Sierra-Leone’s only international airport also served as the Nigerian military’s primary staging post for operations in Liberia. Charles Taylor therefore, keen to exact his revenge, facilitated the creation of a Sierra-Leonean rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). In March 1991, the RUF invaded Sierra-Leone from Liberia – igniting a brutal civil war that would consume the country for the next eleven years. By 2002 when the war ended, 50, 000 civilians had perished and 2.5 million people had either become internally displaced or had fled to neighbouring countries.

The RUF incursion prompted calls within Sierra-Leone for the redeployment of the country’s ECOMOG contingent for internal security duties at home. But Babangida, keen to blunt perceptions of ECOMOG being a Nigerian show (there was already considerable disquiet within West African capitals over Nigeria’s overwhelming dominance within ECOMOG

Nigerian policy however was limited to bolstering the security of the capital city, Freetown. This insulated Nigerian soldiers from direct participation in the escalating civil war ravaging the countryside. Events in May 1997 would finally drag Nigeria into the Sierra-Leonean vortex.

Much like Liberia, Sierra-Leone had suffered decades of predatory rule which had caused state institutions, including the military, to decay to the point of collapse. By the mid-90s, Sierra-Leone resembled a “phantom state” devoid of any institutional capacity and utterly dependent on others to preserve its territorial integrity. Nigerian forces protected its capital from being overrun by the RUF, while a South African mercenary firm and a tribal militia made up of local hunters battled the rebel threat in the countryside.

On the 25^th of May 1997, taking advantage of the departure of the mercenary firm – their contract had been terminated in January by President Tejan Kabbah following international pressure – and barely one year into the country’s nascent democracy – Kabbah had only been elected the year before – a handful of semi-literate corporals and sergeants calling themselves the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) seized power in a coup d’état. Announcing their intention to bring an end to the civil war, they invited the rebels to come and join them in a coalition government. Given such a dramatic turn of events, Nigeria, being the Kabbah government’s protecting power, simply couldn’t allow such a humiliating affront to go unchallenged.

After an initially botched attempt to retake Freetown and reinstall Kabbah’s government on the 2^nd of June; Nigeria reinforced its forces in the bits of the capital it still controlled, worked to diplomatically isolate the AFRC/RUF regime, and with UN backing imposed a naval and air blockade on Sierra-Leone - all in a bid to force the usurpers from power. With the AFRC/RUF regime proving recalcitrant and unwilling to yield to these pressures however, Nigeria’s patience finally snapped. On the 6^th of February 1998, in a well-coordinated assault lasting about a week, Nigerian forces dislodged the AFRC/RUF regime and expelled the rebels from Freetown. The victory was nothing short of stunning. Buoyed by triumphalism, the victorious soldiers were ordered to pursue the RUF into the hinterland and militarily defeat them. Thus began Nigeria’s quest to pacify Sierra-Leone.

Why Intervene and Did It Succeed?

Why Intervention?

Babangida initially hoped to achieve two objectives by sending Nigerian troops into Liberia: Force the warlords to commit to a political settlement, and contain the conflict from spreading to neighbouring countries. When it became clear that Taylor’s ambition of seizing state power for himself was the biggest obstacle to peace, two new objectives gradually took shape: Crippling Taylor’s war machine, and blocking his ascent to the Liberian Presidency. The reasoning being that with Taylor’s military machine broken and his ambition frustrated, he would be more likely to commit to a political solution.

In Sierra-Leone however, Abacha, Nigeria’s then military ruler, initially had a limited objective when he authorised Nigeria's direct intervention in the country’s civil war: Overturning the May 1997 coup and reinstating Kabbah to power. After Nigerian troops routed the rebels in February 1998 and restored Kabbah’s government, perhaps flushed with the impressive victory, a new objective emerged: Defeating the RUF and pacifying the entire country. There was also a secondary objective which led Abacha to opt for intervention. In the 1990s Nigeria was under limited sanctions due to Abiola’s incarceration and the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa and his colleagues. Therefore to improve the battered image of his regime and stave off the threat of more stringent sanctions, Abacha, a military dictator at home, decided on military intervention to safeguard a fledgling democracy abroad.

A further implicit reason which powerfully shaped Babangida’s and Abacha’s decisions to commit Nigerian troops in Liberia and Sierra-Leone has been attributed to a deep-rooted belief, shared by most Nigerians, in the country’s destiny as West Africa’s leading power. The interventions were therefore meant to demonstrate that Nigeria could police its turbulent neighbourhood and shape the security environment of the sub-region.

Did the Interventions Succeed?

