Boko Haram and the kidnpping of the school girls

[Malcador]

What would you like to see done, then? You talk about apathy, but for me the matter is that I haven't seen anyone come forward with a good gameplan of what exactly needs to be done here. It's a very complex matter, and it needs a bit more thought than "Hey, let's just send in the marines."

Probably end up buying them back.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

The Western world has gone completely mad.

Let's not generalize to everyone, shall we?

 

Probably the most effective thing we can do is train the Nigerians to respond to those kinds of problems themselves. I'm not sure a military intervention would work out so well, and is bound to be very controversial, which alone means Obama won't do it.

 

 

Okay now, I don't know all that much about Nigeria, but what I've read doesn't exactly paint a nice picture of the Nigerian army.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/nigeria-army-abuses-may-undermine-fight-against-islamists.html

 

If by training Nigerians, you mean the Nigerian soldiers would be taught not to vent their frustration on civilians, then yes, that'd probably be a good first step.

 

Yes, that is normally a part of Western provided training.

[BruceVC]

 

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

 

What would you like to see done, then? You talk about apathy, but for me the matter is that I haven't seen anyone come forward with a good gameplan of what exactly needs to be done here. It's a very complex matter, and it needs a bit more thought than "Hey, let's just send in the marines."

 

 

@jadedmeister

 

So you have asked the most important question " what is the best solution to resolve this particular crisis"

 

Before I give my views I need to give some context so I'm not misunderstood. Firstly I like Nigeria, various South African companies have made loads of money doing business there. I have been there several times for work. We always ask for 60-70% of the professional services (PS) fees upfront before we do projects in Nigeria , this is generally unheard of as normally most companies only the pay the PS after the project is done. Nigeria despite its social challengers, like corruption,  is one of the rising stars in the area. They welcome investment and they treat you well when you go there. They are trying to do many things to uplift there country and make it the true economic powerhouse of Africa

 

But this also is there biggest issue and the fact that Boko Haram has been able to act with such impunity for the last few years highlights this. The Nigerian focus has been on encouraging foreign  investment  and developing there oil refineries but at the expense of most other things. For example infrastructure in most parts of the country is lacking, anyone who has ever been to Lagos knows this ( over 20 million people live in Lagos making it the most populated city in Africa ). They do contribute troops and military resources to some AU missions but the reality is there troops aren't that well trained or disciplined. A major indictment with how most African countries deal with egregious social problems is basically to ignore them and hope they go away and that's what happened with Boko Haram

 

So now what should Nigeria do as there reticence to properly deal with Boko Haram has actually emboldened this fundamentalist group. They need to publically acknowledge and accept they cannot deal with this crisis and ask for Western military assistance. They need to align themselves unconditionally with the West to deal with this group. No more of this ridiculous " African solutions for African problems " catch-phrase that we hear about that in reality translates to a lackluster response to most examples when it is used on the African  continent

 

The Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram but they need to be invited. Once analysis is done of where Boko Haram operates from then drones and special force soldiers along with the Nigerian  army can be used to annihilate them. Boko Haram can't be reasoned with. They truly are an anachronistic and barbaric group. This type of strategy to deal with these types of groups does work, we saw this in Mali and Sierra Leone with how the French and British dealt with the various factions  that were causing mayhem and spreading violence.

 

The question may be " does the USA want to get involved?"  I think they would due to public awareness and also the fact that Boko Haram is linked to Al-Qaeda so this could easily be justified as part of the USA military strategy against Islamic extremism

 

Sadly I can't predict if this will save the girls that have been kidnapped but once Boko Haram is wiped out or at least there bases are destroyed this will at least impact there ability to perpetuate further campaigns of terror against Nigeria.

