Introduction

1Boko Haram, a self-styled Islamist movement, whose name has commonly been translated as “Western education is forbidden” and which has been ranked as a terrorist organisation by a host of governments across the world, has been engaged in a costly – both in terms of lives and property – insurgency/counter-insurgency battle with Nigeria’s military and law enforcement elements, collectively operating under the Joint Task Force (hereafter JTF) framework. Boko Haram, which has its origins in and maintains its current stronghold in Nigeria’s north-eastern provinces (Borno and Yobe), has increasingly utilised indiscriminate violence in pursuit of a radical social reform agenda, while the JTF have responded with heavy-handed tactics to quash the movement. The battle thus far from the side of Boko Haram has largely consisted of small-scale insurgent hit-and-run attacks on a range of government and civilian targets, followed by large-scale retaliatory military deployments from the state security forces, widespread urban lockdowns, door-to-door searches, and haphazard large-scale arrests. This dynamic has left much of the population of the north of Nigeria caught between Boko Haram brutality and JTF excesses of authority. The inability of the Nigerian military and the police elements of the JTF to effectively conduct more even-handed counter-insurgency operations in urban environments has created a situation where the constant ebb and flow of insurgent gains and systemic human rights abuses on the part of both insurgents and security forces make any substantial security improvements fleeting.

2Security, as Okunola (2013: 4) argues, is an imperative for Nigeria, as is the case for any society, and is one of the major needs of a population, particularly following physiological needs. Security allows for individuals to grow, engage in lawful and productive activities, and produce meaningful development in Nigerian society. As such, a primary duty of the Nigerian state is the provision of security to its citizens (ibid.).1 Given this assertion, this chapter examines the Nigerian context by drawing upon elements of Hobbesian theory – that is, from the hypothesis that in the absence of strong central governance, where there is a mutually accepted covenant of trust between the government and the governed, situations emerge where there is a “war of all against all” (Hobbes 1988: 15). Moreover, key to the analysis of a state’s struggle for security and stability is the point at which the actions of the state become part of the problem rather than the solution. In other words, when does the actor whose role it is to provide security, and often in the name of security implementation, become yet another element of insecurity in a seemingly never-ending cycle of violence (ibid.)? Whilst the context in Nigeria is not quite as stark as this, the emergence and continued activities of Boko Haram and its splinter groups, as well as generally high levels of violence across the country, suggest a fundamental breakdown in this covenant. At the same time, an overly violent central government or security force also has its part to play in perpetuating cycles of increasing violence and insecurity.

3This chapter is a case study focused on the incidence of violence between the security services and the militant groups directly engaged in violence within Nigeria, namely Boko Haram and Ansaru. The chapter further touches upon examples of insurgency/counter-insurgency operations from other international conflicts as a means of contextualising our arguments. As such, the analysis will not substantively engage in larger issues of fatalities or patterns of violence suffered by either intended or unintended civilian or other government casualties (especially since clear designations are particularly difficult to definitively ascribe in Nigeria). Here we analyse the role of Nigeria’s security forces as the primary proponents of state-sanctioned violence, to examine its attempts to (re)assert control over the state. How the Nigerian security forces respond to challenges to their central authority, both from internal non-state actors and other globalising influences, as well as how they exercise their desired monopoly over the practice of violence, represent the primary factors of analysis. As such, the central hypothesis is that the Nigerian security forces’ ability or inability to exercise the required discretion in their use of violence determines the probability of successfully creating an atmosphere from which security and stability can emerge. If one accepts that a state of insecurity creates the opportunity for direct challenges to state legitimacy to arise and that overly repressive security tactics exacerbate the problem, then there is a need to determine whether the actions of the Nigerian state are resolving internal security issues or creating a growing sense of insecurity.

4What this chapter argues is that the JTF response to Boko Haram and Ansaru has provided a platform from which these groups became successful in framing and re-framing longstanding local grievances in an organisationally advantageous way. This becomes evident in the fact that Boko Haram has been able to expand its support outside its original home base in the North-East. Further, we propose that this societal dynamic (namely the propensity to perceived grievances in the North-East) has been intensified by JTF operations in recent years, even though there has been no single linear trend to the changes over time. The chapter examines the back-and-forth battle between Boko Haram and the JTF, as well as its consequences.

