(MUST READ) BOKO HARAM: “THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S GENOCIDE DENIAL” – DANIEL GREENFIELD

President Barack Obama of the United States of America

President Barack Obama of the United States of America

FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Jun 13th, 2012

Suppose that there was a country where Muslims were being massacred every month and mosquesand imams were being targeted and destroyed. Could anyone imagine the Obama Administration choosing to remain silent in the face of such atrocities?

A mob attack on Muslims in Burma immediately resulted in a condemnation from the State Department and a call for its government to make more concessions to Muslims. But a car bombing and shooting attack on two churches in Nigeria have not been similarly commented on bythe State Department, sending the message that Muslim life is precious, but Christian life is cheap. The Muslim dead of Burma are sacred, but the Christian dead of Nigeria are only more dead infidels.

Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist organization responsible for both attacks, has yet to be declared a terrorist organization by the State Department, despite having carried out religiously motivated bombings and shootings that have killed over a thousand people in the last few years alone. These numbers begin to approach the level of murders carried out by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The “ Boko Haram Terrorist Designation Act of 2012 ”, introduced by Senator Scott Brown, mandates that the State Department produce a detailed report that either designates Boko Haram as a terrorist group or justifies why it should not be listed as a terrorist group. A similar bill was introduced by Congressman Meehan in the House. It is a testament to the obstructionism of the State Department and its whitewashing of Boko Haram that such a bill even had to be introduced. While the State Department has played delaying games, the bodies of murdered Christians have continued piling up.

It is also tragically noteworthy that all eleven sponsors of the “Boko Haram Terrorist Designation Act”, in both the Senate and the House, have been Republicans. Not a single Democrat appeared to be willing to stand up for the human rights of Nigerian Christians. If the “Boko Haram Terrorist Designation Act” comes down to a vote, that vote should be seen as nothing less than a test of complicity for individual Democrats in the cover-up of Nigeria’s Islamic genocide by the Obama Administration.

Genocide denial pervades not only the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies, but also the media, which continues to promote the destructive myth that Boko Haram is not truly religiously motivated and that it can only be stopped by giving more money and power to the Muslim north.

Had a non-Muslim group carried out numerous attacks on mosques and Muslim worshipers, and then ordered Muslims to leave an area, it is absolutely inconceivable that the Obama Administration and its media allies would deny that these were religiously motivated attacks. It is even more inconceivable that its preferred solution would be to tell the government to stop fighting terrorism. But what is inconceivable when it comes to Muslims is Obama Administration policy for Christians.

At the end of April, Daniel Benjamin, from the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, denied that Boko Haram was affiliated with Al-Qaeda, while conceding that its members were probably being trained by Al-Qaeda. Benjamin then stated that the State Department’s response to the Islamic genocide ofChristians by Jihadists in the Muslim north was “topress for a change to its (Nigeria’s) heavy-handedapproach to the security threats in the north”.

The State Department’s approach to the genocide of Christians by Muslims is to press the Nigerian government to scale down its efforts against that genocide. Benjamin’s statement is not unique; it is the consistent policy of the State Department, which is the consistent policy of the Obama Administration, to respond to Islamic genocide in Nigeria by pressuring its government to step down its war on terror

Johnnie Carson, the Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of African Affairs, in his remarks on Nigeria, claimed bizarrely, that despite a campaign of violence focused heavily around attacks on churches, “Religion is not driving extremist violence in either Jos or Northern Nigeria” and warned the Nigerian government to “avoid excessive violence”.

That same month, Don Yamamoto, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and reading from the same script, said that, “Religion is not the primary driverof extremist violence in Nigeria”, like Carson, claimed that Nigeria’s “religious and ethnic diversity is one of its greatest strengths” and demanded that the Nigerian government spend more time teaching its security forces to respect Muslim human rights.

The claim put out by the State Department and the media that Boko Haram is not a true terrorist group, but only a handful of rogue elements, has never been particularly credible. Boko Haram’s attacks are effective and lethal; the execution is more in line with Al-Qaeda and Hamas, than with a motley bunch of thugs. Former members of Boko Haram have described following the usual Jihadist trail of Muslim countries and training camps. And some have implicated high ranking Muslim officials in Nigeria as the force behind the genocidal campaign.

