logo
Africa's 'Second' World War Is Not Winding Down Anytime Soon

Africa's 'Second' World War Is Not Winding Down Anytime Soon

Memri2 days ago
The First and Second Congo Wars, waged between 1996 and 1997 and then 1998 and 2003 were so bloody and far-reaching that they drew in the armed forces of at least eight separate African countries plus many rebel groups. They have been dubbed "Africa's World War" because of the number of regional belligerents and the sheer destructiveness of the conflict. Millions died and millions more were displaced and made destitute. But despite the carnage, this was a war contained and fought within the boundaries of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); the foreign armies were not fighting each other elsewhere.
There is another world war waging in Africa today, not quite as bloody as the Second Congo War but much more widespread, raging from Mali in West Africa to Mozambique in Southern Africa. This is the war being waged by Salafi Jihadist terror groups in at least seven main fronts – Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Niger, DRC, Somalia, and Mozambique. This Jihadist war has so far also spilled over into terrorist attacks in at least eight other countries – Benin, Togo, Chad, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania.
A second brutal African conflict, in Sudan, is the world's worst humanitarian crisis and threatens to spread to neighboring states. It is not a Jihadist insurgency but rather a civil war between rival branches of the security forces, former allies turned bitter adversaries and supported by different regional powers.
The Jihadist Second World War has foreign roots. Most of the Jihadist insurgents have sworn public loyalty to foreign Arab Muslim entities, to either Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State. Two of the principal leaders of the Jihadist insurgency in West Africa, JNIM's Iyad Ag Ghaly and Amadou Koufa, were "radicalized" by foreigners, reportedly by itinerant Pakistani Tablighi Jamaat preachers. When I worked in the State Department a decade ago, Niger's interior minister told me about the problem of foreign preachers, flush with Qatari or Saudi money, appearing and telling Africans that "your Islam, the one you have practiced for the past thousand years, is all wrong."
But despite the foreign connections, these Jihadist wars are nothing if not local, relying on local realities and grievances, following local fissures. These insurgencies build upon not only criminal networks – smugglers, cattle rustlers, illicit gold miners, and bandits – but also tribal and ethnic connections. In West Africa, the wars often follow the paths forged by Fulani (or Fula) pastoralists, peoples already in conflict with farmers (Christian, Muslim, and animist) and governments.
Fulani are found from Senegal in West Africa to Sudan in East Africa and form important populations in a dozen countries, including some of the worst hit by Jihadist violence: Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Also "local" is the reality that in many of these countries rival Jihadist groups – usually Al-Qaeda-aligned versus Islamic State-aligned – continue to fight each other in a bloody, continuing situation that actually somewhat blunts these groups' effectiveness against the state.
Islamic State official propaganda boasting of attacks on the "Al-Qaeda militia"
But while the conflict is similar from West Africa to East and South, with Jihadist insurgents challenging government security forces and targeting civilian populations, not all of these conflicts are the same. All are dangerous, all are challenges to the state, all are aggressive and ambitious and try to spread, but not all of them have the same prospects for long-term success.
Of the seven main fronts I have mentioned, the Jihadists are mostly contained in specific regions in three countries – Niger, DRC, and Mozambique. Muslims, from where the insurgents draw their recruits, are a small percentage of the population in the DRC and only slightly larger in Mozambique. And while Niger is a Muslim majority country (98 percent), the Jihadist insurgency so far is limited to the country's far southwest (both Al-Qaeda and Islamic State branches) and far southeast (Boko Haram).
It is in Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Somalia that the core Jihadist insurgency is most potent and dangerous. No one expects that Boko Haram (or the larger phenomenon of Fulani herders/terrorists preying on mostly Christian farmers) will ever overthrow the state in Nigeria, but the insurgency, instability, and violence that is generated can certainly help to destabilize Africa's most populous country.
