Islamic State insurgency Mozambique

[Hunter4752001]

One has to wonder whether there is another objective. The main outcome of the action was to terrorise the local population and cause Total to abandon their LNG facility. The terrorists undertook widespread damage in the town and clearly targeted the Europeans concentarted at the hotel. But they didn't appear to try and damage the LNG facility itself even though it was vulnerable. This raises the question as to whether the action was more about creating a situation where another power could eventually come in and control the LNG resources, rather than being based in local socioeconomic issues. Now who would be interested in controlling world energy resources?

 

[Newboomer]

Stinks like middle Eastern oil money trying to gain control of resources by funding terrorist mobs. Seems that is why the LNG plant was unscathed. They don't want to destroy a valuable source, just control the area and get rid of competition.

 

[Zambezi]

The area has largely been forgotten since the late 70's. As I said earlier, FRELIMO control the country and their civil war adversaries RENAMO had their stronghold in the north. As "punishment" for the north's support of RENAMO the government has neglected the north for more than 40 years. The locals are fed up and these religious fanatics are using it to their advantage.

They definitely do NOT want to destroy the LNG infrastructure but they do want to keep it intact for a time when they take the area over as a semi autonomous region or the locals start to get a fair shake from the government and start to be treated as well as the south. The unfortunate part is that while they support (to some extent) the mayhem as it serves a purpose they do not realise that the terrorists will never give up the area without a fight. And once they are mopped up and driven out the south will probably go back to neglecting them or worse for the troubles.

One thing more deep rooted in Africa than nationalism is tribalism! They have preyed in each other since Adam and they will continue to do so until the end of time. Education blah blah blah will never change that. The Shona and the Matabele will never get along. The Matalbele came up as a splinter group from Shaka. They used to give the Shona a good hiding daily for around a hundred years. Even during the bush war they couldn't fight together against the Rhodesians. Now the Shona are in power and Matebeleland is neglected just like the north of Moz.... the wheel turns.

 

[Chickenfarmers]

Not sure what you are talking about/meaning....I am telling you the simple fact that tribalism is very strong .....and it's not going to change soon...but if you know better fine...

Sorry, I was only done with a bottle of Jameson. lols
What i was saying is that, several countries in Africa need to break into small countries for there to be unity and peace in the continent. We are basically saying the same thing as tribalism is very strong in Africa. The Birts didn't do a good job packing several groups of people together without considering boarder lines. Its funny how its called tribalism there but here in the U.S its called racism. lols.

 

[Frederik]

I'm not sure about tribalism as since 1994 any and every refuge or asylum seeker came to RSA in the millions and borders never been stopped still. So if Tribalism was so strong why root yourself out of your tribe and settle in a country with complete different tribes.

Could be money I suppose biggest reasons for Moz and Zim people moving here and then we get back to the same fact the Plant was not attacked or destroyed.

 

[Chickenfarmers]

I'm not sure about tribalism as since 1994 any and every refuge or asylum seeker came to RSA in the millions and borders never been stopped still. So if Tribalism was so strong why root yourself out of your tribe and settle in a country with complete different tribes.

Could be money I suppose biggest reasons for Moz and Zim people moving here and then we get back to the same fact the Plant was not attacked or destroyed.

I haven't lived in Moz to know a lot about he country but in my little experience. Tribalism is at its minimal in commercial areas, in the big cities with skyscrapers and people going about their businesses. Don't want to sound like a Islam hater but i have noticed that in Islamic regions it is very strong there.

 

[Chickenfarmers]

Yes, this is what I was told when I was in CAR in 2016. Obama and Hilary tipped over Gaddafi in Libya and a lot of Libyan arms went south. This caused all kinds of mayhem to include elephant poaching and destabilization of several countries.

