Boko Haram Gunmen Kidnap Girls in Nigeria

[Greg Bernhardt]

~240 were taken. They were taking a physics exam when they were abducted! Can Nigeria solve this problem? What are the responsibilities of other nations?

Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls taken as brides by militants, relatives told
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/kidnapped-nigerian-schoolgirls-marriage-claims

Suspected Boko Haram Gunmen Kidnap 8 More Girls in Nigeria
http://www.voanews.com/content/susp...dnap-eight-more-girls-in-nigeria/1908567.html

 

[lisab]

Terrorist acts aim to create chaos and fear in a population. Kidnapping girls will not achieve that goal, IMO. It will unite everyday Nigerians against Boko Haram and also pressure the government to be more responsive. Pretty much opposite of the intended effect!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Boko Haram = "Western education is sinful"

Okay... :uhh:

And to kidnap 14 year-old girls and make money on trafficking... is what? Praise of Highest Almighty...?? :yuck:

Troglodyte Barbarians :grumpy:

 

[russ_watters]

~240 were taken. They were taking a physics exam when they were abducted! Can Nigeria solve this problem? What are the responsibilities of other nations?

Who do we want to be/how do we want other nations to view us? We drop everything to throw carrier battle groups at humanitarian relief efforts; why can't we also commit some small forces to fixing (relatively) small problems like this one? Demonstrating that we are willing to help even when our own self-interest is not at stake is very good for our national image. And is there a moral responsibility here? I tend to think there is.

We're offering troops now and I think we waited far too long to make that offer.

 

[lisab]

Who do we want to be/how do we want other nations to view us? We drop everything to throw carrier battle groups at humanitarian relief efforts; why can't we also commit some small forces to fixing (relatively) small problems like this one? Demonstrating that we are willing to help even when our own self-interest is not at stake is very good for our national image. And is there a moral responsibility here? I tend to think there is.

We're offering troops now and I think we waited far too long to make that offer.

I really understand your sentiment. But let me rephrase your questions: What do other nations want to be, and how can they view *themselves* as capable? If it's such a small problem (and it really is), why must we get involved?

Yes there is a moral interest. But why must it rest ultimately on our shoulders?

These questions are rhetorical. Truth be told, I'm torn about what America's position in the world should be these days. I do want to help, but where is the rest of the world? Plenty of other countries now have a standard of living equal to ours (or better). Where are they in this crisis?

 

[russ_watters]

I really understand your sentiment. But let me rephrase your questions: What do other nations want to be, and how can they view *themselves* as capable? If it's such a small problem (and it really is), why must we get involved?

Yes there is a moral interest. But why must it rest ultimately on our shoulders?

I think I know where you are going with that and I agree: the international community should be doing more and the responsibility is not ours alone. But a shared responsibility doesn't get split into parts for blame: everyone gets a full share if they were capable of fixing the problem alone. So while it sucks that everyone else is shirking the responsibility, it doesn't grant us a pass to do it too.

These questions are rhetorical. Truth be told, I'm torn about what America's position in the world should be these days.

Not uncommon, but may I ask why?

I do want to help, but where is the rest of the world? Plenty of other countries now have a standard of living equal to ours (or better). Where are they in this crisis?

They've all dismantled their militaries. They can't even handle the smallest of military engagements (Libyan air campaign) without our assistance. Saves them a lot of money, sure, but it makes the world a more dangerous place. This particular incident is tiny of course and anyone of our allies could take care of it alone, but there are/have been other problems that only we can deal with.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

These questions are rhetorical. Truth be told, I'm torn about what America's position in the world should be these days. I do want to help, but where is the rest of the world? Plenty of other countries now have a standard of living equal to ours (or better). Where are they in this crisis?

Nations may take advantage too. Why invest in an armed force if you know the US will bail you out.

Hard to talk policy when 230 odd girls are in serious danger though.

 

[Borg]

Terrorist acts aim to create chaos and fear in a population. Kidnapping girls will not achieve that goal, IMO. It will unite everyday Nigerians against Boko Haram and also pressure the government to be more responsive. Pretty much opposite of the intended effect!

Sadly, I agree. If Boko Haram had stuck to it's previous playbook of killing the girls and destroying their school, the story wouldn't be getting international attention.

Founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the organisation seeks to establish a "pure" Islamic state ruled by sharia law, putting a stop to what it deems "Westernization". The group is known for attacking Christians and government targets, bombing churches, attacking schools and police stations, kidnapping western tourists, but has also assassinated members of the Islamic establishment. Violence linked to the Boko Haram insurgency has resulted in an estimated 10,000 deaths between 2002 and 2013.

However, I don't know how anyone would even begin to deal with people like this. I get the Darwin thing because religions usually bury their head in the sand on that. But a flat Earth and rain not originating from evaporation??

In a 2009 BBC interview, Mohammed Yusuf, then leader of the group, stated his belief that the fact of a spherical Earth is contrary to Islamic teaching and should be rejected, along with Darwinian evolution and the fact of rain originating from water evaporated by the sun. Before his death, Yusuf reiterated the group's objective of changing the current education system and rejecting democracy.

To get back to Greg's original question:

...Can Nigeria solve this problem? What are the responsibilities of other nations?...

What is the real problem here? A bunch of girls who were kidnapped, yet another Islamic group that wishes to create an Islamic state ruled by sharia law, or what happens when countries are rife with corruption? The kidnappings are a symptom of a problem that occurs throughout the developing world. These groups always seem to follow a typical pattern of perceived injustice, religious uprising, half-hearted and/or inept government crackdowns and eventual filling of the ranks with criminal elements. What motivates these groups to get started in the first place?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sadly, I agree. If Boko Haram had stuck to it's previous playbook of killing the girls and destroying their school, the story wouldn't be getting international attention.

Quite possibly. CAIR condemned the kidnapping, but two weeks later, only when the announcement that the girls would be sold was made.

 

[Borg]

Quite possibly. CAIR condemned the kidnapping, but two weeks later, only when the announcement that the girls would be sold was made.

I guess that it's hard to condemn something when even people in the Nigerian government refuse to believe it.
Nigeria First Lady Orders Arrest Of Protest Leaders

An organizer of a demonstration said Monday that Jonathan's wife, Patience, ordered the arrests of two protest leaders, accused them of belonging to Boko Haram and expressed doubts there was any kidnapping.

 

[StatGuy2000]

They've all dismantled their militaries. They can't even handle the smallest of military engagements (Libyan air campaign) without our assistance. Saves them a lot of money, sure, but it makes the world a more dangerous place. This particular incident is tiny of course and anyone of our allies could take care of it alone, but there are/have been other problems that only we can deal with.

Are you aware that many developed countries around the world, including Canada (my home country) have invested a sizable share of their national budget on their military, and that their military are engaged in active combat or in peacekeeping? (Canadian soldiers has been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with their American and British counterparts in Afghanistan until recently, for example).

In recent times, French military forces have carried out actions in conflict zones in their former colonies in Chad and the Central African Republic, and British military intervention was key to the end of the civil war in Sierra Leone. Even Australia has been involved in peacekeeping activities in East Timor after their fight for independence from Indonesia. So it is hardly the case that other countries have shirked their responsibilities.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

These questions are rhetorical. Truth be told, I'm torn about what America's position in the world should be these days. I do want to help, but where is the rest of the world? Plenty of other countries now have a standard of living equal to ours (or better). Where are they in this crisis?

The rest of the world? Huuum... seems to be a somewhat 'complicated rhetoric'... since these kinds of coins always has a flip side...

[my bolding]

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., the commission's chairman, noted that the United States has admitted less than 5,000 Iraqi refugees between April 2003 through the end of March while Sweden has accepted 34,000 since 2003.

"If Sweden can do 34,000, can't we here in the United States do more?" Hastings asked.

To emphasize that point, the commission heard from Anders Lago, the mayor of Sodertalje, Sweden, who said his small city of about 80,000 was now home to nearly 6,000 Iraqis. "More refugees than the United States and Canada together," Lago said.

Also note; these Iraqi refugees does not merely get a "Food Stamp & Good Luck", but are obligate to full economic support by the Swedish society, which for a family with a few kids means approx 40,000 USD/year, which can go on for decades, since many of them never learn Swedish, and the unemployment rate is 70%.

