Boko Haram and the kidnpping of the school girls

[Wrath of Dagon]

For the record, America did practically wipe out the Viet Cong, it's the NVA we had trouble with after Tet. Also the Tamil Tigers have been wiped out, unless my info is out of date. US also pacified Iraq, before Iraqis kicked us out and went back to the way it was. Almost any insurgency can be dealt with, providing one is willing to do whatever it takes.

[Orogun01]

Did I miss something?

 

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

Since I took her home, old chum.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The new colonialists : http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mg=reno64-wsj

[BruceVC]

For the record, America did practically wipe out the Viet Cong, it's the NVA we had trouble with after Tet. Also the Tamil Tigers have been wiped out, unless my info is out of date. US also pacified Iraq, before Iraqis kicked us out and went back to the way it was. Almost any insurgency can be dealt with, providing one is willing to do whatever it takes.

 

Absolutely, there is no doubt that if the Americans were publically invited into Nigeria and given proper operational authority they would end the threat of Boko Haram within a few months. The British and French could do the same, all these countries have proved that in the past in other conflicts. But its not politically correct to suggest that Western countries can effectively help certain  African countries with there internal problems

 

And  sadly that's one of the greatest issues in Africa, the moment foreign powers get involved in African affairs even in an attempt to help words like "sovereignty" and " imperialism" get thrown around by those opposed  to there efforts to help.....and the most frustrating thing is some people believe that so public sentiment get swayed and suddenly the West becomes the bad guys, like when Gaddafi was removed from power. So that's I want a clear signal from the Nigerian government asking for Western help so there is no blowback later in any regards

[BruceVC]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-nigeria-bokoharam-idUSBREA440BJ20140505

 

Boko Haram is actually giving Islamic fundamentalists a bad name. Now not only are they saying they will sell the girls into slavery but that according to Allah this is what is expected. IMO they have now gone far over what would be acceptable even by Al-Qaeda terms, using Islam to justify slavery as if its there religious right.

 

I am confidant there time is limited and the target on there backs has just got bigger

[213374U]

Did I miss something?

 

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

 

That's a question you should ask Paul Wolfowitz, methinks.

 

At any rate, the whole point is that Bruce is unhappy with the Nigerian gov't progress at dealing with Boko Haram. By comparison, the Americans swooping in and "dealing" with them would be, in his mind, quick and easy indeed. Because if it wasn't quick and easy, why the hell would he be suggesting it? 

 

 

For the record, America did practically wipe out the Viet Cong, it's the NVA we had trouble with after Tet. Also the Tamil Tigers have been wiped out, unless my info is out of date. US also pacified Iraq, before Iraqis kicked us out and went back to the way it was. Almost any insurgency can be dealt with, providing one is willing to do whatever it takes.

 

You are right. Your info is out of date. America did not "wipe" the Viet Cong. America first shifted the burden of the fighting to ARVN after Tet, and later withdrew completely. The massive losses sustained by VC during Tet would have rendered it a phyrric victory if the South could have mounted a counter attack and destroyed them, but that simply didn't happen, as they still had the NVA to deal with. After the communists won the war, VC was dissolved as it no longer had a reason to exist. I guess my definition of "practically" is simply different.

 

As for the Tamil Tigers, yes, that is, as I noted, one of those rare occurrences where an insurgent movement with significant popular support is defeated largely by force. The fighting had raged for more than three decades and in the end a permanent solution was as much political as it was military. That's, er, the point I was making.

 

LOL "the US pacified Iraq".

[BruceVC]

 

Did I miss something?

 

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

 

That's a question you should ask Paul Wolfowitz, methinks.

 

At any rate, the whole point is that Bruce is unhappy with the Nigerian gov't progress at dealing with Boko Haram. By comparison, the Americans swooping in and "dealing" with them would be, in his mind, quick and easy indeed. Because if it wasn't quick and easy, why the hell would he be suggesting it? 