The name of General Muhammadu Buhari, who took over Nigerian in a military coup in the 1980’s is the one that comes up most often. Buhari, who lost the last election after calling for Sharia law, has warned that if he is not allowed to win in 2015, “By Allah, the dog and the baboon will be soaked in blood.”

Last time around, Buhari’s supporters had targeted Christians for bloody retribution, blaming them for the failure of Muhammadu Buhari to win over the Christian majority. During those bloody days, 350 churches were destroyed by Buhari’s Muslim gangs. Boko Haram’s attacks on churches are a more strategic and covert version of the attacks that had been carried out by Buhari’s Muslim supporters.

Sani Haliru, a former Boko Haram member, has claimed that top Nigerian Muslim leaders, including General Buhari, and General Ibrahim Babangida, his Muslim successor, are behind the genocidal campaign.

While there is no definitive evidence of this yet, it is clear that some Muslim leaders have extensive contacts with Boko Haram leaders. Others like Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso have given amnesty to Boko Haram terrorists. Some like Governor Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi have issued their own murderous fatwas in the name of Islam.

The Obama Administration and Boko Haram appear to share the same goal of undermining the Nigerian government in order to replace it with a Muslim dictatorship that will operate under Islamic law.

While the Muslim north massacres and terrorizes its way to power, the Obama Administration cover-ups their atrocities and pressures the freely elected Nigerian government into making concessions to the genocidal foot soldiers of an Islamic dictatorship

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

About these ads

About beegeagle

BEEG EAGLE -perspectives of an opinionated Nigerian male with a keen interest in Geopolitics, Defence and Strategic Studies
This entry was posted in AFRICA PARTNERSHIP STATION, AFRICAN ARMED FORCES, ARMED CONFLICT, BOKO HARAM ISLAMIC STATE MOVEMENT, COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS, GLOBAL DEFENCE NEWS, JOINT SECURITY TASK FORCE, NIGERIA, NIGERIA POLICE FORCE, NIGERIAN ARMED FORCES, NIGERIAN MILITARY HISTORY, NIGERIAN PARAMILITARY FORCES, NIGERIAN SPECIAL FORCES, RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM, RISK ANALYSIS, SECURITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS, SPECIAL TASK FORCE, STATE SECURITY SERVICE, TERRORISM, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, URBAN GUERRILLA WARFARE, WEST AFRICAN STANDBY FORCE and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to (MUST READ) BOKO HARAM: “THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S GENOCIDE DENIAL” – DANIEL GREENFIELD

  1. peccavi says:

    Would have been a sensible article if it wasn’t written as a hammer to beat the Obama administration about the head, the last 2 paragraphs are frankly ridiculous

  2. beegeagle says:

    The last paragraph is not, methinks. However well ensconced in subtlety, there is pressure on the FG to dialogue with terrorists. It is fathomable, even if not so overt. The major error in the writeup, IF he had the present times in mind, was the Governor Shinkafi thing. He lost power in 2011.

    Personally, I have spoken severally about the badly concealed nexus which exists between the permissive liberal wing of the American and British intelligentsia, media and a section of the diplomatic community, the upcountry media in Nigeria, academics and activists.

    Those guys have their heads buried in the sand and that is why they continue to play the ostrich and to tell bare-faced lies.

    - The Governments of Niger, Mali, Algeria, Cameroon and Chad have all either confirmed AQIM/BH training and logistics partnerships OR clearly pointed out the presence on their home turfs.

    - The US AFRICOM Commander who has an intelligence machinery at his beck and call has stated that AQIM and BH work together.

    - The leader of AQIM told Al Jazeera in June 2011, after the attack on the Police HQ and following BH disclosure of their partnership with AQIM and Al Shabaab, that his group are providing support for BH.

    - BH have confirmed that they work with Al Shabaab and AQIM.

    - Last April, 5 members of AQIM, including their Mauritanian-born cell chief were arrested in Kano.

    - Last September, TIME magazine confirmed that BH are training in the mountains of NE Mali.

    - During Q1 2012, BH members were arrested in Cameroon and Niger, in the latter case with bomb-making materiel.

