Why it is criminal to pay Nigerian soldiers of 3,000 N meals

Wars are fascinated. Not for those who still build up their shattered life and landscapes, but for those who observe from a distance while they have separated from the ruins of the wars.

However, this fascination is less about the human ability to destroy than about the suffering used by power: the power to march to war and send soldiers to the stomach, not only through the obligation, but by honoring their countries. It is the latter reality that I found more fascinating than fascinating when I read the news of the chief of staff Olufemi Oluyede, and announced an increase in the ration of troops from N1.500 to N 3..000 last Wednesday. My immediate reaction was to return to the works of the scholar to war sciences – not only to grasp the forces that drive nations into conflicts, but to better understand soldiers and lean rations.

In his pioneering work, Prince Niccolò Machiavelli observed that a nation state who does not take care of his soldiers is a state that is convicted of internal damnation. He was clear about the fact that those who wear weapons and protect a nation from external aggression should be respected, and in view of the dignity they deserve. This solid Machiavellian expression of the role of the soldier in the life of a nation is what shame and shame in relation to what the general accepts as a large gesture of it, shame and shame. This pittance is an insult to those who risk their lives to defend a country that seems to be determined to treat it as a subsequent thought.

How can someone look at a conscience that viewed 3,000 N as feeding allowances for soldiers? These are not occasional workers on the construction sites on the sunny heights of Kpaduma hills of Abuja. These are men and women who stare at the face of death every day and protect us from the bad in the middle. They are the buffers between human corruption, those who described the renowned French historian Joseph de Maistre as “La sect” – “those who throw dust into the eyes of the people” and violence. Nevertheless, we give you a lot that is hardly enough to buy a plate with decent food from the Amala Republic in Abuja or from the Gabiri Outlets in Lagos or Ibadan.

For the context, a budget -conscious citizen who eats in a local food hut would spend at least N1,500 N without drinks. A single day for a soldier who not only needs calories, but also the diet that is suitable for extreme physical and mental exertion, should only cost 3,000 N? It is nothing less than the criminal to approve such a lean sum for combat troops. The same government, which distributes billions of frivolous allowances for legislators, bloated presidential areas and not taken into account “security votes”, cannot apply the political will to ensure that soldiers are appropriately fed. This is not just economic injustice. It is moral spoilage.

In the course of history, philosophers have discussed the nature of war and the role of soldiers within the state. In his treatise in the war, the Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz argued that the war was a continuation of politics by other means. Nevertheless, he also insisted that the state has the obligation to ensure that its soldiers are not only farmers in the elite game, but also viewed instruments of national cohesion and survival. The social contract, one of the most fundamental philosophical concepts of the government, demands that those who take up weapons on behalf of the state should not be abandoned or treated as mere tools. If our combat troops are forced to operate on empty stomachs when they are malnourished while defending a nation that praises themselves with economic power, we have already failed as a state.

The morals of the soldiers are just as important as their weapons and strategy, argued Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War. Hunger asks the fighting of combat troops. Soldiers who fight with the hunger that burns into their stomachs stares at the front. The story is littered with examples of armies, which did not because they lacked the skills or numbers, but because they lacked the will to fight for a thing they had given up. We just have to look back on how hunger the Soviet troops from Gorbachev sometimes forced to withdraw from Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Soldiers cannot be expected to determine their lives for a country that is not interested in whether they eat.

Sincerely, she is really sure that she remembered the shattering Bataan death in March 1942, a dark episode of the Second World War, in which exhausted and emaciated American and Filipino soldiers who had spectacularly missed the Bataan Peninsula against the irrelevant increase in Japanese imperial army, forced themselves, To provide bridally formulated march. These soldiers had fought not only against an impressive enemy, but also against the slow, devastating hunger of hunger. Her bodies, which were weakened by malnutrition and illness, could no longer maintain the requirements of the struggle, and their will to resist, was interrupted by hunger as well as by enemy fire.

This handover troops were deleted by dignity, food and medical care and were not only driven out of the battlefield not only as prisoners, but as mere obstacles for the last attack of the Japanese army on Corregidor, the last allied stronghold in Manila Bay. Her fate is a strong memory of the danger that is waiting for every army that is forced to fight on empty stomachs, where the lack of food proves to be as fatal as enemy balls.

Wasn't it Napoleon Bonaparte who said famous that “an army marches on his stomach”?

If Bonaparte is right, our troops are forced to march in hunger.

There is a cruel paradox of how our country treats its combat forces. We expect you to embody the courage, discipline and resilience, but we refuse the basic means to maintain your body. We demand that you fight in the northeast against insurgents, suppress bandits in the northwest and keep peace in volatile parts of our country, but we send them malfunctioned and tired in battles. We mourn them when they fall, drape their coffins in the national flag and keep solemn speeches about their heroism – but we refuse to invest in their survival. No wonder that morality in our combat troops is often on an all -time low.

A few days ago, a video of a soldier who publicly called on the military's commanding height in the social media became viral. While the topic of his public discussion with his superiors indicates that not everything is okay with our combat troops, it is without exception a country that rewards generals that are only in the cozy offices of the military chief with stunning allowances.

Many countries in the world understand that a well -fed, well -compensated army is a necessity, no luxury. The United States, for example, offer their lowest soldiers with a fundamental allowance for livelihood (BAS) of around $ 450 per month and access to nutritious meals on military bases. In contrast, 3,000 N per day corresponds to around 2 US dollars – a lot that would hardly cover a drink drink elsewhere. Even within Africa, countries such as South Africa and Egypt prioritize military well -being – understand that the strength of a soldier is bound with their food. Our country with its oil assets and its huge resources has no excuse for the treatment of his soldiers with such contempt.

The failure to offer soldiers of appropriate food is not just an economic problem. It is reflected in how our country perceives those who serve. The poor allowance is an explanation that soldiers are unnecessary and that their needs of the greed of our political elites are secondary. It is a strong memory that, despite the high rhetoric of patriotism, our government does not consider their soldiers to be respectful.

If our country really appreciates its soldiers, it must check and revise the ration cash allowance immediately, RCA. A daily allowance of at least 10,000 N would be a modest beginning if one takes into account inflation and the actual costs for nutritious meals. In addition, the military high command must ensure that food supply chains on the trenches and front troops are not only financed, but also closely monitored to prevent corruption and distraction of resources. There is a brighter light. It is glad that General Oluyede has promised to tackle the wider problem of the advantages of military care, housing construction and post -advisory. A country that does not care about his soldiers in life will not have a moral right to honor them.

A nation that supports their soldiers should not be surprised if their army has no morals if the desertion rates rise or if security deteriorates. The announcement of an increase from N1.500 to N3,000 is no progress. It is an approval of decades of failure. It is an insult that is wrapped in the pretext of generosity. Soldiers are not beggars. They are not stray dogs to feed feeding.

If our country continues to treat its fighting troops with such contempt, it should prepare for the consequences, since the battlefield does not respect the hunger, and it will not be a history if our collective neglect judges. Before history condemns our collective neglect, we have to act with urgency and justice in the present: to take care of our fighting troops and ensure that they march to the front with good enemy stomachs, strengthened by the knowledge that their country appreciates them. A country that sends his soldiers into battles must also keep their well -being, honor their victims and not hold on to his victims.

This is the compulsory history – nothing more, nothing less.

Abdul Mahmud is a human rights lawyer in Abuja