What we are seeing in Moz and in several other African countries is a symptom of the Europeans pulling out many years ago probably too quickly due to political pressures and rebellion. I understand the black African people wanting self-rule but without enough educated people to run the governments and ministries, it's become a corrupt mess. Now, the USA and most European countries look at the situation as somewhat of a quagmire with no easy answers. If they come back in to establish peace and root out corruption, they would be criticized and accused of colonialization all over again.

Here in North America and Central America, we are seeing the same problems unfold in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc... Right now in northern Mexico, there is a big bloody battle going on between two cartels and the Mexican government is neck deep in it and involved all the way to the top. Biden made the big mistake of lowering border security and now we are being overrun with illegal immigration. It might sound crazy but the best thing that could happen for all involved would be for the USA to take over Mexico and much of Central America and turn those countries into more US states. We could bring some sort of organized government and infrastructure to these countries and it would benefit everyone. These countries have vast natural resources and tourism that should be put to better use for everyone instead of the corrupt governments down there. Hell, most Mexicans and Central Americans are trying to come to the USA anyway! Why not bring the USA to them??!!

I have been following this carefully for year, Donald Trump tried to build a wall to keep the illegal migrants out but the Congress fought him not because it wouldn't work but because they despise him with passion. The wall is temporary solution since previous administrations wouldn't do anything about the boarder security and migrants flooding in. The Mexican Politicians are funded by Drug lords so when there's war they have to take sides which won't solves any problem for the common people. The same as Africa, If the U.S take over Mexico, Its gonna be colonization all over again...The mainstream media which have so much power now to turn the news to suit whatever narrative they want would bring the Racism thing to the front page all over again. Donald Trump tried to address these things but Liberals wouldn't let him. Its time for African, Mexicans and other countries going through hard times to stand up for themselves, Migration is not the solution as Europe can take everyone, America can't take everyone.

 

[Zambezi]

I'm not sure about tribalism as since 1994 any and every refuge or asylum seeker came to RSA in the millions and borders never been stopped still. So if Tribalism was so strong why root yourself out of your tribe and settle in a country with complete different tribes.

Could be money I suppose biggest reasons for Moz and Zim people moving here and then we get back to the same fact the Plant was not attacked or destroyed.

They came here because many of them have been driven out of their own countries by the ruling tribe, especially in the case of the Matebele in Zim.

In the case of Moz it is more a case of factional differences between FRELIMO and RENAMO and both of those factions are made up of different tribes within each group. FRELIMO has had it in for RENAMO since coming into power after the Portuguese relinquished power in the late 60's early 70's. They have "punished" the north for not unifying with them all those years back.

The north is underfunded and neglected. They needed help to get the south to come to the table to get a fair shake and inclusion in the historic and future wealth of the country. Nobody else offered help or cared... rich and fertile grounds for insurrection and infiltration...

 

[WAB]

Tribalism is the most extreme form of racism I have ever seen. It trumps religion. Typically a person is a member of their tribe first and an adherent to their religion second, be it Christianity, Islam or whatever. A good friend is Hutu and escaped the genocide in Burundi as a boy. The Hutu/Tutsi hatred will never go away and is typical of the tribal hatred across Africa.

In a humorous note, we were having a beer after a hot day working in Togo and we got on the subject of Obama. His comment was; ‘why are you surprised at him? He is Luhyas, all they do is lord it over everyone, they never actually do any work themselves’.

 

[spike.t]

 

[spike.t]

Tribalism is the most extreme form of racism I have ever seen. It trumps religion. Typically a person is a member of their tribe first and an adherent to their religion second, be it Christianity, Islam or whatever. A good friend is Hutu and escaped the genocide in Burundi as a boy. The Hutu/Tutsi hatred will never go away and is typical of the tribal hatred across Africa.

In a humorous note, we were having a beer after a hot day working in Togo and we got on the subject of Obama. His comment was; ‘why are you surprised at him? He is Luhyas, all they do is lord it over everyone, they never actually do any work themselves’.

Yup and tribalism is in political parties , with one tribe usually dominant in that party....and if you had a different country for all the different tribes as has been mentioned on here ...then there would be thousands of small countries all with a mission to occupy another to make theirs bigger....