    - BH have stated that their goal is the enthronement of a puritanical Islamic state in Nigeria through armed proselytization and have told non-muslims and southerners to leave the North.

    - BH are quiet on Fridays and bombing on Sundays.

    In spite of the overwhelming evidence and multiple levels of confirmation, these charlattans continue to say that

    * BH are driven by economic grievances rather than by religious zealotry, congenital wickedness and bare-faced intolerance.

    * BH is a local problem whereas citizens and/or the territories of Cameroon, Niger, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria and Somalia have either been involved in attacks, provided training and/or sanctuaries for these terrorists.

    We know who the enemies of the conflict-affected Nigerians are. The Lubecks, Campbells, Herskovits et al of this world do not wish us well.

    Do you recall these debates, Peccavi?

    “IN NIGERIA, BOKO HARAM IS NOT THE PROBLEM” (obviously, they are the solution)

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/in-nigeria-boko-haram-is-not-the-problem/

    AMERICA’S DOUBTFUL PROGNOSIS ON BOKO HARAM

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/americas-doubtful-prognosis-on-boko-haram/

    DIFFICULT DIALOGUE WITH NIGERIA’S BOKO HARAM..

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/analysts-difficult-dialogue-with-nigerias-violent-boko-haram-essential/

    BOKO HARAM; OBAMA ACCEPTS NORTHERN ELDERS NARRATION

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/boko-haram-obama-accepts-northern-elders-narration-as-northern-elders-kick-against-terrorist-designation/

    BOKO HARAM: THE DANGERS OF APPEASEMENT

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/boko-haram-the-dangers-of-appeasement/

    BOKO HARAM: NO LONGER A PURELY NIGERIAN PROBLEM

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/boko-haram-no-longer-a-purely-nigerian-probem-dr-peter-pham/

    THE BUTCHERS OF NIGERIA – SOYINKA

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-butchers-of-nigeria-wole-soyinkanewsweek-article/

    BOKO HARAM: IT IS NOT ABOUT POVERTY

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/boko-haram-it-is-not-about-poverty-but-religion-christian-association-of-nigeria/

    METHODIST PRELATE DISAGREES WITH U.S ON BOKO HARAM

    http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/methodist-prelate-disagrees-with-u-s-on-boko-haram/

    • eyimola says:

      This is why the FG is resisting the designation of Boko Haram

      http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nigeria/articles/20120607.aspx

      extract:
      The government has asked the U.S. for help in dealing with Boko Haram. Major assistance (UAVs, Special Forces) can’t be provided unless the U.S. can declare Boko Haram a Foreign (international) Terrorist Organization (or FTO).

      What do you think will happen when US airforce UAVs start targeting civilians in the North?

      Are you happy for US special forces to be deployed in numbers to the North

  3. beegeagle says:

    The USA would not necessarily have to have boots on the ground. It only gets them more committed to the cause.

    Whatever is happening in Pakistan stems from the peculiar bilateral cooperation the USA and Pakistan. Do not forget that materiel headed for Afghanistan are also hauled overland via Pakistan. So theirs is a complicated relationship with the Pakistani ISI often running with the hares and chasing with the hounds.

    A clearer example would be Yemen. Within a few short weeks of the Abdulmutallab underwear bomber gaffe, uparmoured Hummers, utility helics, kit and Special Forces trainers were rushed into Yemen to help with the CTCOIN ops against AQAP.

    Let the US support the CTCOIN ops in the Northern Nigeria and in the badlands of West Africa(NE Mali and Northern Niger) by making available up-armoured Hummers, UH-1N Iroquois helicopters, surplus MRAPs and kit (flak jackets, Kevlar helmets and NVGs).

    Technically, these are non-lethal and defensive items which would help to protect the troops rather than escalating the conflict.

  4. jimmy says:

    I wonder how long this denial continue for.

  5. Deway says:

    Sometimes when I read stuff like this, I cant find words to express how I feel. God dey.

  6. doziex says:

    LET’S JUST CALL A SPADE, A SPADE. I think the article is largely fair on it’s criticism of the Obama administration on 2 counts.

