Boko Haram and the kidnpping of the school girls

[BruceVC]

 

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is  "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ?

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest.

 

I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification.

Hahaha.

 

 

Come on Baro, lets try to be reasonable now 

 

Of course every single country has there own self-interest in mind when they act in the global arena

 

But my issue is there seems to be no positive  recognition to the decisions made by Western countries when they intervene in other countries affairs when the reality is its more effort for them, in other words it would much easier to not intervene 

 

I can give plenty of examples but lets just discuss one, when the Yazidi where trapped on that mountain in Iraq  ISIS was quite prepared to commit genocide against them. But the USA intervened and broke the siege and allowed the majority of the Yazidi to survive. Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again? Of course not, this was a humanitarian mission because the reality was no one was really prepared to commit military resources unless the USA did ? Do you not think the USA deserves some credit ?

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/20/world/meast/isis-violence/index.html

Edited January 12, 2015 by BruceVC

[Barothmuk]

Come on Baro, lets try to be reasonable now.

We've done this song and dance before.

[Valsuelm]

Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again?

 

 

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth.

 

We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of.

 

The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again?

 

 

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth.

 

We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of.

 

The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in.

 

 

Now this could be an interesting debate and I would like us to have it 

 

The Americans left Iraq and effectively ended their military contribution in 2011

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218

 

Yes there were private contractors still doing some military work and of course some business partnerships but officailly the USA left Iraq

 

 

If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

Edited January 12, 2015 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

 

If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

 

 

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military.

 

That Reuters article is a blatant lie.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

 

 

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military.

 

That Reuters article is a blatant lie.

 

 

Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you  to believe it?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

 

 

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military.

 

That Reuters article is a blatant lie.

 

 

Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you  to believe it?

 

 

If you lived in the US the evidence would come from someone you might know in the military. Where I live, which is not far from a major military installation, it's generally common knowledge. And I'm sure it's also common knowledge around many if not most other military installations in the US. I also come from a family that has a number of military members (current and former) 'serving'. One of the people that's been ordered to Iraq next week actually happens to a family member.

 

If there's an article out there on this I don't know. Not all troops movements and placements are advertised in the press, in part for good reasons (the protection of the troops) and in part for bad reasons (the troops are going to be up to no good or the Pentagon doesn't want to deal with the public in regards to what it's doing that would very possibly outrage some).

Edited January 12, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

why on earth does anybody take val serious at this point? his proof is that such stuff is "common knowledge" and that he gots "family"? HA! is recalling to mind when bester were telling us that a buk missle system could not have shot down malaysian airliners over the ukraine because he spoke to a random guy somewheres who had claimed to have been part o' a buk crew and his source said buk couldn't hit airliners at altitude.  don't let val get away with such nonsense. tell you he gots family going to iraq and spouting off 'bout common knowledge despite complete opposite being the actual reported and documented situation is only funny if you let val get away with such silliness.

 

as for bruce being favorable towards western military involvement in libya and elsewhere, we recall exact the opposite. we has pointed out to bruce on a few occasions that in the US, obama has had to weather criticism for his failure to act with the requisite military response. bruce acted both surprised and defensive towards obama's growing American reticence-- we can dig up posts regarding iraq, libya and syria for a start.

 

*shrug*

 

if you has done a 180 and now thinks western military interventions is a fine thing, we still wouldn't necessarily agree. military responses to terrorism is notoriously ineffectual, even if such actions would appear to be the only plausible response once a situation has escalated.  the thing is, if you want the west to intervene and do nation-building in an effort to create stable democratic governments in sub-saharan africa, you gotta be aware that such efforts is monumental in nature.  the human and capital resources that need be expended to successful carryout military interventions followed by nation building efforts is not the kinda thing that the eu is capable o' absorbing given their cycles o' economic instability. a genuine western coalition including the US and EU likely could muster the resources necessary to bring positive change to nigeria, but am doubting there is currently the political or economic wherewithal to do so. 

 

please note that nigeria is more than three times as populous as iraq. not all other factors is equal as betwixt iraq and nigeria, but...

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/summer2003/burden.html

 

is daunting numbers, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

Here, took me about a minute to find this:

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/01/about-250-fort-bragg-soldiers-deploy-support-iraq-operations/19741789/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

 

That's not the entire story on troops currently in Iraq or on their way there but it contradicts that Reuters article and what you generally are going to see/hear in the main stream media.