 

So that's my solution, get the West actively involved on a military level

 

 

 

"

[BruceVC]

 

As for western interventions, well, CAR is a good example in all the wrong ways. Having got their favoured group (Christians, in this case) back into power the French are largely sitting on their hands while they settle scores with their muslim neighbours who were in power previously- french colonial and post colonial policy in a nutshell, get their favoured group into power and (try to) keep them there whatever they do, as was so shamefully on show in Rwanda twenty years ago.

 

 

 

Nah, the suggestion that the French are allowing mass murder of Muslim civilians as they favor the Christians is nothing but anti-western sentiment that you are famous for but as usual is not based on facts

 

The AU unfortunately  did not commit enough  military resources to stop the killing and the French just don't have enough troops on the ground to properly subdue the warring factions in  CAR. You can't blame the French for there lack of manpower, once again this should a problem resolved by the AU. The French are not intentionally letting the Christians kill the Muslims but they also need to protect there own soldiers.

 

However the UN has approved a 12,000 man force which should be able to prevent the murders and violence but this take some time to organize and be deployed to CAR

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140410/NEWS08/304100047/U-N-approves-12-000-troops-CAR-peacekeeping

[213374U]

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

 

Nah. It's just that it's pretty much a given that abducting schoolgirls is a bad thing and so some folks here don't see the need to jump on the OMG bandwagon—others have that part well covered already.

 

Rather, it's a matter of WHAT does the West do, how we do it, and most importantly, *why*. I have a right, nay, a duty to protest illegal or unethical actions my government takes because they are doing it in my name, but that doesn't hold true for foreign actors. One can go all Sir Charles Napier over this (seems to be what Bruce's calling for), but that implies that Nigerians are not ready to handle their own affairs... and thus Western tutelage is warranted. We all know where that line of thinking leads.

 

At any rate, I'm not too sure what the point of this thread is... though I raised an eyebrow at the suggestion of incompetence on the part of the Nigerian authorities. It's not like the West has a magic wand for dealing with mass kidnappings or situations that involve entrenched gunmen and hostages, especially if the gunmen are keen on becoming martyrs. It's a **** situation no matter what flag is hoisted.

Edited May 5, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

 

Nah. It's just that it's pretty much a given that abducting schoolgirls is a bad thing and so some folks here don't see the need to jump on the OMG bandwagon—others already have that part well covered already.

 

Rather, it's a matter of WHAT does the West do, how we do it, and most importantly, *why*. I have a right, nay, a duty to protest illegal or unethical actions my government takes because they are doing it in my name, but that doesn't hold true for foreign actors. One can go all Sir Charles Napier over this (seems to be what Bruce's calling for), but that implies that Nigerians are not ready to handle their own affairs... and thus Western tutelage is warranted. We all know where that line of thinking leads.

 

At any rate, I'm not too sure what the point of this thread is... though I raised an eyebrow at the suggestion of incompetence on the part of the Nigerian authorities. It's not like the West has a magic wand for dealing with mass kidnappings or situations that involve entrenched gunmen and hostages, especially if the gunmen are keen on becoming martyrs. It's a **** situation no matter what flag is hoisted.

 

 

You have raised a good question when you ask " what is the purpose of this thread"

 

It has several purposes. Awareness and a discussion on how to address challengers that the African continent grapples with. Boko Haram is significant because of the importance of Nigeria, And yes this does highlight the incompetence of the Nigerian military forces. I fail to see how you can have any other view , they have had years to deal with Boko Haram and they have failed terribly in addressing this growing problem. Now it cannot be ignored anymore. Nigeria is hosting the African economic summit next month but how do you position yourself as an economic investment hub for a continent if you have such internal instability, its a serious contradiction

 

I get tired of all this anti-western talk from some quarters in the African continent. I would like Nigeria to publically announce they need Western military assistance. This will go a long way to improving the perception of the relationship between the West and Africa. I don't think the West gets nearly enough recognition from Africa because of the historical legacy of colonialism

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

Hm, always thought the Stingers were the problem and the real nuisance. RPGs as an anti-gunship weapon are pretty pants though, the amount the Somalis had to throw up to hit the US choppers was impresive, from what I recall. Clever theory by the Somali commander too, saw the helicopters as a weak point.

