Boko Haram

A Theoretical or Practical Threat to US Interests

Abstract

What are other scholars saying about the relationship between terrorist group rhetoric and attacks
on the US/Western interests? How to determine whether rhetoric is aspirational, evidence of
intent, or evidence of imminent action or simply to recruit? Research on BH group rhetoric and
actual attack has been very low or at best non-existent. Yet this remains a very significant area for
drafting some serious counter terrorism policy in Nigeria. This particular article examines the
rhetoric of Boko Haram and ANSARU against US/Western interests and assesses the seriousness
of its threat within and outside Nigeria. The analysis is important for counter terrorism
collaboration between Nigeria and US.
Introduction

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks on America, the reactions of ordinary Americans were more
concentrated on the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda affiliates. In fact, commenting
on Americans reactions, Osama bin Laden is alleged to have said with obvious satisfaction that
there is America, full of fear from north to south, from west to east. Thank God for that! [1]
Since 9/11, terrorist group rhetoric has become part of the fundamental strategy of terrorists,
frequently warning of more devastating anti-American, anti-western attacks around the world.
Emerging studies on the rehabilitation of terrorists have shown that, terrorists, deep necked in
psychology of fear, know that violent atrocities and the mere threat of violent attacks in the
aftermath of major strikes accomplish one of their primary goals, which is to frighten their selected
targets and intimidate governments to react or overact [2]. Consequently, whether the attacks are
actual or mere threats, terrorists are likely to win instant access to the news media, motivate new
recruits and the international coverage that follows give them instant relevance and recognition.
Likewise, students of terrorism, policy makers of target countries and the terrorists themselves
have long assumed that not only actual terrorists attacks but also serious threats of such strikes
can and do increase targeted publics fears and anxieties [3]. More importantly, the mere rhetoric
of terrorist groups have driven policy decisions and force governments threatened by such rhetoric
to use military force.
Since the Boko Haram uprising, sect members have used terrorist group rhetoric to intimidate the
local population, expose the weaknesses of Nigerias security policies and threaten transnational
US/Western interests. Some of these rhetoric have been accompanied by actual attacks while
others remain at the realm of ideas. Yet research into how the relationship between Boko
Haram/ANSARU rhetoric and actual attacks on national and transnational US/Western interests
have remain very low or almost non-existent. The purpose of this article is to assess whether Boko
Haram and ANSARU rhetoric against US/Western interests is aspirational, evidence of intent, or
evidence of imminent action or simply to recruit. First, the article examines what other scholars
and students of terrorism have said about the relationship between terrorist group rhetoric and
actual attack on US/Western interests. Second, it deconstructs the concept of US interests from
the perspectives of the U.S., Boko Haram and ANSARU. It concludes that ANSARU rhetoric is
probably a greater threat to US/Western interests than Boko Haram. It suggests effective counter
terrorism policies amongst which is decapitating ANSARU due to its strong links with al-Qaedas
global jihadi ideology. This calls for greater collaboration between the US, Nigeria and the region.
Literature Review

Scholars and some security experts have, over the years, analysed the relationship between terrorist
group rhetoric and actual attacks from different perspectives. These analyses seem to be
constantly, though not always, drawn towards determining whether a terrorist group rhetoric is

aspirational, evidence of intent, or evidence of imminent action or simply to recruit. Emerging