In Mali, Burkina Faso, and Somalia, the goal is definitely to overthrow the state and that possibility cannot be discounted. Al-Shabab in Somalia has made something of a resurgence in recent years, controls considerable territory and dreams of becoming a force again inside the country's capital. That is not impossible but probably unlikely as the Somali National Army is backed up by African Union (AU) Forces, Turkey, and American drone strikes.
So, then Mali and Burkina Faso present the most tempting, promising targets for Jihadist victory where it is conceivable that they could – at least temporarily – be able to seize the state and take its capital. The security situation has been palpably deteriorating in both countries in recent months. Mali, where Jihadists compete with each other, with Tuareg nationalists and with the Russian-backed regime in Bamako, may be too complicated, too difficult of an objective.
Burkina Faso looks much more at risk, with about half of the countryside already dominated by Jihadists. It is already the "most terrorist-affected country in the world," a dubious distinction, according to the 2024 Global Terrorism Index. A quarter of all deaths caused by terrorists worldwide were in Burkina Faso.
"Sheikh Mujahid" Iyad Ag Ghaly as seen in JNIM's official propaganda outlet Az-Zallaqa.
Here it is JNIM, the local al-Qaeda branch, that is most likely to succeed. Jima'a Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (the "Support Group for Islam and Muslims," JNIM) is currently by far the most capable, best-armed, and best-led of all of the rival Jihadist groups in Africa (Al-Shabab and Boko Haram would come second). The group's leaders, the wily veteran Tuareg tribal aristocrat Iyad Ag Ghaly and deputy commander Amadou Koufa, a charismatic ethnic Fulani preacher, were both denounced by the Islamic State as "apostates" for their political flexibility. This seeming pragmatism (and willingness to talk to "unbeliever" media and regimes) is as dangerous as their use of violence. JNIM represents a strategic evolution away from the brutal Algerian dominated days of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to a broader and looser African alliance, currently led by Malians.
The 64-year-old Fulani preacher and JNIM deputy Amadou Koufa
Led by Ag Ghaly, dubbed "the strategist," JNIM even avoids using the name of Al-Qaeda. "Support Group [Nusra Group] for Islam and the Muslims" harkens to the original name of what became Syria's new Islamist rulers – the Nusra Front (later called Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham, (HTS)). Like Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani's Syrian organization, JNIM seems increasingly distant from Al-Qaeda. Inspired by the Qatari-supported examples of the "independent" Jihadist Taliban in Afghanistan and HTS in Syria – different (more national than regional) organizations and very different situations on the ground – JNIM seeks to follow its own ambitious regional path to power.
On the surface, it still seems very implausible that JNIM could actually take landlocked Burkina Faso's capital Ouagadougou, a city of over two million people. Yet the inhabitants of Kabul, Mosul, Raqqa, and Damascus once thought the same thing. However, JNIM does not even need to take the city but rather isolate it from the surrounding countryside. And it would be far more difficult to administer such a large urban population than to seize it. Much will depend on the ability of the beleaguered government of Burkina Faso to retake and hold territory lost to JNIM.
Burkina Faso's interim president 37-year-old Ibrahim Traore faces a major security challenge
The group could also bypass the city and country altogether in its remorseless southern march to the sea and toward the threatened Christian-majority cities and countries on the coast of West Africa. The JNIM-controlled rural regions of Burkina Faso already function as a kind of hub or safe haven for strikes into Benin, Togo, and other littoral states. JNIM's extensive use of swarms of fighters on motorcycles, in addition to the ubiquitous Toyota Hilux, gives them great mobility.
Regardless of JNIM's immediate successes or failures in the coming months, the larger phenomenon of Jihadist pressure against fragile or failed states across a vast swathe of Africa will continue.
*Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Unusual Article In Qatari Government Daily Criticizes Iran Following Its Attack On CENTCOM Base In Qatar: We Do Not Fear Conflict With Iran
Unusual Article In Qatari Government Daily Criticizes Iran Following Its Attack On CENTCOM Base In Qatar: We Do Not Fear Conflict With Iran

