John McCain vs Boko Haram

[Metahive]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... girls.html

The United States should send in special forces to rescue the hundreds of girls kidnapped by Boko Haram—whether the Nigerian government gives permission or not, according to Sen. John McCain.

“If they knew where they were, I certainly would send in U.S. troops to rescue them, in a New York minute I would, without permission of the host country,” McCain told The Daily Beast on Tuesday. “I wouldn’t be waiting for some kind of permission from some guy named Goodluck Jonathan,” he added, referring to the president of Nigeria.

Let me make one thing clear, Boko Haram is probably one of the most disgusting organizations worldwide out there. They're swine who burn down schools with the children still in them for the crime of being exposed to western education (Boko Haram literally means "Western Education is forbidden") and kidnap young girls to sell into sex slavery.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure that McCain's solution to the problem of violating Nigeria's sovereignty and marching in with the military would actually solve any problems to put it mildly. This act would surely weaken the authority of the central government even further and uncalled for foreign intervention is a good way to strengthen local fanatics like Boko Haram. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that it often isn't just as easy as "march in, beat up bad guy, Times Square victory parade!".

[SirNitram]

I knew McCain was jonesing for another War Fought By Someone Else's Kids, but I didn't know he wanted to invade Nigeria.

[Metahive]

It's telling that John McCain's suggestion isn't to offer help to the nigerian government but to simply do whatever he feels like and just send troops in. Remember, it isn't strength if you ever have to consider someone else's position on something!

Good thing McCain didn't get the presidency in 2008, I bet there'd already be US troops involved in Syria and some other places by now with all the fun that entails.

[Simon_Jester]

McCain was held in a prison and tortured by the North Vietnamese for a period of years. He might think rescuing kidnapping victims from a bunch of religious fanatics is, you know, a good idea?

Also, wouldn't it be reasonable for McCain to simply assume that the Nigerian government should want to get the schoolgirls back too? Suppose we try to make the situation apply to the US and some more powerful outsider instead of to Nigeria and the US...

If a bunch of religious fundies with AKs kidnapped 200 American schoolgirls, and a random alien spaceship offered to beam their version of commandos down to Earth to rescue them, we would probably not respond by saying "no, we forbid you to help us."

Would we be pleased if the US government insisted on its sovereignty in such a situation? Would we here express respect for the US's decision to stand up to a foreign power trying to casually send troops onto its soil? Would we be shocked to hear an alien politician saying "you know what, if these guys don't want their own children rescued, fuck it, we're sending in the cyborgs anyway."

[Metahive]

But that's the thing, he doesn't want to even ask first. Maybe Goodluck Jonathan would be inclined to accept an offer of US special forces to deal with the matter but McCain makes it clear that GJ and his government are completely irrelevant on the matter. That's just not how foreign policy should work.

[Mr Bean]

I'll remind Simon that while Boko Haram was murdering people John McCain did not give a shit nor ever suggest we provide aid to Nigeria. But kidnapping? Now that's when its' important when we send armed troops onto another countries soil!

Never mind the shear stupidity of his approach. If McCain really wanted to save these girls and get soldiers into Nigeria as quickly as possible what he should be urging is that President Obama do an interview on Nigerian state/local radio or TV and say... hey the entire armed forces of Natio are ready to send special operations teams, drones and air support to back up Nigerian troops but your leaders are not interested. Then simply wait for the local ground swell to take up the convincing part for you.

McCain should not be looking at Team America:World Police for policy ideas.

[Grumman]

Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that it often isn't just as easy as "march in, beat up bad guy, Times Square victory parade!".

No, what Iraq and Afghanistan have shown is that occupation and regime change aren't easy. There are definitely risks involved, but a mission to rescue hostages - who are easily distinguishable from their captors no less - has little in common with the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Mc Cain seems to have a History of REALLY wanting to make people fight wars.
Several months ago there was an NPR Story on Syria, and they quoted McCain lamenting that "If only we had dumped massive amounts of American weapons on the Syrian Rebels, they would have surly won by now!"
And more recently, I Remember him commenting on the Mess in Ukraine by saying something like "America should support the pro western forces by giving Weapons and munitions if they need it"

I seriously think McCain just is someone who thinks most diplomatic problems can be solved by MORE GUNS.

