hey there, how are you doing? hope good? So, I just head back from my supervisor and had few comments which were:

1: at the ending page of chapter four where we have the table “Synopsis of military op in NE Nigeria” that instead of the little summurization I had below, that I needed to explain the synopsis properly.

2: Also, that I needed to properly include the case study section in the introductory section.

3: He said the big and only issue was still with the case study: He said I haven’t spoken on the counterinsurgency deficiencies of the Nigerian armed forces enough, that the case study mainly contained SAF. That I’m to speak in details about the deficiencies of NAF counterinsurgency operations and areas where it has failed to engage local actors (communities).

He said I had to have a more methodological comparative study, that it had to be in a sequential form.e.g like where we talked about recruitment in SAF below that had to be a follow up of NAF recruitment too. That it has to be a concrete comparative work which at the end I’d be able to draw up a chart and say these factors or areas which the NAF didn’t do is a reason why their counterinsurgency efforts a failing whereas SAF did and it’s working. That I’m to demonstrate that these deficiencies in engagement of local actors and other aspects affects the overall efforts of cmr. The essence of this is that if I were to draw up a chart, I could clearly show that the deficiencies in here and here is the reason for why X is like this and Z is like this and so on. That this would clearly show the methodological and structural nature of paper and also show concrete arguments.