    (1) The liberal establishment in the US, are easily swayed to favor/appease the side that attacks them the most.
    So in response to the anti moslem /anti arab accusations emanating from the middle east, the Obama administration and US liberals by extention would be quick to condemn the killings of muslims by say isrealis or any other group.

    And of course, slow or not motivated to respond to atrocities committed by muslims against non muslims. as seen in northern nigeria.

    (2) The US republicans are actually the one’s pointing out Obama’s double standards in fighting terrorists. He is ruthless in pakistan and yemen, helpful in somalia, but has no interest in boko haram.
    They are the ones pushing for the terrorist designation, not Obama and Hilary Clinton.

    I have run out of guesses as to why. So your guess is as good as mine.

    • peccavi says:

      The major difference between Yemen and Pakistan is that they both have (or had in Yemen’s case) governments that you could deal with and even if they blew hot and cold you could predict that they would blow hot at 10am and cold at 3pm. I’m oversimplifying but Nigeria does not have a sensible or credible government. That is one of the biggest problems. When we are talking about money laundering, terrorism etc one of the biggest impediments is actually the Nigerian government. We can complain about the US not doing a or b but the US is not under attack. They are not going to transfer equipment or deploy troops to a country where the wife of a dead person can command troops and prevent a government from functioning. Speak to anybody in the west about Nigeria and its just exasperation, nothing makes sense according to the normal way of doing things. If Nigeria wants US assistance, we need to not make speeches about nonsense but show willing, till today money seized by Britain from Abacha sits in the Met Police account because no one was ready to sign for it and ensure it was transferred transparently. Honestly if half the nonsense our government did abroad was made public you would understand why we seem to be alone in the world. And the worst thing is the only people who seem bothered are people like us not actually the government

  7. beegeagle says:

    The liberals are just gutless, spineless lemons who wear wimpy hearts on their sleeves and are blown hither and thither. Too, too permissive.

    What did George Bush Snr do when al-Bashir was bombing South Sudan indiscriminately? He gave the SPLA potent SAMs because the average Republican is a law-and-order guy who knows that iron sharpeneth iron..not loose talk, wimpy rationalisation or justification of the indefensible to the point of deliberately obfuscating facts.

    Just look how these liberal hordes are making a mess of themselves over terrorists. Would anyone justify anything – poverty, police brutality or whatever IF a group such as BH were active in America?

    9-11 is the reason why America went into Afghanistan and Iraq yet some are suggesting dialogue with these mindless killers?

    • peccavi says:

      What do you mean by liberal hordes? Do you think that if Obama had declared BH a terrorist group and pumped military assistance to Nigeria the same Republicans would not be criticising him?
      Abeg look beyond the headlines and see the reality, these guys care not a jot for Nigeria or our fate, US terrorist designation is not the panacea to our problems and will not solve the BH problem. Its a Nigerian problem and we need a Nigerian solution. All the helicopters and SAMs in the world will not defeat BH. The victories of the security forces have not been with helicopters and flak jackets but good old fashioned police work

  8. beegeagle says:

    And where in the whole wide world has an insurgency been defeated by police action – Sri Lanka, Angola, the Nigerian Civil War, East Timor, Somalia, Northern Ireland? What Police, the ones who wield rifles while insurgents wield RPGs and GPMGs and attack with VBIEDs?

    In Algeria, the gendarmerie are the grassroots level foot soldiers. Has the Algerian Insurgency wound down?

    Are you following a script which cannot be deviated from or observing the modus operandi of the terrorists on a day-to-day basis? How about they also send cops to Azawad?

    What has hearts and minds approaches achieved for ISAF in Afghanistan? Iraqi insurgents attacked in 8 provinces today, killing 80 and injuring over 235 persons, including Basra where some classic textbook CTCOIN strategy was laid down?

    Israel, the USA, India, Pakistan should be aware of the possible outcomes entailed in the said police action? Why are they using the military then?

    Please, educate me cos I really want to know what manner of psychological impact the presence of policemen would engender to have such a mollifying effect on rabid terrorists.

  9. beegeagle says:

    And no, Boko Haram is no longer a Nigerian problem insofar as in attacking Banki border post, the people of Amchide on the opposite side in Cameroon are affected.