[Gromnir]

see, this is what we mean. val calls reuters article a lie, but then references something complete different. the reuters article from bruce is 2011. the mere 3,000 american troops current in iraq has been there since... november 2014? bbc, cbs, reuteurs and innumerable sources covered the initial 1,500 man authorization by obama in november. am not certain on that date, so if were earlier, we apologize. is not combat troops per se by us to iraq as they is specific prohibited from engaging isis unless to defend. there is american personnel that is in iraq, and the military personnel were sent for twin purposes o' protecting those small number o' americans, as well as providing training to iraq personnel.  

 

btw, the numbers o' americans in iraq is laughable small. iraq requests aid against isis and obama sends 1,500 to protect americans in iraq.  obama wanted to be seen as doing... something?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 12, 2015 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

why on earth does anybody take val serious at this point? his proof is that such stuff is "common knowledge" and that he gots "family"? HA! is recalling to mind when bester were telling us that a buk missle system could not have shot down malaysian airliners over the ukraine because he spoke to a random guy somewheres who had claimed to have been part o' a buk crew and his source said buk couldn't hit airliners at altitude.  don't let val get away with such nonsense. tell you he gots family going to iraq and spouting off 'bout common knowledge despite complete opposite being the actual reported and documented situation is only funny if you let val get away with such silliness.

 

as for bruce being favorable towards western military involvement in libya and elsewhere, we recall exact the opposite. we has pointed out to bruce on a few occasions that in the US, obama has had to weather criticism for his failure to act with the requisite military response. bruce acted both surprised and defensive towards obama's growing American reticence-- we can dig up posts regarding iraq, libya and syria for a start.

 

*shrug*

 

if you has done a 180 and now thinks western military interventions is a fine thing, we still wouldn't necessarily agree. military responses to terrorism is notoriously ineffectual, even if such actions would appear to be the only plausible response once a situation has escalated.  the thing is, if you want the west to intervene and do nation-building in an effort to create stable democratic governments in sub-saharan africa, you gotta be aware that such efforts is monumental in nature.  the human and capital resources that need be expended to successful carryout military interventions followed by nation building efforts is not the kinda thing that the eu is capable o' absorbing given their cycles o' economic instability. a genuine western coalition including the US and EU likely could muster the resources necessary to bring positive change to nigeria, but am doubting there is currently the political or economic wherewithal to do so. 

 

please note that nigeria is more than three times as populous as iraq. not all other factors is equal as betwixt iraq and nigeria, but...

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/summer2003/burden.html

 

is daunting numbers, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way

 

I still support military action  by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone  where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world 

 

For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for  the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC

 

Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision 

 

So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each  possible example of military intervention on a per case basis 

 

But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness 

 

Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case 

Edited January 12, 2015 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

While checking on this, I noticed that we have over 9,000 troops in Kuwait.  Wow!  We also have 11k in Italy.  

[Blarghagh]

Is it because Italians have so much oil in their hair?

[Malcador]

Not sure Boko Haram is so much 'terrorism' as insurgency at this point. They're about 10,000 strong or so and launch major ground attacks, in addition to bombings. A military approach can help cull them down to, unfortunately, terrorist attacks alone. But unlikely to kill as many at that point.

[Gromnir]

 

why on earth does anybody take val serious at this point? his proof is that such stuff is "common knowledge" and that he gots "family"? HA! is recalling to mind when bester were telling us that a buk missle system could not have shot down malaysian airliners over the ukraine because he spoke to a random guy somewheres who had claimed to have been part o' a buk crew and his source said buk couldn't hit airliners at altitude.  don't let val get away with such nonsense. tell you he gots family going to iraq and spouting off 'bout common knowledge despite complete opposite being the actual reported and documented situation is only funny if you let val get away with such silliness.

 

as for bruce being favorable towards western military involvement in libya and elsewhere, we recall exact the opposite. we has pointed out to bruce on a few occasions that in the US, obama has had to weather criticism for his failure to act with the requisite military response. bruce acted both surprised and defensive towards obama's growing American reticence-- we can dig up posts regarding iraq, libya and syria for a start.

 

*shrug*

 

if you has done a 180 and now thinks western military interventions is a fine thing, we still wouldn't necessarily agree. military responses to terrorism is notoriously ineffectual, even if such actions would appear to be the only plausible response once a situation has escalated.  the thing is, if you want the west to intervene and do nation-building in an effort to create stable democratic governments in sub-saharan africa, you gotta be aware that such efforts is monumental in nature.  the human and capital resources that need be expended to successful carryout military interventions followed by nation building efforts is not the kinda thing that the eu is capable o' absorbing given their cycles o' economic instability. a genuine western coalition including the US and EU likely could muster the resources necessary to bring positive change to nigeria, but am doubting there is currently the political or economic wherewithal to do so. 

