Home best for Garissa varsity students after tragedy

In the wake of the Garissa University College tragedy, I know that many students have been let go to their homes and are currently awaiting transfer to Moi University’s main campus.

With all that happened as they watched, is going home the right therapy or do they require specialised therapy. Again, what are the demerits of these students rejoining the Garissa campus?

The events in Garissa bring back the memories of all the tragic encounters we have had with terrorists. On August 7, 1998 the American Embassy was bombed, killing more than 200 people. Most of them were Kenyans.

That day, remains indelibly marked in my mind and can recall almost minute by minute what transpired. The late minister Joseph Kamotho was one of the hundreds we saw in hospital that day.

As has happened after most of the attacks, President Moi visited the injured. That night after visiting the site I visited one FM radio station and asked to be allowed to do a phone in programme.

For three hours, the show run. Twitter has replaced what we did in 1998. The pain anguish, anger and frustration is the same as it was almost 20 years ago. The actors are different, the challenge is the same.

We put in place “operation recovery” that was the main volunteer counselling service that has now been ably replaced by the Red Cross.

A sense of déjà vu engulfs me after every terror attack. Great statements always follow. Different players, years later, but same theme “this is a war we cannot afford to lose” “the war on terror must be won”.

We will win if all men and women of good will come together. We must not allow religion, ethnicity or race divide our beloved country.

Famously, President Uhuru Kenyatta said: “Our head is bloodied, but unbowed.” Other famous words include, “The government has begun a man-hunt of the terrorists and we have vowed to bring them to justice.”

All these words and many others are uttered in absolute and sincere belief that our country is at war. Nearly 20 years since August 7, 1998, I am beginning to think that ours is NOT a war. It is certainly not a war in the Oxford Dictionary meaning of the word war.

War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.

In this simplified definition of war, there is the implication that the contestants are clearly defined, that there is a date of onset, and that most importantly, that two (or more armies) are involved.

The Geneva Convention (1949) established the terms of engagement in a war. The treatment of both civilians and military personnel are clearly defined by this convention. The status of civilians is clearly conceptualised and defined in the convention.

Our engagement with Al-Shabaab cannot be termed a war, in the sense that we do not have a date of onset, clearly defined theatre of battle, and we also do not have clearly defined combatants.

In this “war” civilians are the main (if not only target). If for no other reason, but this, we must seek to find a different characterisation of our predicament.

In many ways (and by way of definition) we are closer to a war of attrition, than conventional war setting. In this later scenario, it is recognised that there is to be expected a prolonged struggle, in which each side expects the other to wear out.

Neither side expects to win by a final decisive blow! So, what is this new and effective way of conceptualising Al-Shabaab? The truth is that no one person or groups of persons have all the answers, or even the right questions.

When we pontificate about the current state of Islamic extremism, we must look into the past and remember the Crusader who in the name of Christian religion waged war on Islam.

In 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access the holy places and near Jerusalem.

Two hundred years later the struggle ended in failure! Those planning to dominate Kenya with religious extremism the 21st century could do well to learn from history.

Indeed, because religious wars are by their very nature devoid of reason or logic to the normal mind, any attempt to understand why a well trained Kenyan Lawyer with a bright future would want to die in Garissa is met with the answer, I do not know. The human being (and indeed all animals) fears death.

The suicide bomber looks forward to death. That is the difference between him and our defence forces. The latter are simply parents, children, siblings and citizens who got out to work in defence of Kenya, but not so that they can die.

If you are wondering how all the foregoing relates to your question, let me assure you that it does. All the foregoing are the questions likely to preoccupy university students who were the innocent victims of a situation beyond their control.

All they want is a safe and secure environment in which to enjoy a God given right.

The simple answer to your very complex question therefore is — home is best for everybody during any tragedy. Let them be home with their loved ones, at least for now.

Secondly, and this is the lesson I have learnt since 1998, remember the human being is very resilient.

Many will recover under the care of family and community, while a few will require highly specialised care.

We must let the Red Cross and other experts tell us who needs what help. Should they go back to Garissa?’ Perhaps not at this stage.

Bottom line, much as the many arm chair experts try to give this advice or other advice, terrorism is simply too complex to be called just a war.

Remember Al-Shabaab attacked Kenya before our troops entered Somalia. Pulling them out does not make sense until we know the reasons for the attack in the first place.