    BH is no longer a solely Nigerian problem insofar as they are leading onslaughts against and midwifing the seizure of towns in Mali whereas they do not hold one square inch of territory in Nigeria.

    It is no different from the LRA rebellion which began by using South Sudan as rear base but have since their eviction from Uganda after a gruelling 21-year long effort, have laid siege on South Sudan, the CAR and DR Congo – reason why all four countries’ armies are jointly hunting the dregs of the LRA inside the ungoverned spaces of the CAR

    • peccavi says:

      I said the victories so far have been by good old fashioned police work not that all insurgencies are resolved through police work.
      Insurgencies are solved through political action, the military simply creates the conditions whereby those actions can take place and be accepted or imposed on one side or the other.
      My central point was and still is the US government can designate BH a terrorist group, that is not the source or solution to the problem, they can place 2 or 3 divisions with air support in Nigeria, that is not the source or solution of the problem. They can open their armouries and deposit all their surplus kit in Nigeria it will not solve the problem.
      BH is not an Islamic group like the AQIM of the GAA fighting for an Islamic state, it is a continuation of turn by turn/ born to rule mentality by other means. So you can kill as many stupid and brainwashed cannon fodder as you like but until you eradicate the people at the top who cause and benefit from this happening you will not eliminate the problem.
      Hearts and minds approach is not what prevails in Afghanistan or what prevailed in Iraq. Exactly the approach you advocate is whats going on there now but on a level beyond what we’re talking about. And its not working. Its not working on a massive depressing level. When you understand that you will understand why I am vehemently opposed to war for the sake of war or equipment for the sake of equipment. I personally carried more ammunition than a Biafran company got in a week on a simple patrol, so much equipment we could be aliens, we can barely move without having helicopters or air support on call yet our enemy has a rifle with 2 mags, his slippers and a bucket of fertiliser and nails and we are still not winning. And these are without doubt some of the best trained and equipped armies on the planet. So why can’t we try another way?
      If you think what’s going on out there is hearts and minds and touchy feely stuff then I will say kudos to the ISAF media team, they are finally doing their jobs properly.
      And to use your examples:
      Sri Lanka- was not an insurgency but a war against a group with a formed conventional army, air force and navy as well as a terror wing. They were defeated by conventional military tactics precisely because they stood and fought as a conventional army. despite being hemmed into an area the size of a few football pitches they did not stop fighting until their leader was killed
      Angola- a war between the MPLA/ Cubans and UNITA/ South Africans. UNITA right up until the end fought conventionally, with formed units. When guerilla tactics were used they always were used to support main force efforts. They were not defeated until Savimbi was killed
      Nigerian Civil War- was a war between 2 countries- the Biafran army fought as a conventional army right up until the end. Despite total sea blockade, total Nigerian air superiority, mass starvation, constant defeat and retreat, being outnumbered, outgunned even out clothed Biafra did not surrender until the Head of state left.
      East Timor- was an insurgency in the classic sense, the insurgents never defeated the Indonesians and the Indonesians despite being very well equipped never defeated the insurgents. The stalemate was broken by a political resolution leading to a referendum and a withdrawal by the Indonesians
      Somalia- well which one are we talking about? Present day? Al Shabaab, has taken territory and decided to act as a government, they are fighting not just as urban terrorists but as conventional troops
      Northern Ireland- was settled through a comprehensive peace deal which disarmed the IRA and gave significant powers to the local political wings of the armed groups. The IRA were not defeated militarily however they were riven by informers and most of their leaders were in jail. NI is a classic case of the military creating the conditions for peace.
      I’ve laboured and belaboured the point but I’ll make it again, cut off the head and the snake will die. And in our case the snakes head is not in the bush or in the desert but in Abuja

  10. beegeagle says:

    Sri Lanka and Angola had many phases and twists but both started as classic insurgent hitz-and-run action and as they became better resourced, they began to stake out territory. UNITA controlled the diamond mines towards the end and as such, they had money to throw around and could toy with conventional tactics. China using North Korean military instructors as proxies even came around to teach them tank warfare and artillery skills during the mid-1980s when the Cubans, Soviet proxies, were also around.