Geopolitically, the interventions improved Nigeria’s image. The attempts to pacify Liberia and Sierra-Leone through the near unilateral use of military power enhanced Nigeria’s claim to sub-regional leadership. Many commentators saw the country’s leading role in ECOMOG as an indication that Anglophone West Africa finally possessed what the Francophone sphere had in France for decades: A hegemon with the power and resolve to stabilise weak regimes and reverse the tide of collapse in failing states. Without Nigeria’s diplomatic and political leadership, and military and financial commitment, the ECOMOG missions to Liberia and Sierra-Leone would have never gotten off the ground. The geopolitical achievement however, should not obscure the fact that Nigeria failed in its political and military objectives.

Liberia

In Liberia, all four objectives of (1) forcing the warlords to durably commit to a political settlement, (2) containing the conflict from spreading, (3) crippling Taylor’s war-machine, and (4) denying him the presidency were not achieved. On the first objective, while many peace agreements were signed, the agreements merely bought the warlords time to recuperate for the next round of fighting. Hence, each failed not long after being signed. On the second objective, the spread of the Liberian conflict into Sierra-Leone put paid to that hope. On the third and fourth objectives, Nigerian forces was neither able to decisively break Taylor’s war-making resolve, nor perpetually frustrate his ascent to the Liberian presidency. In fact Nigeria, recognising it couldn’t militarily defeat Taylor, eventually reconciled itself to a Taylor presidency.

Abacha, who came to power in 1993 and therefore inherited Babangida’s Liberia mission, reportedly didn’t share the same antipathy that Babangida had for Taylor. The lack of personal animosity between the two men paved the way for Taylor’s visit to Nigeria to meet with Abacha in June 1995 to settle differences. This rapprochement eventually culminated in Taylor’s election to the Presidency in 1997 with Nigerian acquiescence – thereby bringing an end to Liberia’s first civil war. Many observers were left wondering what exactly had been achieved: Taylor was exactly where he would likely have been seven years ago without ECOMOG’s intervention. Taylor himself, commenting on the outcome, wryly observed: “If we had been allowed to win on the battlefield, we would have finished the war in six months in 1990”.

This peace however would prove illusory. Within a year of his coming to power, Taylor, citing sovereignty concerns, told ECOMOG to leave. And within two years, his repressive rule would eventually plunge Liberia into another civil war which would last four years, 1999-2003. Abandoned by former allies and faced with encirclement by two rebel armies, Taylor finally relinquished power in August 2003. If anything, it is the outcome of this second war that is the source of Liberia’s current peace. And Nigeria played absolutely no military role in it – save for sending peacekeepers to monitor the ceasefire which concluded the war. So the notion that the Nigerian army won the Liberian civil war and brought peace to the country is simply false.

Sierra-Leone

Nigerian reinforcements arriving in Freetown, Sierra-Leone (Getty Images)

The army’s efforts in Sierra-Leone were met with similar disappointment. The main objective of defeating the RUF was not achieved. In fact reading Brigadier Adeshina’s (rtd) The Reversed Victory, one gets the distinct impression that Nigerian forces came within a hair’s breadth of strategic defeat.

After dislodging the rebels from Freetown and restoring Kabbah’s government in February 1998, Nigerian troops met with initial success as they probed deeper into Sierra-Leone to seek out and destroy the RUF. As the troops advanced, the rebels melted before them. In April, Kono District, the main diamond producing centre and the country’s economic nerve-centre, fell to Nigerian troops. Many other cities similarly fell to Nigerian troops – often after a token defence by retreating RUF forces. Outright military victory seemed imminent. What was happening however, as has been chronicled by Lansana Gberie, a leading scholar on Sierra-Leone’s civil war, was that the RUF “avoided confrontation” with Nigerian troops during this phase. Having been badly mauled earlier in the Freetown battle, the rebels instead retreated to their forest redoubts to rejuvenate and rebuild their shattered force. And the Nigerian army, lacking in “counterinsurgency training, failed to pursue the rebels to their hideouts, preferring conventional assaults against towns”. 

As the rebel strength recovered, their attacks on Nigerian positions increased in intensity and frequency – first only hitting isolated outposts with hit-and-run attacks, eventually mutating into conventional assaults on supposedly well dug-in Nigerian positions. By October, the momentum had palpably shifted in favour of the RUF. In December, now with the wind in their sails, the rebels mounted a lighting month-long offensive which saw them reconquer the northern and eastern portions of the country. According to Brigadier Adeshina, so total was Nigeria’s collapse in the north and the east that in some sectors the rebels captured strategically vital towns “without firing a shot while pursuing our boys”.