[Metahive]

No, what Iraq and Afghanistan have shown is that occupation and regime change aren't easy. There are definitely risks involved, but a mission to rescue hostages - who are easily distinguishable from their captors no less - has little in common with the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're missing the point. Way too often the US has engaged in foreign adventures on the mistaken belief that it would be nice and easy and experienced the opposite. What makes you think this one would be different? Boko Haram operates in a remote region within a population that is actively hostile towards the central government. Transporting 200 children through enemy territory to safety is not exactly an easily done task no matter how "distinguishable" they're from their captors and the fallout should this operation fail and some or all of the children die would be immense.

Remember when the US thought that the problems of Somalia would be easily solved just by sending in a bunch of special forces doing heroics? Yeah, look at how that turned out.

[Scrib]

I'll remind Simon that while Boko Haram was murdering people John McCain did not give a shit nor ever suggest we provide aid to Nigeria. But kidnapping? Now that's when its' important when we send armed troops onto another countries soil!

Never mind the shear stupidity of his approach. If McCain really wanted to save these girls and get soldiers into Nigeria as quickly as possible what he should be urging is that President Obama do an interview on Nigerian state/local radio or TV and say... hey the entire armed forces of Natio are ready to send special operations teams, drones and air support to back up Nigerian troops but your leaders are not interested. Then simply wait for the local ground swell to take up the convincing part for you.

McCain should not be looking at Team America:World Police for policy ideas.

I wonder why people wouldn't be fine with nations violating sovereignty because a bunch of outsiders discovered that they could make noise with hashtags. To steal Simon's alien analogy: if aliens talked and acted the same way as McCain then fuck no, I wouldn't want them interfering.

I can't be the only one that finds this a bit absurd? A bunch of people hold out signs when a terrorist group finally crosses a line and commits a photogenic crime and a politician comes out and starts talking about bursting into someone else's country while actively showing unnecessary disdain for it's leaders.

[Patroklos]

I knew McCain was jonesing for another War Fought By Someone Else's Kids, but I didn't know he wanted to invade Nigeria.

You should probably google McCain's kids...

[Simon_Jester]

But that's the thing, he doesn't want to even ask first. Maybe Goodluck Jonathan would be inclined to accept an offer of US special forces to deal with the matter but McCain makes it clear that GJ and his government are completely irrelevant on the matter. That's just not how foreign policy should work.

Perhaps it is not. It is, however, a sympathetic position in my opinion.

I would judge McCain's statements as reckless, perhaps, but not immoral. My impression is that you consider them both reckless AND somehow immoral, but I could be wrong about that.

I'll remind Simon that while Boko Haram was murdering people John McCain did not give a shit nor ever suggest we provide aid to Nigeria. But kidnapping? Now that's when its' important when we send armed troops onto another countries soil!

It's not unusual for people to take kidnapping as seriously as murder. Kidnappings are in some ways a greater disruption of the social fabric, because they create hostage situations and blackmail opportunities, and often end in the victims being killed anyway.

But besides that, Boko Haram would not have done this if it weren't a high-profile atrocity for them to do so. Is it any surprise that by doing so, they put themselves on the radar of a man who never made public statements or recommendations about them before?

Never mind the shear stupidity of his approach. If McCain really wanted to save these girls and get soldiers into Nigeria as quickly as possible what he should be urging is that President Obama do an interview on Nigerian state/local radio or TV and say... hey the entire armed forces of Natio are ready to send special operations teams, drones and air support to back up Nigerian troops but your leaders are not interested. Then simply wait for the local ground swell to take up the convincing part for you.

That's a great idea. I love it. Let's do it.

McCain should not be looking at Team America:World Police for policy ideas.

I actually agree with this.

Recalling my example, it would be rather strange and arguably foolish for the hypothetical aliens to beam down cyborgs to rescue American schoolchildren that way. But would anyone have a hard time understanding why they wanted to do it? Would it speak ill of their character? Would we feel compelled to ask "why didn't you intervene earlier in all these other ways?"

There's a difference between saying something is inappropriate, and saying it is wrong and worthy of condemnation. It takes a very self-righteous, very blinkered approach to international affairs to condemn someone for wanting to rescue children from terrorists, even if the means they propose to do so are inappropriate.

Mc Cain seems to have a History of REALLY wanting to make people fight wars.
Several months ago there was an NPR Story on Syria, and they quoted McCain lamenting that "If only we had dumped massive amounts of American weapons on the Syrian Rebels, they would have surly won by now!"