 

Still not sure what the hell you're on with the second point, it's pretty obvious that selling girls into slavery and abducting them is bad. I guess we need to just say "______ is bad!" before any other point or comment.

 

 

The real nuisance of fighting a war in Afghanistan is Afghanistan. The terrain is impossible, the resistance is dispersed and they're used to out waiting foreign powers. 

 

That said, the Soviets left Afghanistan with their man in power and it remained like that for quite a while. They "took" it, so far as it can be taken.

[Meshugger]

So they were abducted to be sold as wives? Even if each and one of them were to be rescued, the underlying problem exists: There's a market for buying wives in Nigeria and Africa. I would not suggest not only military intervention for this, also a cultural/ideological one.

[JadedWolf]

@jadedmeister

 

So you have asked the most important question " what is the best solution to resolve this particular crisis"

 

Before I give my views I need to give some context so I'm not misunderstood. Firstly I like Nigeria, various South African companies have made loads of money doing business there. I have been there several times for work. We always ask for 60-70% of the professional services (PS) fees upfront before we do projects in Nigeria , this is generally unheard of as normally most companies only the pay the PS after the project is done. Nigeria despite its social challengers, like corruption,  is one of the rising stars in the area. They welcome investment and they treat you well when you go there. They are trying to do many things to uplift there country and make it the true economic powerhouse of Africa

 

But this also is there biggest issue and the fact that Boko Haram has been able to act with such impunity for the last few years highlights this. The Nigerian focus has been on encouraging foreign  investment  and developing there oil refineries but at the expense of most other things. For example infrastructure in most parts of the country is lacking, anyone who has ever been to Lagos knows this ( over 20 million people live in Lagos making it the most populated city in Africa ). They do contribute troops and military resources to some AU missions but the reality is there troops aren't that well trained or disciplined. A major indictment with how most African countries deal with egregious social problems is basically to ignore them and hope they go away and that's what happened with Boko Haram

 

So now what should Nigeria do as there reticence to properly deal with Boko Haram has actually emboldened this fundamentalist group. They need to publically acknowledge and accept they cannot deal with this crisis and ask for Western military assistance. They need to align themselves unconditionally with the West to deal with this group. No more of this ridiculous " African solutions for African problems " catch-phrase that we hear about that in reality translates to a lackluster response to most examples when it is used on the African  continent

 

The Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram but they need to be invited. Once analysis is done of where Boko Haram operates from then drones and special force soldiers along with the Nigerian  army can be used to annihilate them. Boko Haram can't be reasoned with. They truly are an anachronistic and barbaric group. This type of strategy to deal with these types of groups does work, we saw this in Mali and Sierra Leone with how the French and British dealt with the various factions  that were causing mayhem and spreading violence.

 

The question may be " does the USA want to get involved?"  I think they would due to public awareness and also the fact that Boko Haram is linked to Al-Qaeda so this could easily be justified as part of the USA military strategy against Islamic extremism

 

Sadly I can't predict if this will save the girls that have been kidnapped but once Boko Haram is wiped out or at least there bases are destroyed this will at least impact there ability to perpetuate further campaigns of terror against Nigeria.

 

So that's my solution, get the West actively involved on a military level

 

 

 

"

 

 

You can correct me if I am wrong, because I'll be the first to admit I know nothing of Nigeria, but it seems to me Nigeria is a divided country. The North has a Muslim population and apparently the secular government is so powerless here that they had to allow local authorities to institute the Sharia. How would the people here look upon any Western presence - would they applaud it, or would they feel the need to join up to fight the foreign invader? Can you be sure that your solution would solve the problem and not make it worse?

[JadedWolf]

So they were abducted to be sold as wives? Even if each and one of them were to be rescued, the underlying problem exists: There's a market for buying wives in Nigeria and Africa. I would not suggest not only military intervention for this, also a cultural/ideological one.