On the 6^th of January 1999, just under a year after they were forcibly dislodged from the capital, the RUF stormed Freetown again, intent on reconquering it. In a bruising battle lasting just under a month, Nigerian troops managed to expel the rebels and reassert control over the capital city. As the rebels retreated, leaving carnage in their wake, the belief that Nigeria could win a decisive military victory on the Sierra-Leonean battlefield evaporated.

Lansana Gberie perfectly captures the surprise which many felt at the revival in the RUF’s military power, particularly as it was believed they were on their backs just a couple of months ago: “The spectacular resurgence in rebel activities caused much bewilderment. How was it that a group that had been routed from power without much resistance, that had seen its control of nearly 70 percent of the country reduced to scattered and isolated parts of northern and eastern Sierra-Leone, and had been all but pronounced dead, resurge with such power and destructiveness?”

The Sierra-Leonean President who, during Nigeria’s early successes, had initially resisted calls for a political settlement to the civil war bowed to reality. He signed a controversial peace agreement with the rebels in July 1999 which granted them blanket immunity and cabinet positions – the leader of the RUF was made Vice President and minister of natural resources. The UN was called in to monitor the newly agreed ceasefire and co-administer with ECOMOG the disarming and demobilisation of the rebels.

This proved a false dawn. The RUF, rather than disarm and demobilise as per the peace agreement, instead harassed UN peacekeepers – in many cases stripping them of their weapons, and occasionally holding them hostage. Concluding that the UN peacekeepers and ECOMOG forces were too weak and demoralised to confront them, in May 2000 the RUF massed for yet another assault on Freetown. The deployment of British troops finally stabilized the volatile situation, and forced the rebels to disarm and demobilise. This was what created the condition for durable peace to return to Sierra-Leone.

Commenting on the outcome of Nigeria’s intervention, Gberie delivers this withering verdict: “Almost every observer concluded, after the January 1999 attack on Freetown, that the Nigerian-led ECOMOG force had failed, and failed disastrously. And no one failed to notice that it was the robust presence of the British troops that prevented the total collapse of the UN mission and a relapse into violence”. In reality, though a highly commendable effort, Nigeria's ECOMOG-led mission to Sierra-Leone failed to quell the civil war and restore peace to the broken country.

The less than impressive outcomes in Liberia and Sierra-Leone, and the current challenges in the fight against Boko Haram, underscore the urgent need for comprehensive military reform.

For me the most important lesson to be drawn from the ECOMOG missions is the urgent need for comprehensive and far-reaching reforms of the military. For anyone familiar with the military’s operational history, the current failures in the fight against Boko Haram will come as no surprise. For example, many of the deficiencies which hampered the effective use of military power in Liberia and Sierra-Leone – lack of combat readiness, poor planning, command failure, obsolete weaponry, supply shortages, corruption etc. – have also blunted the military’s operational effectiveness against Boko Haram.  If the same maladies that afflicted the military in combat operations twenty odd years ago still characterise its operations today, this tells me that the organisational rot in the armed forces is deep and pervasive. Without looking at the military’s operational history objectively, we will never recognise the need for urgent military reforms. And without comprehensive military reforms Nigeria will always struggle to deploy effective military power, whether abroad or at home.

Reasons people Join the Army.

When you hear the word “army”, what comes to mind? The responses you’d get from people vary widely. Some look upon the army as “the best thing that could ever happen to you” whilst others fear it and think of it as being “the LAST thing that will ever happen to you”!
A lot of people think they know what the army is like from watching films like Saving Private Ryan, playing Call of Duty and learning about World War II in school. The reality of everyday army life today is very different.
For anyone curious about why some people join the army, and for those who are considering joining and looking for reasons to back up their decision, this article’s for you.

Why do people join the army?
There are loads of possible reasons why individual people join the army, but here is a list  of 10 of the most common motivations behind joining:
1. A strong feeling that their purpose is to defend civilians and their country
Some feel like defending people is their calling in life. To them it feels like a meaningful and honourable way to spend their lives. This is their way to make a difference to better the world. They feel like they’re doing their bit. And this means a job in the army is a job a lot of people would be very proud of. It’s also great for boosting the self-esteem.
This tendency to look after our “tribe” and “territories” is closely linked to the animal instinct commonly seen in the wild where animals have an inborn need to defend their territories and communities. Chances are that we humans also possess an inborn need to defend ourselves, our offspring and our land when under attack. This is exactly what the army does.