 

 

 

 

Okay I can't predict how long neutralizing Boko Haram would take, no one can. And yes it may take longer than a year. But the situation is actually simpler than Sierra Leone, I would argue its more like the Mali conflict that the French intervened in.

 

Boko Haram doesn't have much popular support and they basically operate only  in certain regions in Nigeria. So the military goal would be to destroy there bases and drive them across the border. This is not an insurmountable objective because as I mentioned they don't have the same local support as Al-Shabaab in Somalia. There barbaric actions have alienated them from most of the Muslim community in that part of Nigeria and that will make any military mission easier

[teknoman2]

>implying the US sents the army uninvited into other countries from the goodness of their hearts

[Walsingham]

I'm not 100% aligned with Numbers, as usual, but he talks the sense.

 

All professional counter-insurgency in the last ten years says that you don't win by taking control away from locals. Locals ARE the win. Because you don't want to win for five, ten, or twenty years. You want to win.

 

Nigeria can and should be helped. but ultimately this is Nigeria's fight.

[Zoraptor]

As for the Tamil Tigers, yes, that is, as I noted, one of those rare occurrences where an insurgent movement with significant popular support is defeated largely by force. The fighting had raged for more than three decades and in the end a permanent solution was as much political as it was military. That's, er, the point I was making.

And in that case the Tigers lost largely because they weren't an insurgent force any more. When they were an insurgent army they were extremely successful, perhaps too successful since that success led to them formalising all their structures and basically setting up a mini Tamil statelet complete with all the trimmings and a regular army during the truce- an army which then got steamrollered when the conflict resumed because, as a regular army, it was no match for the Lankan one.

[BruceVC]

 

As for the Tamil Tigers, yes, that is, as I noted, one of those rare occurrences where an insurgent movement with significant popular support is defeated largely by force. The fighting had raged for more than three decades and in the end a permanent solution was as much political as it was military. That's, er, the point I was making.

And in that case the Tigers lost largely because they weren't an insurgent force any more. When they were an insurgent army they were extremely successful, perhaps too successful since that success led to them formalising all their structures and basically setting up a mini Tamil statelet complete with all the trimmings and a regular army during the truce- an army which then got steamrollered when the conflict resumed because, as a regular army, it was no match for the Lankan one.

 

 

I'm interested in what is your solution for dealing with Boko Haram?

[Hiro Protagonist]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-nigeria-bokoharam-idUSBREA440BJ20140505

 

Boko Haram is actually giving Islamic fundamentalists a bad name. Now not only are they saying they will sell the girls into slavery but that according to Allah this is what is expected. IMO they have now gone far over what would be acceptable even by Al-Qaeda terms, using Islam to justify slavery as if its there religious right.

 

I am confidant there time is limited and the target on there backs has just got bigger

 

Slaves are not something new to Nigeria. At least according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Human_rights

 

According to the US Department of State,^%5B150%5D the most significant human rights problems are:

extrajudicial killings and use of excessive force by security forces; impunity for abuses by security forces; arbitrary arrests; prolonged pretrial detention; judicial corruption and executive influence on the judiciary; rape, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners, detainees and suspects; harsh and life‑threatening prison and detention center conditions; human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution and forced labour; societal violence and vigilante killings; child labour, child abuse and child sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation (FGM); domestic violence; discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, region and religion; restrictions on freedom of assembly, movement, press, speech and religion; infringement of privacy rights; and the abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government.

Child marriage remains common in Nigeria.^%5B151%5D There are an estimated 700,000 slaves in Nigeria.^%5B152%5D

Under the Shari'a penal code that applies to Muslims in twelve northern states, offences such as alcohol consumption, homosexuality, infidelity and theft carry harsh sentences, including amputation, lashing, stoning and long prison terms.^%5B153%5D

 

Seems to have a lot of ingrained societal problems. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Nigeria see it as normal for them. Why you interfere with our normal lives? or something similar.

 

I don't see the success of trying to fix one problem when you have so many (from a western viewpoint).