5In order to analyse the factors associated with security or insecurity, one needs to first establish reasonably reliable datasets from which to draw figures for comparison. In addition, one needs comparable historical case studies which provide a baseline for what can be considered effective or ineffective uses of state-sanctioned violence in response to direct challenges to authority. Moreover, reliable datasets provide the totals from which to identify broader trends and develop determinations for red-line points at which the rates of state-sanctioned violence begin to have adverse effects. In the case of Nigeria, data constitutes both the greatest requirement and the greatest impediment to empirical research, owing to poor data collection and management practices at all levels of government. As such, non-traditional methods of data selection and collection play significant roles in study and analysis. This type of research encountered two primary and significant obstacles. First, acquiring enough online media sources to reconstruct nearly a decade’s worth of events with a reasonable amount of reliability proved extremely difficult and labour-intensive. Second, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding Boko Haram-related events made discerning between fact and propaganda immensely difficult and nearly impossible.

6Using data collected from Nigerian online media sources, as well as from globally recognised news agencies such as the BBC, Reuters, AP, and AFP, we examine the details of events, fatalities, and evolutions within the militant insurgency in Nigeria to identify trends. For the Nigerian media sources we relied on all major reputable outlets but focused more on northern and central Nigerian-based media sources like Leadership, Blueprint, Daily Trust, and smaller outlets like the Desert Herald for linguistic and cultural reasons. Major southern-based sources like Punch and Vanguard were also used, but due to the heavily politicised nature of Boko Haram reporting, especially in terms of North–South divisions, this was an issue for which we attempted to account. Alternatively, ThisDay newspaper, which typically has the best access to the military elite, is a good example of a media outlet intimately tied, almost too much so, into the political and military elite and therefore their reporting on certain events must be understood through that prism. Additionally, certain details, whether entirely accurate or not, once printed in one media outlet quickly become reproduced in others, creating a echo chamber effect that is easily mistaken for confirmation. For this reason, we chose to omit source like Osun Defender and other such outlets which reproduce news instead of creating original content.

7While this system is not the ideal source of empirical data, it is the most readily available in a country with noted deficiencies in transparency of reporting and record keeping. As such, best-faith efforts to cross-verify all reported data to ensure a reasonable level of consistency and accuracy have been made. Based on fatality totals reported by the JTF, we analyse the efficacy of JTF operations based on the numbers of suspected insurgents killed and how those killings affected Boko Haram’s operations and organisational trajectory. The chapter further draws upon accounts and reported fatalities in other conflicts, as a means to determine the role security forces played in both the evolution of insurgencies and the creation of environments within which insurgencies continue to thrive. The total fatalities additionally allow us to further examine the overall transparency of JTF operations and scrutinize the attribution of insurgent status to victims of JTF operations.

8This analysis will focus exclusively on the interplay between the security forces and the insurgents. The reason for this is the inherent difficulty in accurately assessing ultimate responsibility for fatalities in situations where victims are killed in an exchange of crossfire. Furthermore, we will rely only on estimates of ‘militant’ fatalities collected by the authors, as part of an ongoing wider research study into conflict in West Africa. First, while there have been various reports on the alleged numbers of corpses stacked outside police facilities during the violent crackdowns in north-eastern Nigeria, there is no definitive evidence that the bodies were all militants. Despite this, some agencies have listed militant fatalities as the sum of corpses reportedly counted outside these police stations. Such numbers, while not impossible, are nonetheless largely improbable in sheer scale, based on comparative data we have from other such incidents both in Nigeria and around the world on numbers of ‘active militant’ fatalities in combat over a similar period of time. Second, ascertaining which corpses were ‘actively’ engaged in armed militancy is virtually impossible in a scenario where corpses are almost certainly not divided accurately into combatants and non-combatants. As such, while our estimates on militant and security force fatalities are lower than those released by the Nigerian government (Human Rights Watch 2010), we feel that they are reliable estimates for actual militant fatalities.

9Beginning with the 2003 clashes in Yobe State and moving forward into the current operations under the rubric of “Operation Restore Order”, we analyse both the JTF claims of militant killings and the reported loss of JTF members. In establishing solid estimates and comparing the data, we can scrutinise the figures for alleged Boko Haram members and reported JTF casualties and determine patterns of lethality associated with both insurgent operations and Nigerian state responses. The sum of alleged militant killings provides the basis for comparison with other such insurgencies in other parts of the world. Analysis of both Boko Haram and JTF fatalities, independent of the civilian casualties, will provide the opportunity to examine the internal dynamics of the struggle between Boko Haram and the JTF. This analysis will provide a level perspective and scale to the insurgency and present the data from multiple perspectives.