2. The camaraderie
The army is famous for developing a sense of camaraderie between soldiers. It’s like a family who really understands you because they all go towards the same experiences together. This is particularly attractive to people who maybe weren’t the most popular kid in school, who seek acceptance which they struggled to achieve previously, and which the team-mentality of the army can provide. This camaraderie of course is a bonus to anyone, including people who have experienced a lot of acceptance in their lives before and want more of it.
As social creatures, not only do we have an intrinsic need for such connection with others, but we also have a strong inclination to work together as a team for the good of a bigger goal, as is done in the army. This tendency comes from our ancient hunting days when people had to cooperate on a hunt to kill a large prey animal, or else everyone starved. If our ancestors had not made us evolve into a generally cooperative species, getting armies to work together would have been a lot harder.
A lot of people enjoy the feeling of meeting people from all sorts of backgrounds, all coming together into one “family” in the army. It’s quite likely you’ll share some values with people who want to tread the same life path you’ve chosen.
3. Being a part of history
Throughout the course of human existence, armies have been at the core of key historical events. By being right in there in the midst of the action, you are securing your place in the pages of history, and adding to the story of the world which we weave every day. They are part of something bigger than themselves.



4. Some people like taking ACTION rather than sitting around debating matters
They have the same spirit of the “Action Man” figure!
The feeling you get when you get up and actually DO something is different from the feeling you get when you just think about it, or talk about it.  They want to get things done!
This links in with the fact that a lot of jobs in the army are outdoor and very active which is suitable to this temperament of people too.
In Ayurveda, there are 3 main types that people are classified into: Vata, Pita and Kapha. People with a high amount of Vata need to be active a lot of the time. They love physical activity, and keeping busy, and are the kind of people who would thrive on the high-action soldier’s life. Pita types are very fiery, quick-to-react and may be impatient, also leading them to enjoy the adrenaline rushes and fast-paced heat of the moment activities that can come with soldier life. Kapha types usually are more sedentary and slow to react and generally would prefer doing office work rather than running around on the field.




5. People who want adventure
A lot of young people are itching to get out of their small hometowns, out of boring lives with possibly few opportunities, and want to be independent, see the world and experience life for themselves. The army answers a lot of these needs, especially for people who perhaps can’t afford to go to university or to pay for round-the-world plane tickets. Not only this, but they also pay you for this experience.
Army life is an adventure by any definition. From the harsh training in the first year, to the potential to work with tanks or helicopters, and to the adrenaline buzz of being in dangerous situations. It’s really the ultimate adrenaline buzz for adrenaline junkies.
6. People who want to overcome their fear of death

Some people want to face their fear of death, and see an opportunity to do this by becoming a soldier who puts himself somewhat in the Grim Reaper’s peripheral vision. This is one of the reasons many people try to dissuade loved ones from joining the army, and is understandable, because going to fight is not without risk.
However, most people’s view of a soldier’s life is tinted by war movies and news stories. Risk is not as high as it was in World War II, and the news stories reporting the tragedies fail to put it into perspective: In non-military jobs, the death rates are higher, but they aren’t reported as much. When was the last time the news reported that a fisherman died on the job? Or that a scaffolder plummeted to his death? Believe it or not, careers as fishermen, deck engine-room hands and steel-erectors/ scaffolders are possibly more dangerous than a job in the army. Some statistics say that you are more likely to die in a car accident than in the army.
Having said that, a sizeable enough percent of people do die on the job in the army, so it is a risk that needs careful consideration before going forward with your decision. Go in with your eyes completely open knowing you may be facing death on the job. When faced with death and when under real threats, it can really change a person’s perspective on life.
When living on the edge, being faced with real danger, people can become more aware of the life that is pulsing through their veins. It helps make you more grateful for the little things and gives simple things a terrible sense of joy that you’re still around to enjoy them. Life is precious. You learn to savour each second of it. It also helps reinforce what really matters in life. You’ve got your life. Everything else is replaceable.

7. Some people are mostly motivated by the fact that you don’t need a whole lot of qualifications to get in, and it offers a chance to earn a reasonable income, with benefits

Apart from a stable pay, the army offers additional benefits. Depending on the country you serve in, benefits differ, but you often get free room and board, and in the US free medical and dental, and if you’re married, you could get housing and food allowance. You also learn skills on the job, many of which will serve you in civilian life.  You learn how to look after yourself when your life depends on it which is perhaps the ultimate skill that’s important to know. You also gain in maturity and responsibility when faced with serious situations.
In the USA it also helps you get an education which is a big plus.
8. Some people join because they like the tight structure of army life
Whilst the regimented lifestyle is not for everyone, some people thrive on it, and love being whipped into shape, kept fit and disciplined.
9. Carrying on the family tradition
Some families have generations of people who have served in the army, and there is a pressure on the kid to follow in the elders’ footsteps.

            
10. It helps men get in touch with their masculinity
This point is mostly for the boys. Being in the macho environment of the army can help people feel even more masculine than they already are. If they’re looking to nurture this side of them, the army is one way to do it. It can also generally help a person to toughen up

Awesome Things about military men to women that love them.

