Is Kenya a hotbed of terrorism?

Immense energy has gone into demonizing CNN over a recent report about Kenya. This report suggested that Kenya was a hotbed of terrorism and that it was not safe for the President of the United States (POTUS) to visit the country. President Obama is actually in the country to co-host a Global Enterpreneural Summit (GES) being held in Nairobi. The objectives of the summit include, among other things, empowering the youth as a countermeasure for radicalization into terrorism. So what was the problem with how CNN reported this visit?

Hotbed? Really?

One thing that Kenyans on twitter (#KOT) appeared to be incensed with is the use of the words ‘hotbed of terrorism.’ According to the CNN report President Obama was visiting ‘not only his father’s homeland…’ but a country festering under the weight of AlShabaab. The show continued by incorporating two ‘security experts’: one a former secret service agent and the other a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent. These two experts proceeded to provide their ‘expert analysis’ about how unsafe Kenya was for Obama’s visit.

What caught my attention the most is lack of credible data as well as use of spurious facts to make conclusions that are invariably wrong and, dare I say, offensive. One of the analysts suggested that the ‘11%’ Muslim population in Kenya made the country a dangerous place for a POTUS visit. The other cemented this idea by stating that Kenya was more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan! Is this depiction accurate?

Is Kenya the most insecure country on earth?

When discussing matters of security, there seems to be a lack of a coherent definition of the term. Traditionaly the referent object (or the unit of analysis if you like) has been the state. Therefore matters of security have – since the cold war era – been framed within the language of state survival. It is no wonder that nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are the mainstay of international security agendas. But is this really security?

Other schools of though have emerged to challenge this state-centric approach. These other schools focus more on the wellbeing of the human being; the person living within the confines of the state rather than the state itself. This is what is referred to as human security. The proponets of this school make their case by comparing the average number of deaths and destruction caused by phenomena other than war or state conflict. To this end their scope of security includes economic, enviromental and social factors that impact on the prosperity of people.

However, I digress from the main pont of this post. The issue here to find out whether Kenya is the most insecure nation in the world. To do this I will restrict the security issue to the deaths caused by terrorism. Although quite a narrow conceptual frame of security in academic terms, it will serve the purpose of this post by comparing the fatalities in Kenya in 2014 compared to those of Iraq and Afghanistan.

According this Global Terrorism Index report, Kenya is ranked third most affected state in Africa as far as terrorism is concerned. It comes behind Nigeria and Somalia which occupy the first and second positions respectively. Looking at the facts, Kenya has been on the receveing end of AlShabaab attacks particularly after the former’s incursion into Somali in an operation dubbed ‘Operation Linda Inchi.’

However as compared to other countries in the world, Kenya is in position 12 globally in the list of countries most affected by terrorism. The top five countries on this list include Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria in that order. Further terrorism related deaths in these five areas accounted to 82% of the global average according to the report. This means that, in essence, these are the most dangerous places on earth as far as terrorism is concerned.

Further more, comparing the number of terror related deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan with those of Kenya reveals inconsistencies between the CNN’s ‘expert analysis’ and the reality on the ground. In 2014 a reported 306 Kenyan lives were lost due to terrorism. Compare this figure with that of Iraq’s 9,929 and Afghanistan’s 4,505 and one begins to wonder how CNN came to the conclusion that Kenya is a hotbed of terrorism.

Was the framing of Kenya by CNN wrong?

I tend to think so. In light of statistics provided, the so called analysts got it wrong. Just because Kenya has been severally attacked by AlShabaab does not make it the most dangerous place on earth. Secondly, CNN erred in accepting the notion that Kenya was more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan without asking for substantiation. This action underscores what I have been increasingly observing in today’s media; the use of ‘experts’ whose justifications for their conslusions in arguments is nothing more than their credentials. Students of philosophy have a name for this; they call it expert fallacy.

Concluding thoughts

No Kenyan can suggest that Kenyans have not faced problems with terrorist or terrorism, unless they have been living under a rock. However the way CNN framed the issue made Kenya appear like a failed state; like terrorism is what defines the Kenyan people. This, in my opinion is very irresponsible reporting and should be shuned. It should also not be forgotten by CNN producers that Kenyans have neither forgoten nor forgiven you for this report on the 2013 general elections.

Obama’s Strategy against I.S. in Syria likely to Fail

Over the recent months, the threat of the Islamic State has thrived. This has led many governments, mostly western, to come together and discuss on how to respond to it. No tangible results have so far come out of these meetings but the recent beheading of an American journalist, Steven Sotloff appears to have been the proverbial final straw. A plan led by the American government appears to be under way.