Maybe it's gotten better? Nah, in 2013 Sweden had 128,946 Iraqi refugees (1,34%) while US had 153,897 (0,05%). Sodertalje city is now known as 'Little Baghdad'...

This is my tax money, spent on cleaning up the mess after a former alcoholic from Texas, whom can't read the map, who trusts faked/false/bad intelligence to start a deadly/costly and somewhat 'dislocated' war (which has cost you guys life's & trillion$), in what must be the nuttiest 'retaliation' in history.

Do I whine and complain? No, but it's little bit tricky to accept faulty accusations of "doing nothing"...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

They've all dismantled their militaries. They can't even handle the smallest of military engagements (Libyan air campaign) without our assistance.

Since this is a serious thread and we are in a scientific forum, maybe it's safest to stick to facts:

Military expenditure in EU: 266 US$ Bn
Active military forces in EU: 1,551,000 personnel

Military expenditure in Libya: $2 US$ Bn (2008)
Active military forces in Libya: 76,000 personnel (November 2010)

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Gaddafi's "1%-budget" could ever win a war against EU (without US assistance)... personally, I believe the simple answer is that Obama just wanted to avoid earlier blunders... (and let the French fighter jet pilots look at the map first, to hopefully find the right target :tongue:)

 

[lisab]

The rest of the world? Huuum... seems to be a somewhat 'complicated rhetoric'... since these kinds of coins always has a flip side...

[my bolding]


Also note; these Iraqi refugees does not merely get a "Food Stamp & Good Luck", but are obligate to full economic support by the Swedish society, which for a family with a few kids means approx 40,000 USD/year, which can go on for decades, since many of them never learn Swedish, and the unemployment rate is 70%.

Maybe it's gotten better? Nah, in 2013 Sweden had 128,946 Iraqi refugees (1,34%) while US had 153,897 (0,05%). Sodertalje city is now known as 'Little Baghdad'...

This is my tax money, spent on cleaning up the mess after a former alcoholic from Texas, whom can't read the map, who trusts faked/false/bad intelligence to start a deadly/costly and somewhat 'dislocated' war (which has cost you guys life's & trillion$), in what must be the nuttiest 'retaliation' in history.

Do I whine and complain? No, but it's little bit tricky to accept faulty accusations of "doing nothing"...

Good points, and yes I was aware Sweden is taking more than its share of refugees. And I never thought much of that particular Texan and his buddies.

But my point is, whenever there is a crisis, the US is expected to "do something". Why does no one ever ask "What is Uruguay going to do about this? Is Nepal going to send troops into help?"

Truth is, the tide seems to be turning in the US, and Americans are much less willing to be in this role in the world now.

 

[adjacent]

Why does no one ever ask "What is Uruguay going to do about this? Is Nepal going to send troops into help?"

That's because US somehow gets involved in almost all issues like that,IMO. No other country does that.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That's because US somehow gets involved in almost all issues like that,IMO. No other country does that.

Based on your public profile (About Me), I imagine you could be of some help in saving these young girls.

 

[Borg]

And, back to their playbook...

Islamic militant attack in Nigeria kills hundreds

 

[mheslep]

However, I don't know how anyone would even begin to deal with people like this.

I think by first identifying and labeling this group more accurately as a cult, Jim Jones and company in Guinea, Aum Shinrikyo in Japan.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I guess that it's hard to condemn something when even people in the Nigerian government refuse to believe it.

Come on. Was there ever any serious doubt that there was a kidnapping incident? Not propaganda and willful denials. This was covered in USA Today, The Guardian, the BBC, Voice of America immediately after it happened.

 

[Borg]

Come on. Was there ever any serious doubt that there was a kidnapping incident? Not propaganda and willful denials. This was covered in USA Today, The Guardian, the BBC, Voice of America immediately after it happened.

Just being facetious. The Nigerian government is not dealing with these terrorists as they should. From my link:

By Monday afternoon, police said Nyadar had been returned home. A statement denied she was detained, saying she was "invited ... (to) an interactive and fact-finding interview. "

Ndirpaya said Patience Jonathan accused them of fabricating the abductions. "She told so many lies, that we just wanted the government of Nigeria to have a bad name, that we did not want to support her husband's rule," she said in a telephone interview with the AP.