Military men seem pretty great at getting the ladies,
“Normal” guys love to write their appeal off as “the uniform,” or the fact that they’re usually in great shape. Sorry, boys, it’s not just those things, though the uniforms and muscles do help. But there’s a reason the military men you meet, more so than other hot men in uniform (think firefighters, police officers, the S.A.R.S guy), are either in relationships, or don’t seem to have a lot of trouble meeting women.
Here’s what they’ve got to offer. At the end of the day, most of these things are qualities any guy could bring to the table, if he really tried. Military men just already seem to have it:

 

1. Unquestionable loyalty.

Military guys have a higher calling; they’re committed to serving their country, and their loyalty to the nation will take them to war zones, disaster areas, and anywhere they’re called to. They also forge strong bonds with one another. You’ve seen “Band of Brothers,” you’ve heard of “no man left behind.” It’s all true. They commit themselves to a purpose, and to one another, all for a greater cause.
Women love knowing that a man can be loyal. Just knowing that they are capable of devoting themselves to something else outside of themselves shows a level of unselfishness and integrity that frankly, a lot of people in general don’t seem to have.

2. Global awareness.

They haven’t all gone to college. They haven’t all traveled the world on deployments. But they know what’s going on in the world, because it’s their job to know, and for many, it’s the reason they joined the military in the first place. A lot of people don’t follow the news regularly. Articles about, well, dating, often get more views and social media shares than stories about Boko haram, Alshabab, ISIS and so many bad guys you can ever imagine. Guys in the military are focused on what’s important, our national security, and helping the world as a whole become safer. Caring about things that actually matter is pretty hot. It means you’ve got your priorities straight.

3. They know how to make the most of their time.

They may deploy for six months at a time, maybe a whole year. They may have deployed once, or they may have deployed several times over the course of their careers. They have temporary duty assignments, they take classes, and they go to training, all across the country and the world. This means that they aren’t always with their loved ones very often, so when they are, they know how to make it count.
They want to do fun, simple things they missed while gone, like going to a sports game or eating at a local  place. They want to spend nights at home, catching up on movies that had been in theaters while they were deployed. They like going out with friends for beers, and spending holidays with family members, because this time is rare and treasured.

4. They don’t “ghost.”

Some guys prefer to disappear when they want to call something off. Women do it too. But no one likes it. It’s cowardly, a little bit rude, and very off-putting. But men in the military are, generally speaking, willing and able to tell it like it is. If they’re over it, they’ll be forthcoming and say as much. They’re less likely to play games, because frankly, they’re too busy to play games. The military also makes you mature much faster, and military guys seem to realize that stringing people along and disappearing is just childish.

5. They are so damn polite.

If you’re a woman, and can gain access to a military base, head to the base commissary. Take a walk around. Every door will be opened for you if there is a gentleman nearby who can do so. If you drop something, a man in uniform will pick it up. If you’re trying to carry something heavy and look like you’re struggling, it’s likely a military man will ask if you need any help. That’s just the way these men are. They’re conditioned to offer help, they like to be of service, and their mamas trained them right because with a military man, chivalry is definitely not dead. Did I mention that they will never let you pay for dinner?  In a Nigerian Military baseThey can ask you Baby Oku wetin you want na make we do for you.

6. They can teach you a lot of cool, new things.

Most women don’t have a lot of experience shooting guns, throwing a punch, lifting weights, or going on vigorous hikes. In every new relationship, partners teach one another new things and introduce each other to new hobbies. Military men usually have pretty cool hobbies that most women haven’t ever experienced. It’s fun to try out something completely different. It’s also very easy to get close and cuddly with your man when he’s teaching you to shoot a gun, or showing you how to throw a punch.

7. They’re protective.

Most women want to feel safe with their guy. It’s just biological. They want to feel like he can defend them in a dark alley at night, and like he can pick them up and carry them if their feet hurt from high heels. Military men usually know how to use a gun, they know how to throw a punch, and they have experience carrying fellow soldiers who may have been injured. It’s nice to know that if you need him to, your guy can take charge.

8. They like strong women.

A military guy wants his girlfriend or wife to be self-sufficient. They’re used to being around ladies in the military, who can do push-ups, sit-ups, and every other kind of “up” like a boss. The women they want to come home to are usually no different. Military guys usually encourage their partners to be able to take care of themselves, a) because they aren’t around a lot of the time, and b) because they like a lady who can keep up with them.