 

"Wives" is probably too pleasant a word. If the media are to be believed, and I have no reason not to, they are taken from school because Boko Haram is against educating women and then used as sex-slaves, because they interpret Islam in such a way that when they steal women they are allowed to use them for sex.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27216931

[Zoraptor]

Nah, the suggestion that the French are allowing mass murder of Muslim civilians as they favor the Christians is nothing but anti-western sentiment that you are famous for but as usual is not based on facts

Anti western? More like pro reality.

 

You don't even actually dispute it, you just claim that the french and AU don't have enough troops as an excuse. Well, they had enough to change the facts on the ground by threatening Seleka and getting them to withdraw, just not, apparently enough to do the same when it's muslims getting killed instead of christians. If western involvement was a panacea for all Africa's ills colonialism would have been a wonderful era of enlightenment and prosperity, after all.

[JadedWolf]

Okay, in a new twist of things, the Nigerian president's wife has ordered the arrest of protest leaders calling for a return of the missing school children. She also claims that the abductions never happened, and that the protesters are in fact Boko Haram members themselves, who wish to give Nigeria a bad name.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/nigeria-first-lady-orders-arrest-of-protest-leaders_n_5265872.html

[213374U]

they have had years to deal with Boko Haram and they have failed terribly in addressing this growing problem.

 

Seriously, "the Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram"? Like they have dealt with the Taliban? Like they dealt with insurgency in Iraq? Like they dealt with the Viet Cong?

 

Read up on irregular and asymmetric conflicts: the Tamil Tigers, FARC, Naxalites, PKK, Shining Path, etc. In the (few) cases where conflicts involving guerrillas have been settled, it has taken decades of concerted economic, social, political and, yes, military efforts to reach a permanent solution. I simply can't wrap my mind around the fact that, after the military approach as been proven ineffective pretty much everywhere it's been applied, you keep suggesting that America must go in and fix it by force. Because hundredth time's a charm, right?

Edited May 5, 2014 by 213374U

[Malcador]

Well, for Iraq, I wonder how they would have made out with 400k, rather than the 100k they went with.  Just need enough people to waste everyone in an entire area. Press be damned.

 

Okay, in a new twist of things, the Nigerian president's wife has ordered the arrest of protest leaders calling for a return of the missing school children. She also claims that the abductions never happened, and that the protesters are in fact Boko Haram members themselves, who wish to give Nigeria a bad name.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/nigeria-first-lady-orders-arrest-of-protest-leaders_n_5265872.html

 

That's hilarious.

[BruceVC]

 

@jadedmeister

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

You can correct me if I am wrong, because I'll be the first to admit I know nothing of Nigeria, but it seems to me Nigeria is a divided country. The North has a Muslim population and apparently the secular government is so powerless here that they had to allow local authorities to institute the Sharia. How would the people here look upon any Western presence - would they applaud it, or would they feel the need to join up to fight the foreign invader? Can you be sure that your solution would solve the problem and not make it worse?

 

 

You have raised a good point that was pointed out to me today by a colleague who travels to Nigeria for work all time, there would more than likely be resistance to just Western intervention in the parts of Nigeria where Boko Haram operates from because of the predominantly Muslim population. So any military mission needs to be sponsored by the United Nations and a collection of countries. Of couse Nigeria needs to approach and ask for help to get the UN security council to vote for a  military mission against Boko Haram 

[BruceVC]

 

they have had years to deal with Boko Haram and they have failed terribly in addressing this growing problem.

 

Seriously, "the Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram"? Like they have dealt with the Taliban? Like they dealt with insurgency in Iraq? Like they dealt with the Viet Cong?