evidence from the literature indicates that determining if rhetoric is aspirational, intentional or sign
of imminent action is a very complex undertaking. It is complex because terrorist groups operate
with different operational capabilities and in different socio-political contexts. Moreover, different
groups have different goals; political, social and religious, in addition to the domestic, national and
transnational goals. For example, in order to assess the various threats that terrorists groups pose
to the United States, Kim and Sara developed a threat framework based on step-by-step
progressive analysis of terrorist groups motivations and capabilities in the context of U.S national
security interests. This framework was sourced from terrorist group rhetoric and their conclusion
suggests that terrorist group rhetoric more than anything else is a demonstration of the groups
intent and capability. Kim and Sara insist that the rhetoric is an evidence of the groups members,
skills, funds and operational capabilities acquired over the years [4]. If rhetoric demonstrates
intention and capability, then such an assessment provides U.S. decision makers with a tool for
prioritizing the threat of these groups. However, the claim that rhetoric alone demonstrates
intention and capability seems to be a weak argument. First, considering the different goals and
socio-political contexts of each terrorist group, rhetoric may not always be a demonstration of
intent and capability. Moreover, relying on rhetoric alone, security agencies stand the risk of
isolating the most dangerous groups that do not make any noise. It even makes it more difficult
for national security groups to filter through the noise of the multiple threats facing country [5].
On the contrary, Nacos and others argue that the significance of terrorist group rhetoric is not in
any way embedded in the rhetoric but lies with the individuals or the particular terrorist group that
conveyed such a rhetoric. In a report on home-grown violent jihadists and the rhetoric and plots
that have occurred since 9/11, Nacos rejects the assumption that mere threat of terrorist strikes is
a sign of imminent danger which affect societies that have experienced actual acts of terrorism. He
argues that, so far, no research has either validated this conventional wisdom or demonstrated how
media mediated rhetoric of terrorist groups is a sign of imminent danger that affect the public in
targeted areas. Consequently, Nacos report fills the gap providing evidence that the significance
of terrorist group rhetoric either as aspirational, intentional or sign of imminent attack is
determined not by the content of the rhetoric but by the type of terrorists that actually convey
such rhetoric [6]. However, Jerome rejects this position because it excludes the groups ideological
or religious justification for the rhetoric and limits it to how dangerous the particular individual or
group that conveyed the rhetoric is [7]. More importantly, it fails to account for some terrorist
group rhetoric that is presented from anonymous groups or individuals. In a more revealing
manner, Alexander and Martin present a policy necessity to examine the unspoken words of
terrorist group rhetoric as being significant to determining the group aspiration, intention or sign
of imminent action. For them terrorists speak in coded languages and what is left unsaid may make
more meaning that what is being said. At a Fraser Institute conference held in June 2007 in
Toronto, Ontario, titled, Immigration Policy, Border Controls, and the Terrorist Threat in
Canada and the United States. Alexander and Martin referred to some recent events: the planned
millennium bombing of the Los Angeles Airport and the attacks of September 11, 2001. With
these events, they indicated how terrorists use unspoken words of their group rhetoric to
manipulate the immigration and refugee policies of Western democracies. Subsequent strikes and
uncovered plots in Europe, Canada, and other countries have demonstrated the need for to reexamine the security threats associated with unspoken words contained in threats issued by
terrorists [8]. John Glaser thinks that the al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist threats contained in
terrorist group rhetoric are not nearly as big a danger as America and the West would have the
world believe [9]. In The New York Times article, Glaser observes that al-Qaedas rhetoric is a
product of Americas unalloyed support for Israel and the rulers of the Persian Gulf States. In
addition, he states that most of the newer Jihadist groups have local agendas, and very few aspire
to strike directly at United States as Osama bin Ladens core network did. They interfere with