Memri

timean hour ago

  • Memri

Unusual Article In Qatari Government Daily Criticizes Iran Following Its Attack On CENTCOM Base In Qatar: We Do Not Fear Conflict With Iran

Iran's June 23, 2025 missile attack on the U.S. CENTCOM Al-Udeid Air Base was a symbolic strike that had been coordinated in advance with the Qatari and American authorities. Its purpose was to allow Iran to save face by responding to the U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities but without causing casualties or damage.[1] The target – Qatar (rather than Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain or Jordan) – was chosen by Iran because this country is an ally, and therefore coordinating the attack with it in advance allowed Iran to avoid the risk of escalation.[2] Moreover, Qatar serves as a mediator between Iran and the U.S. Despite Iran's attack on Qatar's territory, the Qatari media was restrained in its response to this country, and preferred to blame the escalation on Israel.[3] This messaging aligns with the policy of Qatar, which expressed unwavering support for Iran throughout the war with Israel,[4] including after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.[5] In contrast to this line, the Qatari government daily Al-Sharq published an unusual article in response to the Iranian missile attack on Al-Udeid base, which was removed from the newspaper's website a few hours after its publication. The article, by Sa'ud bin Mubarak Al-Nasser, a researcher of political science and international relations, included criticism of the attack and even a threat of Qatari retaliation. Calling the Iranian strike on Qatari territory "an unjustified escalation" that "directly threatens Qatar's allies," the article emphasized that Qatar "rejects dictates and does not fear conflict when it comes to its honor and sovereignty," that "the era of silence has passed," and that, although Qatar is not an aggressive state, "it is prepared for any possibility." Interception of Iranian missiles over Qatar in video circulated by Qatar's Defense Ministry ( June 26, 2025) The following are translated excerpts from Al-Nasser's article:[6] "At a time when our region is in need of calm, commitment to development, and cooperative bridgebuilding, the State of Qatar was surprised by a criminal Iranian missile attack aimed at the American [CENTCOM] Al-Udeid Air Base, in a clear challenge to the sovereignty of the state, the principles of international law, and the principles of good neighborliness, which are the basis for stability in the Gulf region. "Qatar, with its wise leadership, remains a wise and rational voice in the region. It has invested enormous efforts in neutralizing crises, whether through direct mediation or through support for multilateral humanitarian and diplomatic initiatives. Therefore, striking Qatar is a strike on the role of the mediator, and an attack on its territory is an attack on the logic of balance and peace. What increases the severity of this act is that it was carried out against a country that has never attacked Iran, but has always striven for restraint and for prioritizing diplomacy over escalation, even in the most difficult moments befalling the region. Thus, this attack constitutes an unjustified escalation, and threatens to further exacerbate tensions. "Any attempt to harm [Qatar's] role, or to use political violence to change the rules of the game in the region, will not pass without an appropriate response on all levels: legal, political, and security. Harm to the [Al-Udeid air] base also directly threatens Qatar's allies. Thus, there is a need for a responsible international position that will not settle for condemnation but will rise to the level of deterrent action... "[Qatar's] relevant apparatuses dealt very professionally with the incident [of the Iranian missile attack], successfully minimizing damage and avoiding casualties. This sends a clear message: Qatar is ready, alert, and capable of defending itself, its interests and its people. This rapid response [to the attack] is a manifestation not only of military readiness, but [also] of the cohesion of its entire national security array, from the command [level] to the executive [ranks]… 'The solidarity with Qatar [expressed by various countries after the attack on CENTCOM] reflects the depth of the relations established by Qatari diplomacy over the years. This proves that Qatar's balanced positions were not for nought – they gained for it global political credit, which is today translated [into solidarity with Qatar] at the moment of conflict. "Today we face a real test of the international community's seriousness in defending small and medium-sized countries from attacks by regional actors who scoff at international law. The UN Security Council and secretary general have a moral and legal responsibility to condemn this attack, to act as soon as possible to prevent it from happening again, and to take the necessary deterrent measures. Any leniency in addressing this aggression opens the door to similar aggressive behavior [in the future], and undermines the UN Charter, the second article of which prohibits the use of force against any state's territorial integrity or political independence. "Qatar, with its wise leadership and united people, rejects dictates and does not fear conflict when it comes to its honor and sovereignty. At the same time, however, it adheres to the legal and diplomatic tracks, and calls on the international community to stand against irresponsible policy that threatens security and peace in the region. We are aware that power lies not only in the possession of weapons, but also in gaining legitimacy, defending justice, and persevering in principles. Qatar has already proven that it is a country that stands firm in its position, is wise in its response, and is and courageous in managing its crises. "I will say this clearly: The era of silence has passed, and our positions will remain steadfast. We will not deviate from them, not from fear, and not from courtesy. Qatar is not an aggressive country, but it is a country that will not [stand for] being harmed. It is not a country of war – but it is prepared for any possibility."[7]

Iraq receives more water from Turkey
Iraq receives more water from Turkey

Iraqi News

time2 hours ago

  • Iraqi News

Iraq receives more water from Turkey

Baghdad ( – Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani asked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday to increase water releases to Iraq. During their meeting in Turkey, where they discussed relations between the two countries and issues of mutual interest, Erdogan agreed to Al-Mashhadani's request to release 420 cubic meters of water per second per day, starting Wednesday, according to a statement cited by the Iraqi News Agency (INA). Under the two countries' present leadership, Iraqi-Turkish ties are seeing prolonged success, according to Al-Mashhadani. This alliance has a long history and is founded on strong political, social, and geographic ties. The step will increase water flows along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, delivering water to all Iraqis, particularly in the southern parts of the country that are experiencing drought and water shortages. According to official estimates, the water shortage in Iraq is becoming worse and has already reached seven percent. Iraq consumes more than 19.4 million cubic meters of water per day, compared to 18.1 million cubic meters that the country receives.

Turkey agrees to increase water flow to Iraq after meeting between Al-Mashhadani and Erdogan
Turkey agrees to increase water flow to Iraq after meeting between Al-Mashhadani and Erdogan

Iraqi News

time2 hours ago

  • Iraqi News

Turkey agrees to increase water flow to Iraq after meeting between Al-Mashhadani and Erdogan

Ankara, Turkey ( – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has agreed to a request from Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani to increase the flow of water to Iraq, following a high-level meeting between the two leaders on Tuesday (July 1, 2025). In what is being seen as a significant breakthrough on the critical water issue, President Erdoğan approved increasing water releases into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to 420 cubic meters per second, effective Wednesday, July 2nd. During the meeting, Speaker Al-Mashhadani emphasized the need for this increase to reach all parts of Iraq, particularly the southern regions suffering from drought. He also requested facilitation for Iraqi residency permits in Turkey. President Erdoğan praised Iraq as a valued neighbor and affirmed his support for its stability and prosperity, stating that Turkey 'shares what God has bestowed upon it' with its Iraqi brothers. Al-Mashhadani noted the 'sustainable prosperity' of the bilateral relationship.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store