 

[Zambezi]

Yup and tribalism is in political parties , with one tribe usually dominant in that party....and if you had a different country for all the different tribes as has been mentioned on here ...then there would be thousands of small countries all with a mission to occupy another to make theirs bigger....

And all with their hands out for foreign aid.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I agree about tribalism being the easiest way to drum up hate toward other groups.

For most young Islamists, their future has no opportunities. The mulas have the power, money, and marry all the young women. If that were you and someone says, follow me to riches and women, what would you do. Add to that their religion condones killing or enslaving infadels. It is no wonder that ISIS has a lot of volunteers.

 

[WilhelmM]

I agree about tribalism being the easiest way to drum up hate toward other groups.

For most young Islamists, their future has no opportunities. The mulas have the power, money, and marry all the young women. If that were you and someone says, follow me to riches and women, what would you do. Add to that their religion condones killing or enslaving infadels. It is no wonder that ISIS has a lot of volunteers.

That, and many of ISIS and Al Shebab's young volunteers were stolen from their parents at a young age. Radical Islam is all they have to fight for, at least in their perspective. Even if they do become disillusioned with the militants, they fear that if they leave they'll either be beheaded for treason or somehow killed by Allah.

 

[rookhawk]

The people running Moz are to blame for how this has gone down. Now Amnesty Int'l and human rights watch are all tuned in and watching what is going on down there. Plans to use mercenaries to rescue the innocent and eradicate the insurgent is off the table.

They should have kept their mouth shut, paid Mercs, and sorted it out full-measure before this became an internationally visible situation.

 

[Dragan N.]

The reason we didn't eliminate the Afghan opposition and Iraqi opposition is because we are going soft on them, if we put our whole weight into operations and didn't hold back to please international conferences the war would be over in months

No it would not.Foreign conventional armies have a pretty shitty record when it comes to fighting insurgent or guerrilla forces. I wold hardly say that the French where "soft" on the Vietnamese in the 1950s or that the Americans where "soft" on the Vietnamese in the 1960s. Yet both France and the US lost to the VCs. And this came at a heavy cost: millions of Vietnamese dead, over 50K American soldiers killed, and lots of $$$$. Guerrilla wars can be extremely messy and costly. I would also argue that America lost the Vietnam war politically more than militarily but that is what often happens in these guerrilla insurgency. They bleed or starve the big power out. However the political theater of a war is extremly important. As the old saying goes you may have won a battle but you haven't won the war.To the VCs Vientam is their home they are not going anywhere. However after more than a decade of power the American public got weary of this costly conflict and the US withdrew. Not to mention American morale was falling- this is a huge factor in a conflict. That is one huge advantage guerrilla units possess over a foreign enemy. A similar thing happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And they can hardly be labelled as "soft".

This is true. As much as I like to criticize the US, the soldiers in Afghanistan had every right to wipe those terrorists out but they weren't allowed to. Just look at Chechnya. Once it became a self-declared independent state in the 90s, it became a hotbed for radical Islamists. And guess what, the Russians eventually learned to show no mercy towards them and it worked like a charm.

Just last year an 18-year-old Chechen male beheaded that teacher in France. We need to stop showing sympathy towards these kinds of groups. They're not doing it for any other reason than blood-lust and a shoddy excuse in the name of religion.