She said other women at the meeting, allies of Patience Jonathan including officials of the government and the ruling party, cheered and chanted "yes, yes," when the first lady accused them of belonging to Boko Haram. "They said we are Boko Haram, and that Mrs. Nyadar is a member of Boko Haram."

If the above is true, then it seems that at least some in the government are hoping to diminish their plight or scare them from protesting about it. The statement from the police calling a detainment an 'invitation' lends some credibility that this may have been the case. Stories like this and the extreme slowness of the government response tells me that the government doesn't know what to do, doesn't want to deal with it, or both.

Whatever the situation with the government, I doubt that many of the girls will be recovered. There are already reports of some of the girls crossing the border into Chad and Cameroon with militants that they have been forced to marry. I really feel sorry for the girls, their families and all of the other victims of that group. Groups like Boko Haram are a blight on the world - even to Al Qaeda.

 

[256bits]

Just being facetious. The Nigerian government is not dealing with these terrorists as they should.

Isn't some summit or conference coming up that Nigeria is hosting. The government might have been trying to play the game of "Problems. We have no problems" beforehand to minimize security risks for delegations.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

But my point is, whenever there is a crisis, the US is expected to "do something". Why does no one ever ask "What is Uruguay going to do about this? Is Nepal going to send troops into help?"

Okay lisab, I understand and agree. I guess it has to do with money and "sorry-not-my-problem" attitude... We have the UN Peacekeeping forces, but they are extremely slow (as in the tragedies of Rwanda, Srebrenica, etc) and are 'dysfunctional' in a battle situation.

Tricky problem...

Truth is, the tide seems to be turning in the US, and Americans are much less willing to be in this role in the world now.

Yeah I know, and as you – I can't decide if this is a good or bad thing...

If I've understood this correctly; it's partly due to Obama not being the "trigger-happiest" guy in Washington, and that US is about (already?) to get independent of foreign fossil fuel, and that GWB blew a $4 trillion hole in the budget with his Texas gun, and that communism is (almost/not in eastern Ukraine) dead, right?

 

[mheslep]

Who do we want to be/how do we want other nations to view us? We drop everything to throw carrier battle groups at humanitarian relief efforts; why can't we also commit some small forces to fixing (relatively) small problems like this one? Demonstrating that we are willing to help even when our own self-interest is not at stake is very good for our national image. And is there a moral responsibility here? I tend to think there is.

We're offering troops now and I think we waited far too long to make that offer.

What is special about this situation? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-syria-crisis-toll-idUSBREA300YX20140401 in the Syrian civil war, which include the use of chemical weapons. Last year islamic militants killed 29 boys in Nigeria, many of them burned to death, though that atrocity garnered no new thread here in PF's CE. North Korea, Iran. I could go on, as you are well informed I'm sure so could you. So I ask, why should US troops be put at risk in this particular case?

 

[russ_watters]

What is special about this situation? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-syria-crisis-toll-idUSBREA300YX20140401 in the Syrian civil war, which include the use of chemical weapons.

I could go on, as you are well informed I'm sure so could you. So I ask, why should US troops be put at risk in this particular case?

Short answer: Because it's morally right and it's easy.

But I'm the one who asked "why not Syria?" a year ago when the chemical weapons came to light and "why Libya, why not Syria?" three years ago, when the number dead in Syria was in the hundreds:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=688219
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=493814

Well, I acknowledged in the 2013 thread that I'm a war hawk and I would have supported action at that time. In 2011 I was just bemoaning the lack of discussion of the issue in the UN and didn't express an opinion on whether we should have intervened at that point. I think it is clear by now that not intervening before the opposition became The Extremist Variety Show was a big mistake, that has cost a huge number of lives.

So, when aimed at me, it's a wrong question: the starting premise is wrong because I would intervene in at least some of the other cases. So I'll give (what I think is) The answer instead of My answer.

The answer is politics and practicality (mostly politics).

The practical concern, at least, squares with morality in that it is impossible to address every problem - we don't have the resources - so we must make choices. If the calculus is strictly moral, it is a cost/benefit ratio: size vs severity. How many people died vs how many troops it would have taken to stop it.

The Rwanda genocide was particularly egregious, with 500K - 1M killed (mostly by machetes), in a coherent and low-tech genocide that could have been stopped/prevented with a few tens of thousands of troops. We could have prevented or stopped it in days, had we chosen to.