9. It’s fun to see them let their guard down.

When he’s in uniform at a work event, he can’t hold your hand or kiss you, at least in sight of others. He’s stone-faced, tough, and by-the-book. That’s why it’s so much fun to get him home. There’s something special about being able to turn that “tough guy” into a laughing, sweet, goofball, and seeing him for who he really is: a very ticklish overgrown kid who eats way too much candy and thinks burps are funny.

10. They want to commit.

These guys don’t have time to f*ck around. They move every 2-4 years on average, per military requirement, and it gets lonely. They usually want to have someone to come home to when they move to a new city and know no one. They want to have someone waiting for them when they get back from a combat zone. They become interested in settling down a little earlier in the life than the average guy, probably because circumstances make them grow up a lot faster. They don’t have much time to party or date around, so when they meet the “right girl,” they’re usually more ready to take the next step.

So did you have anything to say ? our dear readers.

THE GAME WITH NORTH KOREA AND U.S.A JUST GOT NASTIER

The United States military is preparing for a still-unlikely war with North Korea.

That’s the takeaway from two big stories that broke over the long weekend. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that US troops are actively holding training exercises specifically geared toward a possible war with North Korea. And the Associated Press reported on Monday that the US has now started sending ships and bombers toward the Korean Peninsula, beefing up its military presence in the region.

But that’s not all. It looks like Japan has started thinking about ways to evacuate thousands of its citizens from South Korea if war with North Korea does break out.

If you missed any of it because you wanted to enjoy a drama-free long weekend, no worries. We’ve got you covered.
America is preparing for a possible war with North Korea





War with North Korea doesn’t appear imminent, especially with the 2018 Olympics in South Korea due to start on February 9. But the US is preparing for that possibility all the same.

According to the Associated Press, the US has started moving planes, ships, and troops closer to North Korea. Three B-2 bombers are now positioned in Guam, a US territory with military bases only 2,200 miles away from country. That’s significant: The B-2 is the Air Force’s most advanced bomber — and it can carry nuclear weapons. The Air Force also sent six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to Guam.

On top of that, the USS Carl Vinson is on its way toward the western Pacific Ocean. The Navy says it’s for a regularly scheduled deployment, but North Korea may still find the move threatening. That’s because an aircraft carrier can, well, carry aircraft. Think of them as floating airports that the US can place near almost any country it wants. The US can put multiple attack planes on it, moving them much closer to their potential targets in North Korea should war break out.

There’s already another US aircraft carrier based in Japan, and a third may soon be heading toward the region as well. If all three of these carriers near North Korea at once, the country may start to feel nervous. After all, that would signal that the US has three sea-based airports ready for use in case of war.

And finally, the USS Wasp docked in southern Japan on Sunday. That ship carries troops and more than 30 planes, including the F-35 stealth fighter — one of America’s most advanced attack aircraft and one that would almost certainly be used if war with North Korea were to break out.

The New York Times also reports that US troops are in the midst of widespread training for a possible war with North Korea. In one exercise the Times reported on, troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina practiced moving troops and equipment during an artillery attack using 48 ships and helicopters. In another exercise above Nevada, about 120 soldiers simulated parachuting into an enemy’s territory while dark outside. And in yet another exercise, about 1,000 reserve soldiers honed how to move US forces abroad very quickly.

Taken together, this reveals a military-wide effort to prepare for a possible war against North Korea. But for now, there is no indication all of this practice will be put into actual use anytime soon.
Japan is preparing to evacuate its citizens in South Korea

The Japanese government is increasingly worried about the fate of its 60,000 citizens living in South Korea and has started looking into ways to get them out should a crisis with North Korea break out and South Korea’s airports become inoperable.

Here’s one of Japan’s plans: use military ships as evacuation shuttles. Japanese and American vessels would pick up fleeing citizens from Busan, South Korea’s second-largest city and the country’s largest port.

The ships would take passengers to Japan’s Tsushima Island, which is only about 30 miles from Busan. Those evacuees would head onward to Japan’s main island of Kyushu about 24 to 48 hours later.

Countries have contingency plans for all kinds of emergencies, so it’s no surprise that Japan and the US drew up a scheme to remove their citizens from harm’s way. But it’s still sobering to think that there is a chance — albeit a small one — that this plan might be put into action in the event of a war.
The US and its allies meet to end North Korea’s nuclear program

Officials from 20 countries are meeting in Vancouver on Tuesday to figure out how to get North Korea to stop its nuclear program. The US and Canada are co-hosts, and most of the countries represented are nations that helped South Korea fight the North in the 1950-1953 Korean War.

Getting North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons is a tough challenge. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un believes that having nuclear weapons — and missiles to deliver them to faraway targets — will ensure the regime’s survival by deterring foreign invasions. And now that Kim has a missile that can hit every part of the United States, it’s unlikely he’ll want to give up the weapons.