How is it "making them fight wars" to give them machine guns and bazookas to fight a war that is already happening? The war is already going on, it started without your permission and continues whether you like it or not. All you're going to change is (possibly) what explodes, and where, and who's left standing.

And more recently, I Remember him commenting on the Mess in Ukraine by saying something like "America should support the pro western forces by giving Weapons and munitions if they need it"

I seriously think McCain just is someone who thinks most diplomatic problems can be solved by MORE GUNS.

Very plausibly.

I wonder why people wouldn't be fine with nations violating sovereignty because a bunch of outsiders discovered that they could make noise with hashtags. To steal Simon's alien analogy: if aliens talked and acted the same way as McCain then fuck no, I wouldn't want them interfering.

If their actual government hierarchy were the ones doing it, that's one thing.

If it's random people "making noise with hashtags," which realistically has got to be much if not all of McCain's motive, then yeah, that's another matter.

McCain might honestly feel this way, and I wouldn't blame him for feeling this way- but I'm glad he isn't setting US foreign policy.

I can't be the only one that finds this a bit absurd? A bunch of people hold out signs when a terrorist group finally crosses a line and commits a photogenic crime and a politician comes out and starts talking about bursting into someone else's country while actively showing unnecessary disdain for it's leaders.

Well, I suspect the politician already thought this way all along; all that changed is that the situation gave him an opening to express his views candidly.

[Scrib]

If their actual government hierarchy were the ones doing it, that's one thing.

If it's random people "making noise with hashtags," which realistically has got to be much if not all of McCain's motive, then yeah, that's another matter.

McCain might honestly feel this way, and I wouldn't blame him for feeling this way- but I'm glad he isn't setting US foreign policy.

Actual government policy is what we were discussing I thought? Your hypothetical seemed to imply that we were concerned with what people would and/or should do. Because otherwise what is there to talk about? McCain is being reckless (your words) and making silly pandering statements that should never approach the realm of actual policy? I imagine that most people agree.

Just to be clear: the government (or parts of the government not directly involved in waging wa- policing actions) is being emboldened by the outrage machine. That is what's worrying for the nation about to be "helped" by the benevolent aliens. Or, more likely, everyone else who is wondering just when this "help" will be next dispensed.

Would it speak ill of their character? Would we feel compelled to ask "why didn't you intervene earlier in all these other ways?"

Would I immediately consider them assholes? Probably not. But they should look at themselves. No one is allowed to be carried off by the wave of their own self-righteousness. The question should always be asked. Why now? Why here? If (part of) your motive for talking or acting is based on arbitrary or random swells of public support then I think everyone is entitled to try to get you to stop and think before you decide that you can publicly show disdain for a country's government and sovereignty based on the current situation. .

I would go so far as to say that there should be a permanent contrarian position against anything that the public feels strongly enough about to get the pitchforks out for. If the case for support is strong then surely no one is harmed? Same with the opposite case.

There's a difference between saying something is inappropriate, and saying it is wrong and worthy of condemnation. It takes a very self-righteous, very blinkered approach to international affairs to condemn someone for wanting to rescue children from terrorists, even if the means they propose to do so are inappropriate.

To be honest this seems like a bit of semantic ballet to me. If your proposed methods of resolving the situation are inappropriate then you can rightly be condemned for suggesting them. As a career politician you are either incompetent -thus worthy of condemnation- or pandering for various unsavory reasons-and thus, you are worthy of condemnation.

[Metahive]

Perhaps it is not. It is, however, a sympathetic position in my opinion.

I would judge McCain's statements as reckless, perhaps, but not immoral. My impression is that you consider them both reckless AND somehow immoral, but I could be wrong about that.

If said recklessness leads to a needless endangerment of both hostages, nigerian civilians and US servicemen I think it'd be more than justified to call it immoral. Think about it, if the US do this without seeking consent and counsel of the nigerian government, the operation will be harder. The US forces won't get any intel or maps on the target's location or the local resistance which makes the chance of fuck ups to occur higher and because they'd be acting illegally they might even get in conflict with local military and bureaucrats which might impair the operation at crucial moments.
Also, think of the repercussions if the US acted as arrogantly as McCain suggested and the whole operation failed.

[ZOmegaZ]

"Some guy named Goodluck Jonathan"? Pretty much straight up said he has no respect for the sovereignty or governments of other countries. So thankful he's not President.