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-nigeria-bokoharam-idUSBREA440BJ20140505

 

Boko Haram is actually giving Islamic fundamentalists a bad name. Now not only are they saying they will sell the girls into slavery but that according to Allah this is what is expected. IMO they have now gone far over what would be acceptable even by Al-Qaeda terms, using Islam to justify slavery as if its there religious right.

 

I am confidant there time is limited and the target on there backs has just got bigger

 

Slaves are not something new to Nigeria. At least according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Human_rights

 

According to the US Department of State,^%5B150%5D the most significant human rights problems are:

extrajudicial killings and use of excessive force by security forces; impunity for abuses by security forces; arbitrary arrests; prolonged pretrial detention; judicial corruption and executive influence on the judiciary; rape, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners, detainees and suspects; harsh and life‑threatening prison and detention center conditions; human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution and forced labour; societal violence and vigilante killings; child labour, child abuse and child sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation (FGM); domestic violence; discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, region and religion; restrictions on freedom of assembly, movement, press, speech and religion; infringement of privacy rights; and the abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government.

Child marriage remains common in Nigeria.^%5B151%5D There are an estimated 700,000 slaves in Nigeria.^%5B152%5D

Under the Shari'a penal code that applies to Muslims in twelve northern states, offences such as alcohol consumption, homosexuality, infidelity and theft carry harsh sentences, including amputation, lashing, stoning and long prison terms.^%5B153%5D

 

Seems to have a lot of ingrained societal problems. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Nigeria see it as normal for them. Why you interfere with our normal lives? or something similar.

 

I don't see the success of trying to fix one problem when you have so many (from a western viewpoint).

 

 

You right the reprehensible act of slavery still does exist in benighted parts of Africa, but its not legal or acceptable by almost  all aspects of African society. In fact in a particular backward north western Africa called Mauritania slavery was only abolished in 1981 !!!  And its still practiced illegally

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html

[Malcador]

Why would the US waste the money for the manpower and equipment to attain this victory, anyway?

[BruceVC]

Why would the US waste the money for the manpower and equipment to attain this victory, anyway?

 

I assume you are asking why would the USA try to assist in defeating Boko Haram? Several reasons, they are already involved throughout Africa in places that are potential breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. But the main reason is that most people, including the USA, think that the kidnapping of young girls to be sold into slavery is an utterly unacceptable situation and needs to be condemned and stopped. The good news is the USA has already offered to help

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigerian-girls-captor-sell-them-122202090.html?.tsrc=yahoo#e9OMLLo

 

This is good news Malc, the USA is getting involved

[Malcador]

Fair enough that it's another item on the list for them in Africa, but given the topic of them being to swiftly end Boko Haram, that requires a fair investment and risk.  Not too sure that the kidnapping is justification, I guess the bombings and their previous activities weren't significant (Boko Haram should have grabbed some middle aged guys, I guess, to avoid the fuss).

 

But I suppose it's at least something for the US to help.  Johnathan asking for help, though, at this stage reminds me of the Simpsons gag with Ned's parents "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".

[BruceVC]

Fair enough that it's another item on the list for them in Africa, but given the topic of them being to swiftly end Boko Haram, that requires a fair investment and risk.  Not too sure that the kidnapping is justification, I guess the bombings and their previous activities weren't significant (Boko Haram should have grabbed some middle aged guys, I guess, to avoid the fuss).

 

But I suppose it's at least something for the US to help.  Johnathan asking for help, though, at this stage reminds me of the Simpsons gag with Ned's parents "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".

 

I agree, this problem should have been dealt with years ago primarily by Nigeria and the AU. I also  don't want to be negative but even if you defeat Boko Haram and drive them from Nigeria I doubt you will get all the girls back. Apparently some have been already sold into forced marriages

[Malcador]

Yep, they're not coming back. Those not sold will get put in the ground once moves start against them.

[Walsingham]

Why would the US waste the money for the manpower and equipment to attain this victory, anyway?