For Nigeria, the deaths and kidnappings are less than a thousand, but if we can find the kidnappers/militants, it's the sort of thing we could deal with with a few dozen troops and a few airstrikes. It should be a piece of cake.

The political part of the answer - the more relevant - is strictly an issue of political will. Americans are typically isolationist and Europeans only really liked to fight each other and now don't want to fight anyone, so neither want to get involved in 3rd world messes. Simply put: We don't care enough.

Last year islamic militants killed 29 boys in Nigeria, many of them burned to death, though that atrocity garnered no new thread here in PF's CE.

I didn't know about it. Perhaps there is a three-digit minimum deathcount for the media caring about covering it? But without knowing the specifics, 29 is a relatively small number and if it appeared self-contained, I probably wouldn't have supported action.

That said, I have created and argued in the past for implementation of The Russ Doctrine, which states that 1st world nations should demolish and rebuild one small problem country every five years or so. The two countries we picked in the past 12 years though, were too big and used too many resources to be viable for a 5 year interval.

North Korea

Nuclear weapons.

Though touted as having a huge military, I doubt that anyone actually considers N. Korea's military to be more than a paper tiger. Toppling Kim(s) would have been easy. But now that they have nuclear weapons, that window is closed.

Iran.

We should not let Iran get nuclear weapons. See: North Korea.

 

[russ_watters]

If people want to get deeper into the who's-responsibility-is-it-anyway discussion, we can split it into it's own thread, but:

Are you aware that many developed countries around the world, including Canada (my home country) have invested a sizable share of their national budget on their military...

So it is hardly the case that other countries have shirked their responsibilities.

What's "a sizeable share"? Are you aware that Canada is a member of NATO and that the NATO treaty includes mandatory minimum military spending limits -- that Canada and most of Europe have failed to meet?

In 2013, Canada's military spending was a relatively minuscule 1% of GDP, half it's treaty obligation of 2%.

Currently, only Estonia, Greece, and the UK are meeting their obligations...and, of course, the US, which at a relatively small by historical standards 4.4% brings the average of all countries up above 2%. Europe as a whole is at 1.6%, down from 2.5% in the mid-1990s, when most countries met their obligation. Canada was at least close, at 1.8% at that time.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20140224_140224-PR2014-028-Defence-exp.pdf
(page 6)
Some commentary here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802104579449571957045910

...and that their military are engaged in active combat or in peacekeeping?

Half thanks for half the required commitment.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Gaddafi's "1%-budget" could ever win a war against EU (without US assistance)... personally, I believe the simple answer is that Obama just wanted to avoid earlier blunders... (and let the French fighter jet pilots look at the map first, to hopefully find the right target :tongue:)

That isn't what I said. What I said was that they can't do it without us. And that means only what it says: not that they can't win without us, but to do it well, they need us.

The issue is that when military spending is small, the spending must be put to good, general purpose use. If you aren't spending much money, you can't be spending it on small but expensive special purpose systems/units. Stealth bombers, EW, etc.

Who was in charge of the operation was a significant problem:

THE Western allies appeared last night to have accepted a US compromise in which the military and political control of the Libyan no-fly zone would be split between NATO and foreign ministers.

Accepting the power sharing compromise offered by President Barack Obama, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said NATO would not take the "political leadership", but would have a planning and operational role to enforce the UN-backed no-fly zone.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/deal-puts-nato-at-head-of-libyan-operation/story-e6frg6so-1226027088954

The U.S. initially had strategic command of the military intervention, coordinated missions between coalition members and set up Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn on the USS Mount Whitney for the tactical command and control in the area of operations.[12][13] but passed complete military command of the operation to NATO and took up a support role on 31 March 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn
France was actually the first to intervene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Have a look at the specifics of the forces that certain countries committed - Here's some of what the US committed:
Three E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS)
Three E-8C battle management/command and control aircraft
One EC-130H electronic warfare (communications jamming) aircraft
MENU0:00