10The chapter develops an understanding of where the JTF are in their attempts to dismantle Boko Haram and address the overall security situation that has arisen from the violence. Key analyses will focus on issues of proportionally appropriate violence, addressing underlying security factors, and decreasing federal legitimacy amongst affected populations. By determining the status of these factors one will be better able to ascertain how effective the JTF operations have been thus far and potentially determine where the operations have succeeded and failed to achieve their overall goals. Through this analysis we hope to highlight how and why the Boko Haram movement has both gained and lost support and legitimacy in the North-East, from its inception to its current manifestation. Finally, we develop a critical assessment of how the JTF has thus far engaged the threat to the Nigerian state.

Insurgents or terrorists?

11Given the dramatic contextual shifts following the September 2001 attacks on the US, as well as subsequent terrorist attacks in Spain (2004) and the UK (2007), much non-state violent activity has come to be viewed through the securitised lens of the ‘war on terror’. Groups and individuals that would once have been seen as guerrillas, insurgents, or revolutionaries have come to be defined as ‘terrorist’ (Smith 2008). Whilst there are a number of overlaps between the definitions, it is important to highlight some of the differences as well as move away from crude labelling of groups as merely terrorist, a labelling that has often served a strategic function to increase counter-terrorism aid to certain governments from Washington (Smith 2008; Colombant 2012).

12During the last few decades, religious and ethnic activists have been by far the most frequent non-governmental strategists of terror. Often they have called for autonomy; at times they have sought control of existing governments; but increasingly, they have struck directly at their religious and ethnic rivals (Tilly 2004: 10). But just because a group utilises terrorist strategies as part of its repertoire of actions, does that make it a terrorist organisation? Charles Tilly, in his article Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists, asserts that “terror is a (political) strategy, not a creed” and thus represents “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime” (ibid. 11). For Tilly, terrorist strategies have a crude logic of their own, sending “signals that the target is vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, and that the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again”. These signals are often directed at three different audiences: “the targets themselves, potential allies of the perpetrators, and third parties that might cooperate with one or the other” (ibid. 9). For Tilly, terrorist violence is not an end in itself but rather is perpetrated in support of different demands: recognition, redress, autonomy, or transfers of power. Hence, for Tilly, terror is a strategy aimed at altering or inhibiting the target’s disapproved of behaviour, fortifying the perpetrators’ standing with potential allies, and moving third parties toward greater cooperation with the perpetrators’ organisation and announced program (ibid.). This is certainly part of Boko Haram’s wider repertoire of actions.

13It is clear that Boko Haram utilises terrorist strategies as part of its repertoire of actions – however, to define it as simply a terrorist organisation is to fall short of an adequate analysis of the group’s wider activities. This chapter argues instead that Boko Haram should be analysed within the wider lens of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies. For R. Scott Moore, insurgencies seek fundamental change:

[to] the existing political or social order through the use of sustained violence and political disruption. It is a long-term form of warfare in which military actions are carried out by guerrilla cells and terrorists, often targeting civilians and infrastructure. (Moore n.d.)

14Importantly, Moore argues that guerrilla attacks and terrorism comprise only one element of insurgencies, and sometimes not the primary one. The argument is that more important than the violence of insurgency are:

[its] political, economic, and social components. These are at the heart of the conflict, both its causes and its effects. Instead of defeating armies, insurgents slowly chip away at the authority and legitimacy of the ruling government … Thus subversion, social disruption, and political action become more important than violence, however spectacular or horrendous. (ibid.)

15Viewing Boko Haram as an insurgency movement allows us, therefore, to not only consider the use of strategies of terror by the group, but also wider tactics that further help to explain the response elicited from the Nigerian state as well as the ensuing cycle of violence.

16An insurgency requires two fundamental elements to ensure its long-term viability as a functioning organisation within a particular operating environment: support and fear. Support is required in the sense that an insurgent organisation requires a relatively consistent recruitment base and a reliable safe haven from which to plan and carry out operations. Support does not require majority portions of a population to be actively engaged but enough to ensure that counter measures against the organisation remain relatively difficult. Alternatively, insurgent organisations can operate from bordering countries, but increased travel distances and required border crossings substantially add to the operational risks associated with any action. As such, the support of a local population is a vital requirement for the survival of an insurgent movement. It is for this reason that maintaining its base of operations in and around Maiduguri is essential to Boko Haram’s long-term viability.