 

Read up on irregular and asymmetric conflicts: the Tamil Tigers, FARC, Naxalites, PKK, Shining Path, etc. In the (few) cases where conflicts involving guerrillas have been settled, it has taken decades of concerted economic, social, political and, yes, military efforts to reach a permanent solution. I simply can't wrap my mind around the fact that, after the military approach as been proven ineffective pretty much everywhere it's been applied, you keep suggesting that America must go in and fix it by force. Because hundredth time's a charm, right?

 

 

Yes 2133 in the Africa context an effective military campaign can end quite quickly an organisation like Boko Haram. Well you can never defeat an ideology but by destroying their operating bases and pushing them outside Nigeria you vastly reduce their effectiveness. This type of military strategy was used in Mali and Sierra Leone where various insurgencies and conflicts  ended.

                                                                                                                                

 

And yes I am still standing by the fact that the Nigerian military is incompetent and doesn’t have the political will or military training to defeat Boko Haram

[HoonDing]

Doesn't the Japanese Defense Force have a special unit for this?

[BruceVC]

Doesn't the Japanese Defense Force have a special unit for this?

 

I really shouldn't be laughing at that but sometimes humor is a good way to break the seriousness of a situation

[213374U]

Yes 2133 in the Africa context an effective military campaign can end quite quickly an organisation like Boko Haram. Well you can never defeat an ideology but by destroying their operating bases and pushing them outside Nigeria you vastly reduce their effectiveness. This type of military strategy was used in Mali and Sierra Leone where various insurgencies and conflicts  ended.

                                                                                                                                

 

And yes I am still standing by the fact that the Nigerian military is incompetent and doesn’t have the political will or military training to defeat Boko Haram

 

Yes of course! An "effective" military campaign can do it, because if it fails to solve the problem for good, it wasn't "effective" to begin with, and your argument will emerge intact still, right? Only historical occurrences seem to suggest that military campaigns rarely can finish insurgent movements. No, not even in some magical "African context" where apparently force works where otherwise it wouldn't. A very progressive attitude, by the way.

 

Oh, and the insurgency in Mali isn't over by a long shot, and we'll see what happens when the French pull out completely. The Sierra Leone civil war lasted for a decade. Quick and easy, right?

 

Edited May 5, 2014 by 213374U

[Malcador]

All you need is a nice flashy campaign that lasts until the media and then the outside world stops caring so much.

[BruceVC]

 

Yes 2133 in the Africa context an effective military campaign can end quite quickly an organisation like Boko Haram. Well you can never defeat an ideology but by destroying their operating bases and pushing them outside Nigeria you vastly reduce their effectiveness. This type of military strategy was used in Mali and Sierra Leone where various insurgencies and conflicts  ended.

                                                                                                                                

 

And yes I am still standing by the fact that the Nigerian military is incompetent and doesn’t have the political will or military training to defeat Boko Haram

 

Yes of course! An "effective" military campaign can do it, because if it fails to solve the problem for good, it wasn't "effective" to begin with, and your argument will emerge intact still, right? Only historical occurrences seem to suggest that military campaigns rarely can finish insurgent movements. No, not even in some magical "African context" where apparently force works where otherwise it wouldn't. A very progressive attitude, by the way.

 

Oh, and the insurgency in Mali isn't over by a long shot, and we'll see what happens when the French pull out completely. The Sierra Leone civil war lasted for a decade. Quick and easy, right?

 

 

 

Yes but the protracted civil war in Sierra Leone was ended within  2 years when the British directly intervened during Operation Palliser in 2000

[Walsingham]

Did I miss something?

 

When did either quick or easy become the criteria for judging whether something was a good idea?

[Malcador]

When it comes to spending money and lives, efficiency is key, after all. More so when it's "other people's problems"

[Walsingham]

When it comes to spending money and lives, efficiency is key, after all. More so when it's "other people's problems"

 

Efficiency is not a get-out term for pretending to do something then scurrying off whistling.

 

Or at least it shouldn't be.

[Malcador]

No but it is the idea behind quick fixes.