On 10th of September, a day before the commemoration of the most blatant terrorist attack on American soil, President Obama presented his plan on defeating the Islamic State.The plan had four points: air strikes, non combat support to Iraqi Government and Syrian opposition forces on the ground, counter-terrorism strategies and humanitarian assistance. In essence, Obama’s plan is to have people of Iraq and Syria fight I.S. forces themselves as the Americans provide sustained air power.

This plan is in line with Obama’s overall foreign policy on American troops fighting on foreign soil. This is the corner stone of his pledges in 2008 and 2012 along with the spectacular claim that he would close Guantanamo Bay base within 100 days. The US has already began the draw back from Iraq and it is highly unlikely that they would risk the lives of more American troops in protracted combat situations such as the one currently going on in Syria.

Obama’s plan, however, may work in Iraq but meet limited success in Syria. This is because of the current conflict between forces loyal to the Government of Bashar al Assad and those loyal to the various opposition factions. Obama’s plan is to arm the opposition fighters to equip them to meet the objective of eliminating the I.S. threat in Syria and perhaps in the long term meet the opposition’s objective of dethroning Assad. However a critical assessment must be drawn up on the capability of these opposition forces to fight on two fronts.

It is a well known fact that political and military objectives can work cross purposely and the Syrian situation is a good example. Whereas it is politically understandable for Obama to snub the Assad regime, is it militarily sound? The opposition forces fighting Assad’s Government, in my opinion, appear not to have the strength to fight a war on two fronts. In the past three years they have been unable to dislodge Assad’s regime. How feasible is it for them to now be equipped to fight both I.S. and Assad’s regime?

Secondly with direct military engagement being ruled out, Obama has to rely on opposition forces. However there is the issue of command and control over the opposition forces. Americans need to be certain that they are not walking into another Libyan situation in the Middle East. The Syrian opposition does not appear to be as united to inspire confidence that arms provided to them would not end up in the hands of the I.S. fighters. We should all remember that fighters are being recruited by I.S. and it not unimaginable that some opposition fighters disgruntled by the divisions apparent in the Syrian opposition may defect to I.S. with the weapons provided by the American Government.

With this in mind, the American Government ought to be cautious on how to approach I.S. in Syria. The dilemma for Obama is how to ensure that the objectives of destroying I.S. do not lead to the strengthening of I.S. He also needs to think about whether limited association with Assad for the purposes of defeating I.S. may be militarily prudent over the political objective of having him removed. All in all, it would be difficult for Obama to implement his plan in Syria without the support of the Syrian Government.

International Anarchy is an Inexact Indicator in Accessing Causes of War

Over the past few weeks I have taken to the study of causes of war. To this end I am currently reviewing a book by Levy and Thompson (2010) titled Causes of War. Therein they set out the various explanations authored by other theorists on the causes of war. They use the levels of analysis fronted by Kenneth Waltz to group sources of indicators that could explain the variations in the causes of war. Among the levels is the international system which has among others, international anarchy as a variable that could be used to explain the presence of war.

The two authors opine that realist theories dominate the explanations of occurrence or otherwise of war in this level of analysis. One of the assumptions offered by the realist theories is that international anarchy makes war more likely to happen. International anarchy has been defined as the lack of a legitimate international government to settle disputes and enforce law and order. This simply means that there is no world government to police global affairs thus making war more probable.

This assertion appears spurious at best. Before dismissing my humble opinion on an already readily accepted ‘fact’ of international affairs, please read on first. International anarchy does not vary much for any person to conclude that it may play a vital role in the cause of war. In fact, it has not varied at all since the creation of the present international system. This fact leads me to conclude that international anarchy, which is not a variable, cannot be used to explain the presence or absence of war, which is a variable. 

When a phenomenon varies, then the causal variables should vary to explain the variation. If international anarchy, as defined by realist of which is internationally acceptable, is constant it cannot be used to explain war which varied from time to time. For instance it would be foolhardy to state that international anarchy makes war possible whereas it existed in cases of relative peace. In other words international anarchy cannot be used to explain situations where war is present and absent if anarchy itself does not vary in both times of war and peace. 

Therefore international anarchy cannot be as an indicator in assessing the causes of war. How else could we explain presence of world wars in the 20th century and its absence in the 21st century if international anarchy still exists in both periods? Yes, international anarchy does not cause wars but the explanation that it makes wars more probable also cannot be empirically verified. It is thus important to be cautious on how much we rely on international anarchy to create theories or explanations of causes of war. Just a thought!