The cycle of escalating violence

17Since the 2003 clashes between followers of firebrand leaders Mohammed Ali and Mohammed Yusuf – founders of the extremist albeit still abstruse sect – and Nigeria’s security forces, there has been a non-stop cycle of brutal repression and violent revenge. The cost in human lives has been estimated at between one and three thousand victims, but accounts and specific details vary widely from source to source (Campbell 2011; Aghedo & Osumah 2012; Walker 2012; Murdock 2013; Chouin, Reinert & Apard, this volume). It should be noted that even if the high-end estimate of fatalities directly or indirectly attributed to the Boko Haram insurgency were accepted at face value, they would still represent a small percentage of the overall violent deaths that have occurred in Nigeria over that same period of time (Ajaegbu 2012; Ayuk et al. 2012). According to UNODC data, Nigeria had 18,422 intentional homicides in 2008, the year after the violently contested elections (UNODC 2013). Based on those numbers remaining relatively constant, Boko Haram would constitute approximately 5 per cent of all violent deaths in Nigeria since their peak in fatalities in 2009. The question of who fired the first shot or what act precipitated a given response in the now nearly decade-long struggle is less important than the recurring pattern of violence and retaliation that has engulfed the northern region of Nigeria. This is especially true insofar as it pertains to examining the efficacy of the efforts to curb violence in north-eastern Nigeria. A largely underreported and underexamined element of the crisis in the North is the number of fatalities associated with the state response to the insecurity associated with the emergence of Boko Haram.

18Since the earliest clashes with Mohammed Ali, one of the original leaders along with Mohammed Yusuf, and his followers in Yobe State, there has been a cycle of retaliation and retribution that has exacerbated an already fraught situation. The initial settlement established by Yusuf’s followers, dubbed ‘Afghanistan’, appeared to be a largely non-violent albeit simultaneously socially antagonistic move, meant to mirror the actions of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed during his hijrah (migration) from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD as a means of fleeing threats and persecution (Masud 1989). This action, as explained by other analysts, confirms the scripturally literalist inclination of Yusuf and his followers, a characteristic that can lend itself to creating deep social divisions with all other forms of religious and political interpretations of what constitutes a morally acceptable society (Onuoha 2012; Tanchum 2012: 77). According to available reporting, while the movement was not opposed to violence in defence of its social agenda, the initial clashes appeared to be localised communal violence, an occurrence that is widespread across Nigeria. This violence was accompanied by increasingly anti-government rhetoric as well as exclusionary practices on the part of the Yusufiyya followers, such as encouraging followers to tear up higher education degrees and establishing communal police and judicial systems to openly challenge existing state institutions (Onuoha 2012). Nevertheless, the state response between 2003 and 2004 to these initial occurrences of violence – which according to reports ultimately claimed the lives of a significant number of sect members – in comparison with similar forms of criminal deviance and insurrection elsewhere in Nigeria appeared to be quite disproportionate (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012; Walker 2012).

19The scale of the response has likely been influenced by the direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Nigerian federal government’s right to rule over northern Muslims, especially Yusuf’s followers. The military response, which was delayed following the initial small-scale clashes with police forces (Cook 2011), was possibly unavoidable in the long term given Yusuf’s growing number of followers and staunch opposition to central government authority. However, the scale of this response can and should be scrutinized and further debated. The need for proportionality in effectively countering internal instability and uprooting localised insurgencies is a central element of widely accepted counter-insurgency doctrine (Moore n.d.). The ability of the Nigerian federal government to find the necessary balance in its early response to Yusuf and subsequent attempts to deal with a more violently inclined movement can and should be called into question.

20In 2003, when followers of Yusuf assaulted locals near Kanama who challenged their rights to use fishing waters in lands not owned by the sect, it raised concerns with local authorities and eventually led to clashes with local police (Walker 2012). Police were then, and still are, largely unable to effectively deal with such situations across Nigeria at a local level, owing to a lack of investment, training, and capacity, which continues to plague them to this day (Okunola 2013); therefore, their failure to address the problems in Kanama village should have come as no surprise. The destruction of two local police stations and the looting of police armouries provided Yusuf’s followers with improved weaponry and increased the urgency of the Nigerian security apparatus (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012). Moreover, it provided the first in an increasing number of public humiliations for local security officials at the hands of determined militants and represented a sign of the escalating violence that would come. However, the event was not without precedent in Nigeria, where there is little regard for law enforcement officers, and numerous armed militias have attacked such institutions (Ikelegbe 2005; Alemika & Chukwuma 2012). In fact, police stations and police have routinely been assaulted throughout Nigeria by a number of different groups for a variety of reasons (Marenin 1987; Ikelegbe 2005; Udo 2013).