 

please note that nigeria is more than three times as populous as iraq. not all other factors is equal as betwixt iraq and nigeria, but...

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/summer2003/burden.html

 

is daunting numbers, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way

 

I still support military action  by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone  where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world 

 

For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for  the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC

 

Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision 

 

So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each  possible example of military intervention on a per case basis 

 

But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness 

 

Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case 

 

ok, the last bit is a bit naive. the current government in nigeria is unwilling or unable to stop or even limit boko haram. am not certain what you thinks would be accomplished by a military action designed at nothing more than stopping a terrorist group. 

 

also, am not certain what makes you think UNSC is so meaningful. neverthless, what makes you think that a UNSC resolution authorizing military action in nigeria would be forthcoming? indifference perhaps? less than 20 people is killed in france and you got world leaders doing a unity march. 2,000 people are massacred in baga and where is the public outcry for the dead in africa we wonder.

 

unsc? *snort*

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-23847169

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 12, 2015 by Gromnir

[Gorgon]

While checking on this, I noticed that we have over 9,000 troops in Kuwait.  Wow!  We also have 11k in Italy.  

NATO bases, long leases. Their presence affects the local economy, you can't just have them up and leave even though they are not needed at all. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

why on earth does anybody take val serious at this point? his proof is that such stuff is "common knowledge" and that he gots "family"? HA! is recalling to mind when bester were telling us that a buk missle system could not have shot down malaysian airliners over the ukraine because he spoke to a random guy somewheres who had claimed to have been part o' a buk crew and his source said buk couldn't hit airliners at altitude.  don't let val get away with such nonsense. tell you he gots family going to iraq and spouting off 'bout common knowledge despite complete opposite being the actual reported and documented situation is only funny if you let val get away with such silliness.

 

as for bruce being favorable towards western military involvement in libya and elsewhere, we recall exact the opposite. we has pointed out to bruce on a few occasions that in the US, obama has had to weather criticism for his failure to act with the requisite military response. bruce acted both surprised and defensive towards obama's growing American reticence-- we can dig up posts regarding iraq, libya and syria for a start.

 

*shrug*

 

if you has done a 180 and now thinks western military interventions is a fine thing, we still wouldn't necessarily agree. military responses to terrorism is notoriously ineffectual, even if such actions would appear to be the only plausible response once a situation has escalated.  the thing is, if you want the west to intervene and do nation-building in an effort to create stable democratic governments in sub-saharan africa, you gotta be aware that such efforts is monumental in nature.  the human and capital resources that need be expended to successful carryout military interventions followed by nation building efforts is not the kinda thing that the eu is capable o' absorbing given their cycles o' economic instability. a genuine western coalition including the US and EU likely could muster the resources necessary to bring positive change to nigeria, but am doubting there is currently the political or economic wherewithal to do so. 

 

please note that nigeria is more than three times as populous as iraq. not all other factors is equal as betwixt iraq and nigeria, but...

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/summer2003/burden.html

 

is daunting numbers, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way

 

I still support military action  by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone  where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world 

 

For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for  the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC

 

Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision 

 

So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each  possible example of military intervention on a per case basis 

 

But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness 

 

Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case 

 

ok, the last bit is a bit naive. the current government in nigeria is unwilling or unable to stop or even limit boko haram. am not certain what you thinks would be accomplished by a military action designed at nothing more than stopping a terrorist group. 

 

also, am not certain what makes you think UNSC is so meaningful. neverthless, what makes you think that a UNSC resolution authorizing military action in nigeria would be forthcoming? indifference perhaps? less than 20 people is killed in france and you got world leaders doing a unity march. 2,000 people are massacred in baga and where is the public outcry for the dead in africa we wonder.

 

unsc? *snort*

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-23847169

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Sure I hear you, its seems almost unfair when you look at all the attention paid to the Paris shootings and the constant massacres of civilians by Boko Haram...which seem to get very little world focus. Well thats the perception 

 

Thats a good link, I was aware of a legal clause where countries can intervene militarily in other countries without UNSC support if its due to humanitarian grounds. But even those lawyers in the link  you posted say this is a more complicated way of military intervention and there would be numerous conditions. The point being you still prefer to get UNSC endorsement to ensure legitimacy 

 

And finally you right there is no guarantee you would get UNSC support but if a country like Nigeria, who is a non-permanent member  currently of the UNSC, raised the notion and was prepared to fund it I would surprised if there would be any objections. But that takes political will and as I've said thats what is lacking from the AU and many of its member states 

[Gromnir]

bruce forgot to address how he wants the military to stop the terrorist actions in northern nigeria.  how does you suspect a western military coalition would defeat boko haram without any long-term presence in the region? what does you identify as the military assets o' a terrorist group when they will strap explosives to a teenage girl and then blow her up in the middle of a crowd? in gaza, hamas used a freaking donkey bomb? you sure as hell ain't gonna target every teen-aged girl and donkey in northern nigeria.