But these diplomats seem to think there are ways to push North Korea to the negotiating table. One of the proposals for discussion at the meeting is that the US and its allies should start intercepting ships headed for North Korea. That would help cut off trade with other countries, thereby starving the regime of money. It’s unclear as of now if countries will accept the proposal.

The move would fit nicely in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure and engagement” campaign against North Korea. The US has led a global effort to impose biting sanctions on North Korea in order to deny it funds for its nuclear program, but there are still no signs that Kim will consider stopping his program.

Here is another news from the new york times.

— Across the military, officers and troops are quietly preparing for a war they hope will not come.

At Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month, a mix of 48 Apache gunships and Chinook cargo helicopters took off in an exercise that practiced moving troops and equipment under live artillery fire to assault targets. Two days later, in the skies above Nevada, 119 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division parachuted out of C-17 military cargo planes under cover of darkness in an exercise that simulated a foreign invasion.

Next month, at Army posts across the United States, more than 1,000 reserve soldiers will practice how to set up so-called mobilization centers that move military forces overseas in a hurry. And beginning next month with the Winter Olympics in the South Korean town of Pyeongchang, the Pentagon plans to send more Special Operations troops to the Korean Peninsula, an initial step toward what some officials said ultimately could be the formation of a Korea-based task force similar to the types that are fighting in Iraq and Syria. Others said the plan was strictly related to counterterrorism efforts.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both argue forcefully for using diplomacy to address Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. A war with North Korea, Mr. Mattis said in August, would be “catastrophic.” Still, about two dozen current and former Pentagon officials and senior commanders said in interviews that the exercises largely reflected the military’s response to orders from Mr. Mattis and service chiefs to be ready for any possible military action on the Korean Peninsula.

The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.




President Trump’s own words have left senior military leaders and rank-and-file troops convinced that they need to accelerate their contingency planning.
Photo
During the 82nd Airborne exercise in Nevada last month, Army soldiers practiced moving paratroopers on helicopters and flew artillery, fuel and ammunition deep behind what was designated as enemy lines. Credit U.S. Army

In perhaps the most incendiary exchange, in a September speech at the United Nations, Mr. Trump vowed to “totally destroy North Korea” if it threatened the United States, and derided the rogue nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, as “Rocket Man.” In response, Mr. Kim said he would deploy the “highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history” against the United States, and described Mr. Trump as a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard.”

Mr. Trump’s rhetoric has since cooled, following a fresh attempt at détente between Pyongyang and Seoul. In an interview last week with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Trump was quoted as saying, “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un,” despite their mutual public insults. But the president said on Sunday that The Journal had misquoted him, and that he had actually said “I’d probably have” a good relationship if he wanted one.

A false alarm in Hawaii on Saturday that set off about 40 minutes of panic after a state emergency response employee mistakenly sent out a text alert warning of an incoming ballistic missile attack underscored Americans’ anxiety about North Korea.
A Conventional Mission

After 16 years of fighting insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, American commanding generals worry that the military is better prepared for going after stateless groups of militants than it is for its own conventional mission of facing down heavily fortified land powers that have their own formidable militaries and air defenses.

The exercise at Fort Bragg was part of one of the largest air assault exercises in recent years. The practice run at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada used double the number of cargo planes for paratroopers as was used in past exercises.

The Army Reserve exercise planned for next month will breathe new life into mobilization centers that have been largely dormant as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down. And while the military has deployed Special Operations reaction forces to previous large global events, like the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, those units usually numbered around 100 — far fewer than some officials said could be sent for the Olympics in South Korea. Others discounted that possibility.

At a wide-ranging meeting at his headquarters on Jan. 2, Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., warned the 200 civilians and service members in the audience that more Special Forces personnel might have to shift to the Korea theater from the Middle East in May or June, if tensions escalate on the peninsula. The general’s spokesman, Capt. Jason Salata, confirmed the account provided to The New York Times by someone in the audience, but said General Thomas made it clear that no decisions had been made

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, in several recent meetings at the Pentagon, has brought up two historic American military disasters as a warning of where a lack of preparedness can lead.

Military officials said General Milley has cited the ill-fated Battle of the Kasserine Pass during World War II, when unprepared American troops were outfoxed and then pummeled by the forces of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel of Germany. General Milley has also recently mentioned Task Force Smith, the poorly equipped, understrength unit that was mauled by North Korean troops in 1950 during the Korean War.

In meeting after meeting, the officials said, General Milley has likened the two American defeats to what he warns could happen if the military does not get ready for a possible war with North Korea. He has urged senior Army leaders to get units into shape, and fretted about a loss of what he has called muscle memory: how to fight a large land war, including one in which an established adversary is able to bring sophisticated air defenses, tanks, infantry, naval power and even cyberweapons into battle.