USAF EC-130J broadcasting to Libyan naval forces, warning them to remain in port
One EC-130J psychological operations aircraft
One RC-135V/W Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft[60]
Two AC-130U gunships[57]
Four KC-10A Extender Aerial Refueling Tanker/Airlift Aircraft
Twenty KC-135 Stratotanker Aerial Refueling Tanker Aircraft
Six A-10 Thunderbolt ground-attack aircraft[49][57]
Global Hawk unmanned aerial surveillance vehicle
Lockheed U-2 Reconnaissance aircraft[61][62]
Predator/Reaper UAV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn

You've probably never heard of a lot of them because they are special purpose aircraft that few countries have. And that's to say nothing for the aircraft carrier we committed, which we don't even call an aircraft carrier because it is too small (much larger than WWII carriers, but much smaller than our current carriers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3 )

Europe has only one aircraft carrier, France's Charles De Gaulle (not committed), which is about the same size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91 )

And:

The NATO air campaign to oust Muammar Qaddafi began with French Mirage jets destroying a column of his tanks on the outskirts of Benghazi seven months ago.

Yesterday, it was a French Mirage jet that fired to block Qaddafi’s escape from Sirte in a four-wheel drive vehicle. Libyan fighters then moved in and killed the man who had ruled their country for 42 years.

The French involvement in the war’s denouement was symbolic of the leading role President Nicolas Sarkozy has played since Libyan rebels first sought outside help for their revolution.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20/french-air-power-begins-ends-nato-air-campaign-over-libya.html
France led, but our involvement was both larger and involved types of forces that the other countries involved simply don't have. I recall some discussion of this at the time, but am having some trouble finding it. It's a complicated issue and I'm not sure fully explained, why France (and the UK) took the lead, but our involvement was still bigger. There may have been some arm-twisting, some not wanting to be left out, and perhaps even some begging, but I'm not finding the discussions. Here's the best I can do for that:

As the military action against Libya to give teeth to U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 began, one question kept nagging away: Why, precisely, were the governments of Britain and France in the lead? Why were their armed forces taking part in the military action, and why had their diplomats done the grunt work in the negotiations that led to adoption of the resolution?

It is not an easy question to answer.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060412,00.html

 

[mheslep]

... The Russ Doctrine, which states that 1st world nations should demolish and rebuild one small problem country every five years or so.

Well, I withhold detailed comment on that, one way or the other, but I admit immediately The Russ Doctrine has a certain appeal for the like of N. Korea, etc.

 

[mheslep]

Short answer: ... and it's easy.

...

Why easy? Is there some indication that there is an intelligence trail to follow? Or is the plan to start knocking on doors? For all I know it may turn out to be easy but it is far from a given.

Remember, in 2001-2002 the US failed to prevent most of AQ from walking out of Afghanistan with a large invasion force on the ground, and then took another 10 years to kill Bin Laden. In the Battle of Mogadishu the snatch n grab of a couple warlord lieutenants cost 18 killed, 73 wounded.

 

[russ_watters]

Why easy? Is there some indication that there is an intelligence trail to follow? Or is the plan to start knocking on doors? For all I know it may turn out to be easy but it is far from a given.

Guess I didn't really explain...In the context of your question about "risk", "easy" mostly meant low risk and cheap/small. Success is another matter entirely, especially when dealing with hostages. I don't know that the girls' prospects are all that good.

Remember, in 2001-2002 the US failed to prevent most of AQ from walking out of Afghanistan with a large invasion force on the ground, and then took another 10 years to kill Bin Laden. In the Battle of Mogadishu the snatch n grab of a couple warlord lieutenants cost 18 killed, 73 wounded.

"Walking". Afghanistan has a large border and people on foot are very difficult to track. The militants in this case used several armored personnel carriers in their latest attack. They can't have much range in the jungle and there aren't any other vehicles that look like them. If we're being smart, we've already started surveillance even while dithering about whether to act. An APC is impossible to hide if someone is tracking it, especially in a place where there are no other vehicles that large. So I think our prospects for killing most of the militants, with low risk to a small number of our troops, are probably pretty good. With any luck, we already know where they are.

Mogadishu is larger than Philadelphia and we were fighting thousands (tens of thousands?) of rebels. I think that situation was an order of magnitude or two larger than this one. And a snatch n grab is a pretty risky mission anyway.