 

oh, and north-west nigeria alone accounts for 25% o' the total population o' nigeria... which would make population in that region alone to be at +43 million? assuming for a second that a military operation could go in and defeat boko haram, what sorta police force would be needed to secure the region until nigeria showed the wherewithal and the ability to do so on its own? is a complete arbitrary number, but be generous and assume that 2/3 o' the temporary police force in north-west nigeria would be handled by nigerians... and that is just north-west nigeria.  am doing a good bit of rounding down, but if 20 police per 1,000 is accurate for a stabilizing force, and we is only asking for west to supply 1/3 o' that force (a mistake the US made in iraq were assuming that the locals would supply the bulk o' police,) then according to the study we linked earlier, something in excess o' 250,000 foreign troops would be required.

 

nigeria is a nightmare situation insofar as foreign military involvement is concerned. it took days for boko haram to slaughter those people in baga. the nigerian government either didn't know about the massacre and/or it ignored what were occurring in baga. 

 

not fun.

[Malcador]

Not sure they would need to secure that many people. The resident populace may not be very hostile to a foreign force that has come to kill Boko Haram. Long term that is the solution needed and has to be done by Nigerian forces, but that should be a bit easier if Boko Haram can be battered enough. Will be a hard campaign though, have to make sure they can't flee to other countries.

 

But theory at this point.

[Gromnir]

Not sure they would need to secure that many people. The resident populace may not be very hostile to a foreign force that has come to kill Boko Haram. Long term that is the solution needed and has to be done by Nigerian forces, but that should be a bit easier if Boko Haram can be battered enough. Will be a hard campaign though, have to make sure they can't flee to other countries.

 

But theory at this point.

is not requiring hostility towards the security force that demands such numbers.  the majority o' the populations in somalia and afghanastan and even iraq were not actual hostile to US forces. were there elements within those populations that were violently anti-US? yes, very much so. the study we linked observes that any stability force on foreign soil is going to face significant challenges that require considerable man-power. surprisingly, the number o' overt hostiles is more likely to factor into the time-frame for possible withdrawal rather than the actual manpower requirements. also, please note that the nigerian government were completely ineffectual at stopping or even impeding the massacre at baga. try and consider just how impotent a western government would need be for that sorta thing to happen.  

 

the numbers o' actual boko haram members in northern nigeria is not what is going to make northern nigeria a hostile environment for a security force. the knowledge within the populace that the current nigerian government is ineffectual in protecting them will make the environment no less dangerous than somalia, afghanastan or iraq were when US and/or UN forces arrived in those places.  it takes small numbers o' terrorists to destabilize a populace. the fact that a foreign security force is required to establish order is, sadly, proof that the terrorists is vital and that the established government is not. fighting terrorists with soldiers turns criminals into holy warriors in the eyes o' many potential recruits. is no less significant for the less extremist majority within the native populations to see foreign forces as initially legitimizing those being fought as 'posed to the s'posed government.

 

keep in mind that the numbers we suggest is Extreme conservative. we is assuming that the security force need only maintain order in north-west nigeria (a pipe dream) and that the nigerians who failed to even recognize the events in baga will be able to contribute 2/3 o' the necessary security force (unlikely).

 

but again, military intervention is rare successful when dealing with such groups... even when it appears all other options has been exhausted and one is left with nothing but military action.

 

am doubting anybody in the west wants any part o' nigeria's problems, but the way many western governments and news agencies is giving so little attention to the events in sub-saharan africa is troublesome to us.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

bruce forgot to address how he wants the military to stop the terrorist actions in northern nigeria.  how does you suspect a western military coalition would defeat boko haram without any long-term presence in the region? what does you identify as the military assets o' a terrorist group when they will strap explosives to a teenage girl and then blow her up in the middle of a crowd? in gaza, hamas used a freaking donkey bomb? you sure as hell ain't gonna target every teen-aged girl and donkey in northern nigeria.

 

oh, and north-west nigeria alone accounts for 25% o' the total population o' nigeria... which would make population in that region alone to be at +43 million? assuming for a second that a military operation could go in and defeat boko haram, what sorta police force would be needed to secure the region until nigeria showed the wherewithal and the ability to do so on its own? is a complete arbitrary number, but be generous and assume that 2/3 o' the temporary police force in north-west nigeria would be handled by nigerians... and that is just north-west nigeria.  am doing a good bit of rounding down, but if 20 police per 1,000 is accurate for a stabilizing force, and we is only asking for west to supply 1/3 o' that force (a mistake the US made in iraq were assuming that the locals would supply the bulk o' police,) then according to the study we linked earlier, something in excess o' 250,000 foreign troops would be required.