21The one concerning and uniquely distinguishing factor about Yusuf and his followers, nevertheless, was the content of their vocal contempt and disregard for the legitimacy of the Nigerian state, a contempt which in some regards exceeded that of more financially, ethnically, or purely grievance-driven movements. This more overtly religious element, especially the social exclusion and public withdrawal aspects, possibly increased the stakes of the situation in the minds of the security officials tasked with resolving the problems in Yobe State (Adesoji 2011; Marchal 2012). While criminal organisations typically have little, if any, respect or regard for the central authority of rule of law, such inclinations do not necessarily constitute the primary motivators of membership or collective action and do not always supersede the desire for monetary gain or sense of increased security (Salaam 2011; Sharkey et al. 2011). Such complexities in motivation and intent are likely also to be as present in the membership composition of outwardly religious groups like Boko Haram as they are in other criminal organisations. This is important because it was the overall criminal violence that initially prompted the Nigerian authorities to establish Operation Flush units, among other such operations, throughout the country to deal with near endemic crime rates (Joab-Peterside 2007). It was units established and intended for anti-crime operations, not properly trained or skilled in dealing with militant social movements, that first engaged Yusuf and his followers; and it was these units which, in combination with Yusuf, helped to initiate the cycle of violence and retribution that has ensnared the North-East.

22The clashes in and around Kanama village in Yobe State played a significant role in the genesis from which the “Nigerian Taliban” movement began its gradual progression to increasingly more violent operational modes (Onuoha 2012; Walker 2012). The clash, as previously stated, was possibly inevitable since the movement had by this time already taken a position of absolute disregard for the legitimacy of the Nigerian state and afforded no respect or regard to security and law enforcement elements (Onuoha 2012; Walker 2012). According to various estimates, approximately seventy sect members were killed in the raids following the police station attacks (Cook 2011; Walker 2012). This number of fatalities, which by most accounts amounted to the majority of the sect members in Ka­nama, in addition to the arrests of others, almost decimated the nascent move­ment. The killings represented the first in a series of arguably disproportionate state responses.

23The incident likely provided Yusuf with clearly visible current actions to substantiate his previous claims against the Nigerian state and probably aided in the recruitment of further disaffected youths to restore and bolster the movement’s active membership. Eventually, the movement regrouped and was able to pose an even greater threat to the Nigerian state. At this time, Yusuf’s movement had, according to some accounts, more than doubled (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012; Walker 2012). Again, as was the case in Yobe State, it was a potentially avoidable violent incident between the JTF and Yusuf’s followers which incited the deadly 2009 uprising across several Nigerian states. While details of the encounter vary depending on sources, what is clear is that sect members participating in a funeral procession had an altercation with the JTF in Maiduguri, which eventually led to several unarmed sect members being shot and dozens of others arrested (Cook 2011; Walker 2012). Yusuf wasted no time in capitalising upon this perceived assault on ‘the faithful’ by the ‘illegitimate’ Nigerian state, fomenting anger and a desire for revenge among his followers (Walker 2012). The ensuing uprising resulted in several hundred fatalities, of which approximately 200 were alleged to have been sect members, according to local media reports on JTF statements. In addition, this led to the widely condemned extrajudicial killings not only of Mohammed Yusuf but of dozens of other individuals in police custody, including prominent sect member Alhaji Buji Foi (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012; Walker 2012).

24Following the uprising and violent crackdown, the group once again dispersed, into remote areas of Nigeria and into neighbouring countries, until they were able to reorganise and again recruit (Onuoha 2012). This encounter ushered in a new evolution of the movement, one that embraced the far more violent tendencies of its new leader, Abubakar Shekau (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012; Rodgers 2012). Following the 2009 crackdown, the group built on the charismatic anti-establish­ment preaching of Yusuf and was transformed into a full-blown insurgency, which has trapped the North in a seemingly never-ending cycle of violence and retaliation. The group not only changed in its willingness to initiate and instigate violence, but it began to adopt tactics and methods more akin to global terrorist organisations. This evolution dramatically altered the dynamic of the battle between the sect and the Nigerian security forces.