And the only way they were defeated is when Russia dropped pamphlets saying to evacuate grozny by a certain point because they were going to level it

The pamphlets where dropped in Gronzy in '99- during the First Chechen War- the one that Moscow or Russia lost. There are a multitude of reasons why the Russians managed to pacify Chechnya. Putin's more adept leadership and reformation of the army following Yeltsin no doubt played a huge role. To put it mildly Yeltsin was a drunk idiot- you could not get a more inept leader. However, another huge reason for this victory was that you had the defection of Chechen rebels to Moscow's side. This happened with the Kadyrovites (you know Ramzan Kadyrov- the dude who rules Chechnya like a fiefdom). His father defected to the Russian side during the Second Chechen War. Having these locals fighting on your side during a counter-insurgency is huge. As these people live among the locals- its their home too and they know exactly which doors to knock on to find terrorists/separatists. They are also extremely brutal. But the brutality alone is not enough- you also need a shit load of local intelligence and boots on the ground. Locals who will fight street to street and house to house. Even with all this,Russia still had a fairly difficult time subduing Chechnya- which has a million people and is a part of Russia. Subduing 40 million Afghans or Iraqis, countries which lie halfway across the world from America is a whole different story. Subduing hundreds of millions of Africans would be an order of magnitude more difficult still.

Now I am far from an expert on this subject, and there are many people on this site who much more knowledgeable than me. But what i just wished to highlight is that winning a counter-insurgency isn't just a matter of not being "soft" (whatever that means) on your opponents.

 

[Thumper Mcgee]

No it would not.Foreign conventional armies have a pretty shitty record when it comes to fighting insurgent or guerrilla forces. I wold hardly say that the French where "soft" on the Vietnamese in the 1950s or that the Americans where "soft" on the Vietnamese in the 1960s. Yet both France and the US lost to the VCs. And this came at a heavy cost: millions of Vietnamese dead, over 50K American soldiers killed, and lots of $$$$. Guerrilla wars can be extremely messy and costly. I would also argue that America lost the Vietnam war politically more than militarily but that is what often happens in these guerrilla insurgency. They bleed or starve the big power out. However the political theater of a war is extremly important. As the old saying goes you may have won a battle but you haven't won the war.To the VCs Vientam is their home they are not going anywhere. However after more than a decade of power the American public got weary of this costly conflict and the US withdrew. Not to mention American morale was falling- this is a huge factor in a conflict. That is one huge advantage guerrilla units possess over a foreign enemy. A similar thing happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And they can hardly be labelled as "soft".





The pamphlets where dropped in Gronzy in '99- during the First Chechen War- the one that Moscow or Russia lost. There are a multitude of reasons why the Russians managed to pacify Chechnya. Putin's more adept leadership and reformation of the army following Yeltsin no doubt played a huge role. To put it mildly Yeltsin was a drunk idiot- you could not get a more inept leader. However, another huge reason for this victory was that you had the defection of Chechen rebels to Moscow's side. This happened with the Kadyrovites (you know Ramzan Kadyrov- the dude who rules Chechnya like a fiefdom). His father defected to the Russian side during the Second Chechen War. Having these locals fighting on your side during a counter-insurgency is huge. As these people live among the locals- its their home too and they know exactly which doors to knock on to find terrorists/separatists. They are also extremely brutal. But the brutality alone is not enough- you also need a shit load of local intelligence and boots on the ground. Locals who will fight street to street and house to house. Even with all this,Russia still had a fairly difficult time subduing Chechnya- which has a million people and is a part of Russia. Subduing 40 million Afghans or Iraqis, countries which lie halfway across the world from America is a whole different story. Subduing hundreds of millions of Africans would be an order of magnitude more difficult still.

Now I am far from an expert on this subject, and there are many people on this site who much more knowledgeable than me. But what i just wished to highlight is that winning a counter-insurgency isn't just a matter of not being "soft" (whatever that means) on your opponents.

We almost won the Vietnamese war after operation linebacker, we pulled out from political pressure at home. In Afghanistan we rarely have true military operations anymore. If I'm not mistaken only 1800 Americans have died in afghanastan, were as the Afghani death rate is way higher. Afghanistan is also a war of complete destruction, as the Taliban is willing to fight to the last man for Allah. In vietnam the central communist government controlled most of the small guerilla troops. If they made a peace conference sure the guerillas would not stop fighting but the nva would. Also the first war in Chechnya was lost due to internal problems, and public opposition to the war.