 

nigeria is a nightmare situation insofar as foreign military involvement is concerned. it took days for boko haram to slaughter those people in baga. the nigerian government either didn't know about the massacre and/or it ignored what were occurring in baga. 

 

not fun.

I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military  force 

 

But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan

 

• Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable 
• If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by  working  to close the various  border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH
• BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers  and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held

 

• BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectiveness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau

• But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training  and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result 

 

So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months 

[Valsuelm]

Why 8-12?

 

Why not 6-8? or 12-14?

 

What makes you think that 8-12 is the magic number?

[BruceVC]

Why 8-12?

 

Why not 6-8? or 12-14?

 

What makes you think that 8-12 is the magic number?

 

 

 

Fair enough, lets say if I was asked to predict how long a military mission would take to reduce the effectiveness of BH I would say a year because of the area they operate in ?

Edited January 13, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/01/cameroon-army-kills-143-boko-haram-fighters/

 

The Cameroon army seems more effective than the Nigerian army at dealing with Boko Haram and this isn't the first time they have had these types of military successes 

[Gromnir]

 

bruce forgot to address how he wants the military to stop the terrorist actions in northern nigeria.  how does you suspect a western military coalition would defeat boko haram without any long-term presence in the region? what does you identify as the military assets o' a terrorist group when they will strap explosives to a teenage girl and then blow her up in the middle of a crowd? in gaza, hamas used a freaking donkey bomb? you sure as hell ain't gonna target every teen-aged girl and donkey in northern nigeria.

 

oh, and north-west nigeria alone accounts for 25% o' the total population o' nigeria... which would make population in that region alone to be at +43 million? assuming for a second that a military operation could go in and defeat boko haram, what sorta police force would be needed to secure the region until nigeria showed the wherewithal and the ability to do so on its own? is a complete arbitrary number, but be generous and assume that 2/3 o' the temporary police force in north-west nigeria would be handled by nigerians... and that is just north-west nigeria.  am doing a good bit of rounding down, but if 20 police per 1,000 is accurate for a stabilizing force, and we is only asking for west to supply 1/3 o' that force (a mistake the US made in iraq were assuming that the locals would supply the bulk o' police,) then according to the study we linked earlier, something in excess o' 250,000 foreign troops would be required.

 

nigeria is a nightmare situation insofar as foreign military involvement is concerned. it took days for boko haram to slaughter those people in baga. the nigerian government either didn't know about the massacre and/or it ignored what were occurring in baga. 

 

not fun.

I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military  force 

 

But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan

 

• Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable 
• If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by  working  to close the various  border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH
• BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers  and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held

 

• BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectiveness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau

• But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training  and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result 

 

So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months 

 

dunno. iraq had a single leader and a far smaller population than has nigeria. also, the lack of discipline, training and morale make us shudder when we consider how much help the nigerians would be with the necessary security force that would be required to help maintain order after the western infidels showed up to help drive boko haram into hiding.

 

oh, but at least we will stop referencing north west nigeria when we were meaning to describe north east. sheesh. baga is about as north east as one can possibly be in nigeria after all.

 

keep in mind that we believe nigeria needs help, and what is going on in nigeria deserves more attention, but at the moment, we don't see any quick fixes or solutions, and am doubtful that a likely half-arsed western military intervention would do more than galvanize the islamic extremists in the region.

 

this is another one o' those situations where when we is asked what we thinks should be done, we feels like slapping folks silly.  our gut-level reaction is to respond with a question o' our own:  "why didn't you ask that question in 2009-10?"  am not speaking o' bruce, insofar as the slapping is concerned, but boko haram were a small problem in 2009.  is 4 or 5 years ago that this problem shoulda' been addressed. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps killing the leader of a terrorist organization has some value, but is arguable Not the best strategic option. the whole point o' a terrorist cell system is that independent cells can function, well, independently.  no doubt there is great value in a single charismatic leader that can bring followers to a cause, but kill leader o' a terrorist organization would not be our goal. identify such a leader, find as many links 'tween him and other cells as possible, and then exhaust all the information one can through observations o' his operations, communications and intermediaries. kill such a leader may be necessary for political reasons, but is bad strategy in our estimation.  removal of a leader in a cell structure is not the same as taking the head from the snake.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Gromnir