25In the time between the 2009 crackdown and the group’s re-emergence, according to local media reporting, Boko Haram members engaged in a series of targeted assassinations on individuals directly related to the crackdown or those suspected of having provided information or support to the crackdown. This series of violent attacks, largely carried out in areas considered to be sect strongholds, would later pale in comparison with the hit-and-run, mass-casualty attacks that became commonplace across northern Nigeria and into the Federal Capital Territory. In 2011, the group once again resurfaced, this time with Nigeria’s first suicide attack – a type of action previously thought to be cultural anathema for Nigerians (Lee 2010; Oghre 2012) – on Police Headquarters in Abuja, and it was followed by a more daring suicide attack on the UN facility in Abuja (Onuoha 2012). The tactics employed by the security services, tactics that had previously worked in largely quelling the 1980s’ Mahdi insurgency led by Mohammed Marwam known as the Maitatsine uprising (Danjibo 2010; Adesoji 2011), had served only to further spread the violence and seemingly stiffen the resolve of sect members.

26This evolution represented the second time in which attempts by security forces to destroy Boko Haram had negligible or adverse effects. Shekau’s ascension to power and the subsequent rapid escalation of persistent and sustained violence were largely unexpected in Nigeria (Cook 2011; Onuoha 2012). The failure of the Nigerian security and intelligence services to adequately understand and properly contextualise the problem Yusuf’s movement presented, coupled with the failure to determine the best options for dealing with the security implications while ensuring the security and welfare of the citizens, are in part responsible for the course of events that followed (Marchal 2012; Kogbara 2013). Moreover, the widespread human rights abuses and indiscriminate crackdowns in the North, particularly in Borno and Yobe, further alienated an already sceptical north-eastern population and served to further complicate any attempts to deal with the problems posed by Boko Haram (Onuoha 2012; Nossiter 2013). This was made clear in a recent Human Rights Watch report, which claimed that “JTF abuses have created growing resentment in communities, making community members more unlikely to provide information that could help curtail Boko Haram” and that “abuses by the JTF have created more distance between the people and the government” (Human Rights Watch 2012: 59). This sentiment was echoed in the frustrations, expressed by the JTF, regarding the perceived lack of public support in Borno State for Operation Restore Order, designed to ‘protect the people’ (Idris 2013; Ugah 2013).

27The latest security force attempt to once and for all dismantle Boko Haram has led to the third violent crackdown, primarily focusing on Borno and Yobe states. This crackdown led to the alleged killing of an even greater number of Boko Haram members but has yet to deal the decisive final blow to the organisation (Al Jazeera 2013; Nossiter 2013; Umar & Gambrell 2013). The JTF operations have included imposing rigid curfews, mass arrests, door-to-door searches, destruction of homes, and prolonged detentions and/or interrogations of anyone suspected of being associated with Boko Haram. These actions have contributed to the low levels of public support for the security forces and have led to public protests in Maiduguri as well as condemnation by opposition politicians (Olugbode 2013). Moreover, the crackdowns, while not only failing to deal with the insurgency, have potentially spurred yet another evolution in the group. This latest evolution presents an even more complex and potentially more dangerous problem than previously seen. This evolution has split the organisation into multiple loosely interconnected groups that now complicate analysis and accurate attribution of events (Zenn 2013). Furthermore, the various groups have adopted new tactics, in the form of kidnappings for ransom or political statement, which have increased the targets to include expatriate workers, foreign corporations, and regional business infrastructures (Peoples Daily 2013).

Counterinsurgency and the body count

28The raw data, while not optimal in terms of providing absolute certainty, tells a significant story in itself. In the case of the clashes between the JTF and Boko Haram, certain patterns emerge which provide a unique perspective. For example, the ratio of reported militants killed versus militants arrested in a given year shows a potentially significant indication of the willingness of JTF forces to resort to deadly force during counter-insurgency operations. The rate at which counter-insurgency operations lead to deaths rather than detentions is an important variable of analysis. This perspective is especially revealing when contrasted with numbers from similar historical case studies of military and paramilitary efforts to counter domestic militant groups. According to our compiled statistics, the approximate number of Boko Haram fatalities from 2007 to 2013, largely reported by the JTF, stands at approximately 620, which is admittedly at the low end of overall estimates for reasons of methodology. During the same period, according to our data, approximately 777 suspected Boko Haram members were arrested. Some commentators suggest approximately 1,000 Boko Haram followers were killed in the 2009 riots alone (Cook 2011; Human Rights Watch 2012; Zenn 2013), but we have thus far been unable to find reputable or reasonably verifiable reporting to substantiate such claims. Moreover, such numbers, while not impossible, are rather high; for example, the Pakistan military claimed to have killed similar numbers of militants during a 2008 offensive in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, but those occurred over the course of a month-long sustained offensive (AFP 2008). Therefore, reports suggesting that those numbers were equalled over the course of an uprising that lasted less than a week in north-eastern Nigeria are dubious.