American interests around the world. But that is a far cry from terrorist plots aimed at the United
States itself [10]. Whatever the arguments are, terrorist group rhetoric has become an entrenched
part of the extremists conflict strategy. It is a strategy that have driven policies of international
security organizations including the UN [11], in addition to the military offensive against terrorist
cells by different nations and the collaboration between transnational governments. Consequently,
the purpose of this article is to determine the spectrum within which Boko Haram and ANSARU
rhetoric falls. To do this effectively, it is necessary to examine the concept of US interests in US
and BH perspectives.
The Concept of U.S. Interests in US and BH Perspectives
The global nature of Americas political and economic power and its influence around the world
has come to determine the way different countries relate to the United States. Moreover, the
concept of US interests has been understood and defined by countries and regions within the
context of their relationship with America. As such, it is right to explore and to define the concept
of US interests as understood by the US before looking at it from other perspectives. One of the
respected agencies that examined the concept of US interests in detail was The Commission on
Americas National Interests. The Commission was concerned that after five decades of
extraordinary exertion, the US was in danger of losing it global leadership. Consequently, in the
absence of American global leadership, citizens will find their fortunes, their values, and indeed
their lives threatened. For the members of the Commission, the fatigue of many, and distraction
of some with special interests, leave American foreign policy hostage to television images and the
momentary passions of domestic politics [12]. Lacking basic coordinates and a clear sense of
priorities, American foreign policy will become reactive and impulsive in a fast-changing and
uncertain world [13]. As such, the Commission defined the concept of US interests as being made
up of for important elements; vital US interests, extremely important US interests, important US
interests, and less important or secondary US interests.
Using Websters dictionary definition of vital; that which is essential or indispensable to the
existence or continuance of something, the Commission posits that vital US interests should be
applied only to interests that are indeed strictly indispensable. The summary of American vital
interests, first formulated in the late 1940s: to preserve the United States as a free national with its
fundamental institutions and values intact. Consequently, vital US interests are; to prevent, deter
and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the United states, or
its military abroad; to ensure US allies survival and their active cooperation with the US in shaping
international systems. To prevent the emergence of hostile major powers or failed states on US
borders. To ensure the viability and stability of major global systems (trades, financial markets,
supplies of energy and the environment and, finally establish productive relations, consistent with
American national interests, with nations that could become strategic adversaries, China and
Russia. Likewise, in addition to the above, the extremely important US interests include the
prevention of regional proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. The
promotion of the acceptation of international rules of law and mechanisms for resolving or
managing disputes peacefully. Promote democracy, protect US allies and friends, maintain a lead
in key military related and other strategic technologies, particularly information systems, prevent
the emergence of regional hegemons, prevent genocide and suppress terrorism. On the other hand,
important US interests include discouraging of massive human right violations in foreign countries,
prevent hostage taking of Americans, reduce economic gap between rich and poor countries, and
maintain an edge in the international distribution of information to ensure that American values
continue to positively influence the cultures of foreign nations. Finally, the less important or
secondary US national interests include balancing bilateral trade deficits; enlarging democracy
everywhere for its own sake; preserving the territorial integrity or particular political constitution
of other states everywhere; and enhancing exports of specific economic sectors. In summary, US

interests to the US means the homeland, diplomatic personnel, economic activities, symbols and
buildings like UN. However, what does US interests mean to Boko Haram?
Boko Haram: A Theoretical or Practical Threat to US Interests
To critically analyze the nature of Boko Haram rhetoric and threats against US interests as
contained in their messages, especially in the last two years, it is important to examine the ideology
that defines Boko Harams understanding of US interests and how they perceive these interests.
This ideology, according to Adam, is based on Yusufs May 30, 2008 YouTube video lecture [14].
In this lecture, Yusuf explicitly constructed the ideology that today informs Boko Haram threats
and rhetoric against American interests. This construct is based on Yusufs Hausa translation of
the book al-Madris al-lamiyya al-ajnabiyya al-istimriyya: trikhuha wa makhtiruha (Global,
Foreign and Colonialist Schools: Their History and Dangers). This book was originally written by
Bakr bin Abdullah Abu Zayd (d. 2008), a prominent Wahhabi scholar. In line with Abu Zayds
thoughts, Yusuf submits that European colonialists introduced modern secular education into
Islamic societies as a well marshalled plan to dominate and rule over Islamic societies. The
conspiracy of the West is to corrupt the pure Islamic morals, permanently subjugate and rule over
Islamic societies using western education, western philosophies and ideologies [15]. More than
military, political and economic dominance, the most dangerous aspect of this modern secular
education is the domination of Islamic thought pattern by western philosophy. This educational
conspiracy is difficult to resist and therefore must be fought on all fronts. In the eyes of Boko
Haram members, the drive for Western dominance of Islamic societies is being led and propelled
by America, based on the concept of Americanization; that American ambition to harmonize the
cultures of the world as defined by the process of globalization. It is a new unbridled imperialism
that will destroy traditional societies [16]. Boko Haram pretends therefore to give voice to the
voiceless masses in north-eastern Nigeria.
The reason is that, first, for populations living under subsistence lifestyles, the medias glorification
of branded products and branded lifestyles associated with American culture [17], starkly
exposes how far behind the environment within which Boko Haram emerged have been left and
this causes deep seated resentment. Second, the global americanizaiton of life made societies, like
north-eastern Nigeria, that have been excluded from the benefits of this sort of culture look
isolated, dislocated and powerless. Unable to access the tools of modernization, they feel their
histories, religions and memories may be swallowed up in this bigger American culture. To the US
and most western policy makers, American interests means homeland security, diplomatic
personnel, economic activities, international symbols like embassies and UN headquarters.
However, for Boko Haram, American interests first and foremost means the spread of western
culture and philosophy through modern education. Therefore institutions at the local and national
level that provide support for the spread of americanizaiton must be attacked. These include
democratic institutions like police stations, military barracks, states houses of assembly, banks;
educational institutions like schools, missionary colleges and universities; and other social venues
that reflect western life styles like bars, beer parlours, local casinos and even markets.
Boko Haram links with AQIM and al-Qaeda expanded, their understanding of US interests also
shifted from local institutions of western civilization to include Americas homeland security,
diplomatic missions, western personnel etc. This is aptly demonstrated by rhetoric and threats of
both Boko Haram and ANSARU. For example, in 2011, Boko Haram issued thirty statements,
only six of which focused on international themes and four of which specifically mentioned the
United States or Al-Qaeda. In 2012, Boko Haram issued thirty-eight statements, five of which
centered on international themes and three of which specifically referred to the United States or
Al-Qaeda [18]. A few of these statements are presented here: 1) In 2006, an anonymous member
said I dont know who gave us the name Taliban, I prefer mujahideen. I know only the Taliban