Also, think of the repercussions if the US acted as arrogantly as McCain suggested and the whole operation failed.

Exactly the point! They could blame it all on Obama!

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

"Some guy named Goodluck Jonathan"? Pretty much straight up said he has no respect for the sovereignty or governments of other countries. So thankful he's not President.

This was my first thought almost verbatim. For all of McCain's image as "the reasonable one" among Republicans, this quote reveals that he would have stomped around the world stage with a big cowboy hat and no respect for other nations or their heads of state. I don't think America's reputation could have survived another 8 years of that.

[General Zod]

Wait . . . so after slamming Putin for sending in a bunch of troops to Ukraine without Ukraine's permission . . . he wants to do the same thing he condemned Putin for doing? Classy.

[Simon_Jester]

The part about McCain being an irresponsible cowboy I agree with.

I would characterize his recklessness as stupid rather than immoral. Immorality implies that I do things that are evil, not that I act out of a desire to do good but proceed to cause harm because I'm an idiot.

[Hint: I do not approve of stupidity in politicians. ]

I do not agree that this is the same as Putin sending troops to the Ukraine. It is fairly clear that Putin has territorial ambitions, or at least a desire to establish his indirect control of the ethnic-Russian parts of the Ukraine. McCain's ambitions seem limited to "charge in as a bunch of big ballsy heroes, save innocent children, leave."

So there's a difference. It doesn't make McCain anyone who should be running a country, and it doesn't make the idea smart, but there's a difference.

[General Zod]

Putin sent troops into the Ukraine and said that he had a really, really, really good reason for doing it. McCain says he wants to send troops into Nigeria because he has a really, really, really good reason for doing it.

Are the situations different? Sure. But maybe the rest of the world sees it as an opportunistic invasion. Why isn't McCain demanding troops be sent in to, oh, I don't know, North Korea?

[Block]

Putin sent troops into the Ukraine and said that he had a really, really, really good reason for doing it. McCain says he wants to send troops into Nigeria because he has a really, really, really good reason for doing it.

Are the situations different? Sure. But maybe the rest of the world sees it as an opportunistic invasion. Why isn't McCain demanding troops be sent in to, oh, I don't know, North Korea?

They're not even close to the same thing unless McCain plans on occupying Nigeria and making it into a US territory after, and you know it. It's stupid to violate their sovereignty, but not an occupation. You have Iraq to point to if you want that, but even that wasn't the naked land grab that Russia is making.

[Scrib]

The part about McCain being an irresponsible cowboy I agree with.

I would characterize his recklessness as stupid rather than immoral. Immorality implies that I do things that are evil, not that I act out of a desire to do good but proceed to cause harm because I'm an idiot.

[Hint: I do not approve of stupidity in politicians.

Your distinction depends on there not being something immoral about stupidity in elected officials. Was Eddard Stark merely stupid or immoral when he made all those decisions that ended up breaking the realm? Causing evil events through theoretically preventable stupidity is evil.

Unless we want to say that John McCain is so stupid that he's blind to his own stupidity in a way that absolves him of all responsibility because he cannot improve. This seems ridiculous to me. There is no argument that we've made here that he hasn't see, he simply doesn't care.

[General Zod]

Putin sent troops into the Ukraine and said that he had a really, really, really good reason for doing it. McCain says he wants to send troops into Nigeria because he has a really, really, really good reason for doing it.

Are the situations different? Sure. But maybe the rest of the world sees it as an opportunistic invasion. Why isn't McCain demanding troops be sent in to, oh, I don't know, North Korea?

They're not even close to the same thing unless McCain plans on occupying Nigeria and making it into a US territory after, and you know it. It's stupid to violate their sovereignty, but not an occupation. You have Iraq to point to if you want that, but even that wasn't the naked land grab that Russia is making.

They're the same insomuch as one country is violating another country's sovereignty. You don't think other countries won't start getting a little worried about whether or not the US is going to respect their sovereignty and find a really, really, really good reason to send in some troops?

[Simon_Jester]

They're the same insomuch as one country is violating another country's sovereignty. You don't think other countries won't start getting a little worried about whether or not the US is going to respect their sovereignty and find a really, really, really good reason to send in some troops?

Well, they already do.