29While reporting agencies have different approaches to calculating total fatalities and casualties during the ongoing Boko Haram conflict, the one consistent factor is the reliance to varying degrees on media reporting. As such, the assumption is that certain portions of the data should be somewhat stable across the board, based on seemingly consistent sourcing. There are, however, instances of significant disparity in reporting within the data that emerged from the 2009 militant uprising across the several northern states and the ensuing state of emergency, a fact that is likely the primary cause of discrepancies in fatality totals between various entities tracking such data. In particular, reports that emerged regarding the security forces’ siege of Maiduguri from 27 to 29 July 2009 are especially problematic because the flow of information from the city was largely stifled. The greatest disparity in fatality numbers emerges in this reporting, with estimates upwards of 1,000 fatalities, including from 200 to 700 militants killed (Al Jazeera 2009; Mukairu & Muhammad 2009; Telegraph 2009). The actual events in Maiduguri are virtually impossible to accurately assess, given the media blackout and rigid civilian curfew in which non-combatants were forced to remain indoors for the majority of the fighting.

30For the purposes of this analysis we clarify our position on two accounts. First, given the lack of reliable census data in Nigeria to provide context to reports, we accept that the probable range of total fatalities, according to Nigerian media reports, in the 2009 uprising is somewhere between 600 and upwards of 1,000 (BBC 2009; The Nation 2009). We also accept that the security services are likely responsible for a significant share of that total as well as the militants. However, since we do not have reliable comparative data on prior Nigerian military raids and equally heavy-handed military crackdowns on organised populist insurgencies – for example, the Maitatsine riots – we are less inclined to accept that 600 to 1,000 ‘militants’ were killed. This position is based on our particular data collection methodology to assess the most likely totals of militant and security force fatalities, which form the basis for analysis within this piece. We fully acknowledge that our data, as with all other datasets, is open to further discussion and debate.

31Accurately assessing fatalities directly attributable to low-intensity conflicts, such as that of Boko Haram, while a worthwhile and necessary endeavour, is an imperfect science and immensely difficult even with good pre-existing population data, which Nigeria does not have; this therefore leaves the range between fatality estimates in a given conflict somewhere between the thousands and hundreds of thousands (Murray et al. 2002). As such, variations in estimates from reporting agency to reporting agency are to be expected, given the various sources of collection. The disparity in reported statistics can be attributed to a number of variables, and few estimates can be categorically dismissed as entirely inaccurate. Nevertheless, numbers alone say less than the patterns that emerge regarding the actions and reactions of both the JTF and Boko Haram in their ongoing struggle. It is here that we wish to draw the focus of our analysis within this particular dataset.

32For example, irrespective of the body count or damage inflicted on the militant movement, the typical response from the group to any violent crackdowns has been a reactionary wave of violent revenge attacks, thus continuing a seemingly endless cycle of violence that largely affects surrounding civilian populations. According to the collected data, the timing of such retaliatory attacks by Boko Haram can range from days to even a year, but they occur without fail. This calls into question whether the tactics employed by the security forces are dealing with the root problems causing the insurgency and instability in the north-eastern regions of Nigeria. Part of this question directly relates to the impact of civilian casualties attributable to security forces in a war among the people – as opposed to a strictly military combatant conflict – but we will address this issue only briefly. As already stated, this analysis will focus on the numbers of militant and security force fatalities and the patterns of militants killed or detained during the ongoing conflict, to contextualise the conflict.

33The current JTF strategy neither embraces all-out brutal repression nor does it effectively implement a more holistic counter-insurgency model. Instead, the operational strategies are largely reactionary, and tactics like the routine demolition of properties of individuals even accused or suspected of tacitly supporting Boko Haram militants have placed the civilian population in a virtual no-win situation between the violence and destruction of both the militant and the security forces. In addition to alienated residents, the operating environment within which the security forces are attempting to carry out their counter-insurgency operations is made more complex by failures in other national institutions. Weak judicial and penal systems in the country, which also suffer from varying degrees of corruption, have made it so that there is only limited faith that insurgents will be properly prosecuted or effectively detained. Moreover, the series of daring prison breaks in northern prisons, along with the problems of poor funding and inadequate staffing and equipment, have created a situation where security officials and their families can become targets for reprisal, a reality that has played out repeatedly in the North.