    But they never really jettisoned their tactics of attrition. Ditto the LTTE in Sri Lanka who were buoyed by remittances from the Tamil diaspora. They would ambush, hit and run. If they overwhelmed the adversary, they would seize his barracks and weaponry and territory.

    Al Shabaab have keyed into that hybridized style, as did the SPLA before them. That is the phase which the Tuareg rebels of northern Mali have just attained.

    In Nigeria, the overwhelming tide of the War was conventional but the STF of Colonel Uwakwe in the Arochukwu-Bende-Ohafia sector used guerrilla tactics and even harassed the rear of the Federalists at Ikot Ekpene and Annang Province. He held out for about 15 months.

    In the Onitsha-Nkpor-Abagana-Obosi sector, the duo of Colonels Akonobi and Nebo used similar tactics to prevent the Federal 1st and 2nd Divisions from linking up. This 8-mile gap was kept open for practically two years until the fall of Uli Airport and the end of the War. That 8-mile corridor to Abagan happened to be the food basket of Biafra at the time when Akonobi and Nebo were performing their magic there.

    In the Owerri sector where the Colonels Ugokwe and Ihenacho were brigade commanders under Colonel Asoya, that siege was comventional warfare in quintessential form.

    Little wonder that all five outstanding battlefield commanders were reabsorbed into the post-war Nigerian Army.

    • PELE( sorry 0) my GENERAL BEEGEAGLE and F.M. PECCAVI side history issue please both clear this up Who REALLY WAS RESPONSIBLE COMMANDWISE FOR defeating(mauling) the 1st division at ABAGANA a lot of credit was given to COLONEL JOE ACHUZIA in recent years i have read ( dawodu CHRONICLES) where a lot of ex biafran officers have privately muttered otherwise. meanwhile i am enjoying the back forth b/w my general and my field marshall this” major “stands at attention :) !

      • peccavi says:

        I know it wasn’t Achuzia, for all his courage which even his detractors credit him with, he was a fly by night commander who arrived anywhere something interesting was happening and then disappeared when he got bored.
        However the Abagana battle wasn’t the decisive encounter for 1st Div, I would say the first 2 assaults on Onitsha across the river decimated the Division and then the land bound attack which was halted after their supplies were destroyed at Abagana. Although they took Onitsha they were ineffective for the rest of the war.
        I think it was a Major Uchendu, respobsible for Abagana but I’m not sure and I cant recall what unit or his history

  11. Thank you f.m. peccavvi The biafrans watched the nigerians cross into Onitsha (twice) and destroyed them twice Abagana comes INTO HISTORY and is given the name because of the amount of damage done /weapons lost/ morale boost from the one petrol TANKER THAT EXPLODED and caused mayhem in the nigerian ranks which the biafrans exploited to the fullest. However COL ONEL “HANNIBAL” Joe ACHUZIA appears to get credit that was why i asked

  12. beegeagle says:

    Okay Jimmy, the 102-vehicle convoy which got ambushed in 1968 at Abagana was a 2 Division convoy under Murtala Muhammed.

    Same division it was which suffered losses when it attempted two disastrous West to East(Asaba to Onitsha) opposed crossings in the knowledge that the Biafran division of Colonel Nwawo were dug in at the Onitsha end with 73mm AT guns, 107mm RCLs, six pounder artillery guns, 106mm RRs and 105mm artillery guns.

    The 2 Infantry Division’s slow-moving steamers and landing craft bearing Saladin AFVs, Panhard AML 60s, Ferret scout cars and APCs thus presented large targets for the well entrenched positions of the Biafrans and they took their advantage with both hands.

    IBB was in 1 Division while Buhari and Yar’Adua were in 2 Division. The latter duo were some of the more accomplished battalion COs on the battlefield for 2 Division. Like Yar’Adua and Buhari did at Onitsha, IBB’s 44 Rangers Battalion saw ferocious action in the Umuahia-Uzuakoli sector – the sector where IBB got injured and pulled back from the front.

    That was the sector where the NA first used quad-barreled ZSU-23-4 SPAAGs in direct fire mode while 122mm artillery were deployed on highground across the sector and used to harass Biafran positions and settlements alike.

  13. Deway says:

    Interesting analysis from both sides. This blog needs to go viral, I think it’s being kept too simple

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s