Finding the girls, on the other hand, isn't much more than a roll of the dice, unfortunately. Unless the militants are really stupid, the girls probably aren't at their base. They may be already dead, sold, or hidden in an underground chamber in the middle of the jungle somewhere, where we'll never find them.

Of course, there is a lot of opinion/speculation in this post.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

That isn't what I said. What I said was that they can't do it without us. And that means only what it says: not that they can't win without us, but to do it well, they need us.

Okay fair enough, I misinterpreted it as EU has now dismantled all their militaries so they can't even handle the smallest of engagements, and what's left is only 266 US$ Bn and 1,551,000 personnel in dysfunctional mess...

Personally, I believe Obama could have run over Gaddafi's "1%-army" alone, without any problems whatsoever. The reason it happened as it did, I believe was this:

• Obama would never put American boots on the ground, in any case.
• Obama wanted to avoid any accusation of "trigger-happy Yankees" starting military conflicts, since he opposed the GWB 'tactics'.
• Obama wanted as broad coalition as possible, to prevent Russian accusations of "Why do you criticize us, when you are doing exactly the same thing!?" (which happens right now anyway).

Therefore this became an EU/NATO/US assignment, with Obama in the 'background'.

Any of these three would of course have taken out 1% Gaddafi, in one way or another, I believe…

The issue is that when military spending is small, the spending must be put to good, general purpose use. If you aren't spending much money, you can't be spending it on small but expensive special purpose systems/units. Stealth bombers, EW, etc.

It's a complex world; in a "blame game" there are endless possibilities to 'explain' what's happening in the world.

Subprime lending, Shadow banking system, Wall Street, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Citigroup, AIG... anyone?

You've probably never heard of a lot of them because they are special purpose aircraft that few countries have. And that's to say nothing for the aircraft carrier we committed, which we don't even call an aircraft carrier because it is too small (much larger than WWII carriers, but much smaller than our current carriers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3 )

Europe has only one aircraft carrier, France's Charles De Gaulle (not committed), which is about the same size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91 )

In this specific case I don't believe aircraft carriers were absolutely essential... since the Libyan coastline is approx 200 km from Sicily, and 100 km from Lampedusa (Italian island), where both of course have airports...

 

[jleffmann]

The people who are the most directly affected by this are of course the Nigerians.

 

[Czcibor]

I think about one more point to be taken into account: Germany (and other western EU countries) expenditure on the eastern part of Europe. Yes, I know that's don't look so cool like US invisible bombers. However, in whole region nationalistic parties are kept in check because there is a big carrot but only for countries with moderate democratic govs. (It helps to extinguish conflict in Yugoslavia and Cyprus)

It's expensive but it builds and bigger zone of free market, democratic countries with tendency to be also allied with the US through NATO.
(It's not bragging, it's not putting soft vs. hard power, just mentioning that such project should not be overlooked, when we talk about expenditures to keep world as safe place)EDIT:
If any American think that's not minor sacrifice for such countries, would he like:
-to send army to some far 3rd world country
OR
-open border with Mexico. ;)

Okay fair enough, I misinterpreted it as EU has now dismantled all their militaries so they can't even handle the smallest of engagements, and what's left is only 266 US$ Bn and 1,551,000 personnel in dysfunctional mess...

Yes, it's dysfunctional - both politically and because of lack of economies of scale in case of small national armies.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Reports: Boko Haram village raids kill hundreds in Nigeria
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/world/africa/boko-haram-village-raids/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Evo]

Anyone not completely aware of what Boko Harum is

What does 'Boko Haram' mean?

The name translates to "Western education is sin" in the local Hausa language.

The militant group says its aim is to impose a stricter enforcement of Sharia law across Africa's most populous nation, which is split between a majority Muslim north and a mostly Christian south.

How long has it been around?

The group was founded 12 years ago by Mohammed Yusuf, a charismatic cleric who called for a pure Islamic state in Nigeria. Police killed him in 2009 in an incident captured on video and posted to the Internet.

The crackdown, some say, made Boko Haram more violent and defiant.

Abubakar Shekau took control of the group and escalated the attacks. It murdered and kidnapped Westerners, and started a bombing campaign that targeted churches, mosques and government buildings.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/africa/boko-haram-explainer/

 

[Tobias Funke]

Until Nigeria takes mental health more seriously, this will continue to happen.