 

Wow. I'm going to keep the fate of these girls, abducted with force, trafficked as rape slaves, and probably eventually killed, in mind the next time you whinge on about answering the ****ing phone.

[Malcador]

Oh, such outrage, that was unexpected.   Anyway, looking at the US as a state and asking what they care about this and is it enough to deal with spending money, time, risking their people's lives, and so on is pretty fair. Especially as we were talking about some hypothetical US strike to end Boko Haram forever, rather than trying to rescue the girls and then just leaving under a banner.  And Not like I am saying the girls don't matter or it's not bad (but I guess that needs mentioning).

 

Bruce already provided two answers, I am not too sure about one of them, myself, but eh.  

[teknoman2]

 

Why would the US waste the money for the manpower and equipment to attain this victory, anyway?

 

I assume you are asking why would the USA try to assist in defeating Boko Haram? Several reasons, they are already involved throughout Africa in places that are potential breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. But the main reason is that most people, including the USA, think that the kidnapping of young girls to be sold into slavery is an utterly unacceptable situation and needs to be condemned and stopped. The good news is the USA has already offered to help

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigerian-girls-captor-sell-them-122202090.html?.tsrc=yahoo#e9OMLLo

 

This is good news Malc, the USA is getting involved

 

the US government doesnt give a flying F about the kidnaping. if there is an intervention, it will be used as an excuse, but there will be as always political/economical reasons underneath. there are dozens of places in the world that would require an intervention for humanitarian reasons, but nobody cares to intervene because nobody has anything to gain by doing so. however where there is money to be made, the US rushes first to save the poor inocent civilians

[Zoraptor]

I'm interested in what is your solution for dealing with Boko Haram?

 

There is no 'solution for dealing with Boko Haram'. Magic bullet solutions to complex problems are just that, magic. They don't exist.

 

Sure, if I could wave my hands and remove Nigeria's corruption it would go some way to ameliorating things, if I could wave my hands and replace all their weapons with guava and mangoes that would help and if I could teleport any hostages home I would. But I can't do any of that, you can't either, and neither can the US/ France/ Britain or anyone else.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm interested in what is your solution for dealing with Boko Haram?

 

There is no 'solution for dealing with Boko Haram'. Magic bullet solutions to complex problems are just that, magic. They don't exist.

 

Sure, if I could wave my hands and remove Nigeria's corruption it would go some way to ameliorating things, if I could wave my hands and replace all their weapons with guava and mangoes that would help and if I could teleport any hostages home I would. But I can't do any of that, you can't either, and neither can the US/ France/ Britain or anyone else.

 

 

So would your advice be to just them leave alone to continue to disrupt the Nigerian way of life? I am talking about practical examples ..not magic bullets.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ah the old, we should "sort out" the natives problems and by sorting out the natives themselves and everything will be fine.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

So would your advice be to just them leave alone to continue to disrupt the Nigerian way of life? I am talking about practical examples ..not magic bullets.

 

My view is a generational change over decades. Influence the government. Influence it in ways that are beneficial to the people as well as the government. I listed many examples of the problems with Nigeria. Solving one isn't going to change the culture when there's 50 other arguably more heinous things going on. Through this generational change, after say 20 years, you'll probably see a different Nigeria than what we have now.

 

I base my own experience and the experience of living in Australia with generational changes that have been introduced over the last 30 years. Things we do today, the way most people think, how people are treated are a lot different to how it was 20 or 30 years ago. Even simple things like local councils giving two bins to each household, conditioning people to place their plastic bottles, paper, cardboard boxes into one bin and everything else in the other bin. Through distributing local pamphlets to households, advertising on TV, etc. That really didn't happen 30 years ago. Or even 20 years ago in a lot of places. But it's normal now and it would be odd for a lot of people not to do it. That's just one example of how you can condition and change people. Generational change.

 

Just don't expect a magic bullet to fix Nigeria in 1 or 2 years.