Speaking in October at the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army, General Milley called Pyongyang the biggest threat to American national security, and said that Army officers who lead operational units must prepare to meet that threat.

“Do not wait on orders and printed new regulations and new manuals,” General Milley told the audience. “Put simply, I want you to get ready for what might come, and do not do any tasks that do not directly contribute to increasing combat readiness in your unit.”

His concerns have drifted down to the Army’s rank and file. And troops at bases and posts around the world routinely wonder aloud if they will soon be deployed to the Korean Peninsula.

But unlike the run-up to the Iraq war, when the Pentagon had already begun huge troop movements in 2002 to prepare for the invasion that began in 2003, military officials insist that this is not a case of a war train that has left the station.

Operation Panther Blade

In the case of the 82nd Airborne exercise in Nevada last month, for instance, Army soldiers practiced moving paratroopers on helicopters and flew artillery, fuel and ammunition deep behind what was designated as enemy lines. The maneuvers were aimed at forcing an enemy to fight on different fronts early in combat.

Officials said maneuvers practiced in the exercise, called Panther Blade, could be used anywhere, not just on the Korean Peninsula. “Operation Panther Blade is about building global readiness,” said Lt. Col. Joe Buccino, a public affairs officer with the 82nd Airborne. “An air assault and deep attack of this scale is very complex and requires dynamic synchronization of assets over time and space.”

Another exercise, called Bronze Ram, is being coordinated by the shadowy Joint Special Operations Command, officials said, and mimics other training scenarios that mirror current events.

This year’s exercise, one of many that concentrate on threats from across the world, will focus extensively on underground operations and involve working in chemically contaminated environments that might be present in North Korea. It will also home in on the Special Operations Command’s mission of countering weapons of mass destruction.

Beyond Bronze Ram, highly classified Special Operations exercises in the United States, including those with scenarios to seize unsecured nuclear weapons or conduct clandestine paratrooper drops, have for several months reflected a possible North Korea contingency, military officials said, without providing details, because of operational sensitivity.

Air Force B-1 bombers flying from Guam have been seen regularly over the Korean Peninsula amid the escalating tensions with Pyongyang — running regular training flights with Japanese and South Korean fighter jets that often provoke North Korea’s ire. B-52 bombers based in Louisiana are expected to join the B-1s stationed on Guam later this month, adding to the long-range aerial firepower.

Pentagon officials said last week that three B-2 bombers and their crews had arrived in Guam from their base in Missouri.
Photo
Cho Myoung-gyon, the South Korean unification minister, left, and his North Korean counterpart, Ri Son-kwon, on Tuesday. Credit Yonhap, via Associated Press

But unlike the very public buildup of forces in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf war and the 2003 Iraq war, which sought to pressure President Saddam Hussein of Iraq into a diplomatic settlement, the Pentagon is seeking to avoid making public all its preparations for fear of inadvertently provoking a response by Mr. Kim, North Korea’s leader.

Last week, diplomats from North Korea and South Korea met for the first time in two years in a sign of thawing tensions. On Tuesday, Canada and the United States will host a meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, of foreign ministers from countries that supported the United Nations-backed effort to repel North Korean forces after the 1950 invasion of South Korea. The ministers are seeking to advance the diplomatic initiative forged by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson.

It is a balance that Mr. Mattis and senior commanders are trying to strike in showing that the military, on the one hand, is ready to confront any challenge that North Korea presents, even as they strongly back diplomatic initiatives led by Mr. Tillerson to resolve the crisis.

An exchange this month illustrated perfectly the fine line the Pentagon is walking, as an Air Force three-star general caught her colleague emphasizing military prowess perhaps a tad too much, and gently guided him back.

During a briefing with reporters on Capitol Hill, Lt. Gen. Mark C. Nowland was asked whether the Air Force was prepared to take out North Korean air defenses.

“If you’re asking us, are we ready to fight tonight, the answer is, yes, we will,” General Nowland, the Air Force’s top operations officer, responded. “The United States Air Force, if required, when called to do our job, will gain and maintain air supremacy.”

The words were barely out of his mouth when Lt. Gen. VeraLinn Jamieson, the Air Force’s top intelligence officer, interrupted.

“I’ll also add that right now, the Defense Department is in support of Secretary of State Tillerson, who’s got
 a campaign to be the lead with North Korea in a diplomatic endeavor,” General Jamieson said.

General Nowland quickly acknowledged in a follow-up question that the military was in support of Mr. Tillerson’s diplomatic push. so what next? only God know it.










something is gonna happen.