But on the other hand, if they're not willfully blind, they will probably know and care about the difference between a blatant land grab (Crimea, Iraq) and a short sharp raid directed against a specific target, striking at an organization that is already seeking to overthrow the local government.

So it's disingenuous to say "no difference," even though it's totally true that there are bad consequences when one nation starts cavalierly ignoring others' sovereignty in order to play 'world police.'

Putin sent troops into the Ukraine and said that he had a really, really, really good reason for doing it. McCain says he wants to send troops into Nigeria because he has a really, really, really good reason for doing it.

Are the situations different? Sure. But maybe the rest of the world sees it as an opportunistic invasion. Why isn't McCain demanding troops be sent in to, oh, I don't know, North Korea?

Well, if McCain advocates that commandos go into Nigeria and then leave, while Putin advocates that commandos go into the Crimea and stay, you've got to be pretty damn obtuse not to see a difference. I imagine the world is mostly full of people at least a shade smarter than that.

As to the rest, well, McCain isn't very bright and this is a high-profile terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are GREAT at getting stupid people to dream up drastic responses; that's the cornerstone of all terrorist strategy- manipulate the stupid/belligerent wing of your enemy's government into doing something dumb in response to your atrocities.

Your distinction depends on there not being something immoral about stupidity in elected officials.

Stupidity cannot in itself be immoral, any more than paraplegia or blindness is. Unless you maintain that stupidity is a calculated, deliberate decision on the part of the stupid person.

Was Eddard Stark merely stupid or immoral when he made all those decisions that ended up breaking the realm? Causing evil events through theoretically preventable stupidity is evil.

Honestly, the only 'breaking' decisions he made were the decisions that caused him to trust and distrust the wrong people. He didn't grossly mismanage the realm, and I would characterize his actions as not immoral and not particularly stupid.

Unless we want to say that John McCain is so stupid that he's blind to his own stupidity in a way that absolves him of all responsibility because he cannot improve. This seems ridiculous to me. There is no argument that we've made here that he hasn't see, he simply doesn't care.

At his age, expecting him to improve certainly isn't realistic. He's still responsible for his actions, of course, but you can't shoot a man for thinking incompetently.

But the proper way to punish him for making stupid policy proposals is to keep him out of a public office where he could implement those policies. And we've already done that, by rejecting him at the presidential polls in 2008.

[Maraxus]

The part about McCain being an irresponsible cowboy I agree with.

I would characterize his recklessness as stupid rather than immoral. Immorality implies that I do things that are evil, not that I act out of a desire to do good but proceed to cause harm because I'm an idiot.

[Hint: I do not approve of stupidity in politicians.

Your distinction depends on there not being something immoral about stupidity in elected officials. Was Eddard Stark merely stupid or immoral when he made all those decisions that ended up breaking the realm? Causing evil events through theoretically preventable stupidity is evil.

Unless we want to say that John McCain is so stupid that he's blind to his own stupidity in a way that absolves him of all responsibility because he cannot improve. This seems ridiculous to me. There is no argument that we've made here that he hasn't see, he simply doesn't care.

I don't think it's even that he doesn't care, but quite the opposite. Everything I've ever read about John McCain indicates a dude who is super concerned with his brand and his image. That's why he fought an utterly uphill battle against Dubya for the GOP nomination back in 2000, even though it was clear he couldn't win. His self-image is very important, and he's been peddling his foreign policy hawkish bullshit for his entire career, and it's only gotten worse over the last eight or so years. I don't think he's being disingenuous about wanting the US to do some MUSCULAR FOREIGN RELATIONS at all. Frankly, it'd be weird if he didn't want to do some oddball stuff like this.

The problem with him is that he changes his self-conception of the McCain Brand depending on whom he hates. He hated Bush when he was in office and was more inclined to buck the GOP. Now he obviously hates Obama and has proven all too happy to join the other GOP senators in opposing Obama with every word and deed. He's also almost 80 and clearly going to retire come 2016, so maybe he really doesn't give a shit anymore. Either way, this isn't anything particularly noteworthy imo.

[Grumman]

Remember when the US thought that the problems of Somalia would be easily solved just by sending in a bunch of special forces doing heroics? Yeah, look at how that turned out.

I'd agree with that comparison. There's a definite danger that McCain's plan would turn into a clusterfuck like the Battle of Mogadishu, just not on the level of a decade long occupation like Iraq or Afghanistan.