34In examining the fluctuating scale of violence in the course of the ongoing counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism operations (depending upon the particular agenda and perspective), the trends that emerge in the relationship between Boko Haram and the security forces tell a story in themselves. This story correlates directly with the relationship between the citizens in Nigeria and the state institutions tasked with providing their “safety and well-being” as outlined in the Nigerian Constitution. For comparison, the total numbers of security forces, militants, and civilians killed in other conflicts are shown in Table 8.1:

Table 8.1. Comparison of militants and security forces killed in selected conflicts

* IRA totals (O’Brien 1999; Thorton et al. 2004; CAIN 2013); ** FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) totals (Cadavid n.d.; Human Rights Watch 2011); *** Chechen totals (Lee n.d.; Dunnigan 2002; Sapozhnikov 2003; REFRL 2005); ^ Boko Haram totals based on media reporting from January 2007 through February 2013.

35This data highlights that the Nigerian security forces are by no means the most brutal in terms of total alleged counter-insurgent fatalities; however, the numbers are not particularly positive either, especially in terms of the ratio of militant to security force deaths, in which Nigeria ranks highest. It must be stated that security sector abuses in Nigeria are not isolated to counter-insurgency operations against Boko Haram and are responsible for fatalities on an almost daily basis throughout the country (Pérouse de Montclos 2011); however, such abuses are also common in the Caucasus and in Colombia, which further highlights this particular comparative data with Nigeria as it pertains to counter-insurgency operations. These problems occur when trying to resolve a largely law enforcement issue with primarily traditional military forces, a lesson learned by all the other case studies. There is no clear figure to distinguish the point at which fatalities caused by the security forces contribute to a growing sense of insecurity; however, given the fact that Boko Haram has continued and, at times, expanded operations, that point is probably not far off.

36In addition, if one takes into account the rates at which militants are either killed or detained/arrested in a given year in Nigeria from the 2009 uprising to date, the data shows some interesting trends (Table 8.2).

37The arrest/kill data shows that the ratio between arrests and killings begins to shift increasingly towards killing over the last 18 months, especially in the last year of the conflict. This suggests that there is a possible growing preference amongst Nigerian security forces to kill. If the current ratio from the first months of 2013 remains consistent through the remainder of the year, it will represent a dramatic increase in already repressive tactics. In the end, such a shift will likely further distance the ‘protectors’ from the ‘victims’, thereby undermining security operations and perpetuating negative perceptions of the security forces by the public. This does not have to be the case. The security forces have, in other violent clashes, conducted themselves in a manner that has resolved the crisis without resorting to heavy-handed tactics (Ezeobi 2013).

Conclusion

38Based on the regenerative nature of Boko Haram and the splintering of the violent movement into competing groups, there is nothing to suggest that the Nigerian security forces are in a position to kill their way to stability in the North. Even the historically heavy-handed Russian counter-insurgency units operating in the Caucasus region have adopted more even-handed tactics, which have led to increased security for local residents (Flintoff 2013). Such realisations have come to most successful counter-insurgency operations and are core elements of sound strategy to achieve sustained security (Moore n.d.). As such, to return to a reasonable sense of security, a serious shift away from the current reactionary strategies and the heavy-handed tactics currently employed by the Nigerian security forces is likely to be the only viable option. The fact that operating environments have improved and public support, even in counter-Boko Haram operations, has been greater in areas where the security forces have not so strictly adhered to such heavy-handed is evidence to that end (Garba 2012).

39In the relatively short history of security force operations against Boko Haram, there have been far too many incidents of inexcusable abuses of state power, from extrajudicial killings to indiscriminate retaliatory responses. Such events have continued to contribute to the ever-growing sense of insecurity amongst the people. The peaks and troughs in overall violence within the Nigerian security response speak to the reactionary nature of the strategy. In the war currently being waged amongst the people, the reactionary strategy being employed by the Nigerian security forces must be re-evaluated and altered to better address both the causes and results of the ongoing violence. With a more cohesive operational focus and tempo, knee-jerk retributions of uncontrolled violence can be better controlled. Until such time, the majority of the insecurity burden will continue to be shouldered by the public. The public are in no position to bear such a burden, and in such an environment there will almost certainly be no substantive security gains.