in Afghanistan and I respect what they did very much. I may not be ready to do the same now but
if I could, I would [19]. 2) In July 2010, Abubakar Shekau said infidels, hypocrites and apostates:
Do not think jihad is over. Rather jihad has just begun. O America, die with your fury [20]. 3) In
Sept. 2012, a Boko Haram spokesman said, as a result of the harm we understand Voice of
America is inflicting on Islam, we hereby inform all reporters and staff of this radio station that
whoever wants to live in peace amongst them should quit working with this media
organizationwe will not spare any reporter or staff wherever we find him by the grace of God
[21]. One of the most explicit threats against America came from the spokesman of Boko Haram
in March 2010. Group clearly stated Islam does not recognize boundaries. We will carry out
operations anywhere in the world if we have the chancethe United States is the number one
target for its oppression and aggressions against Muslim nations particular in Iraq and Afghanistan
and its blind support for Israel in its killings of our Palestinian brethren.We will launch fiercer
attacks than Iraqi or Afghan Mujahedeen against our enemies throughout the world, particularly
the U.S, if the chance avails itself within the confines of what Islam prescribes [22].
Conclusion
So far, the threat of Boko Haram against American interests is tilted towards rhetoric than actual
reality. Even with recent YouTube video threats, where the names of Obama and George are
mentioned, Boko Haram has not been able to directly attack an American targets. The possibility
of attacks against other interests indirectly connected to American interests cannot be ruled out.
But the policy insights to be taken seriously are; first, American way of life has a huge influence
around the world, including the inner recesses of different cultural groups in Africa. Second,
threats against America and American interests are never static but constantly shifting between
and around different foreign policy issues. More worrying is the fact that there is an evidence of
emerging inter-sect cooperation between insurgents, terrorists and militants to attack American
interest anywhere, anytime and in any form of shape in the world. The possibility of future
collaboration between al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ANSARU, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in
West Africa (MUJWA) as well as the recent Islamic State in Iraq indicates that the threat against
American interests (directly or indirectly) is a serious policy issue that should not be taken lightly.

Fr. Atta Barkindo

Ph.D. Research Candidate, SOAS University of London &
Fellow of The Global Initiative On Civil Society and Conflict (GICSC)
University of South Florida, Tampa, USA.