John McCain vs Boko Haram

[Alkaloid]

Can we please stop calling this idea stupid? It obviously is, but let's call US troops invading Nigeria and firing on Nigerians what it actually is, an act of war. It's no different than the Nigerian army helping the US government by flying into the states, gunning down Clive Bundy and all his dickheads friends and then leaving without so much as asking some guy called Barak if it's ok.

[Maraxus]

But it is stupid. An Act of War? When this idea has literally no chance of ever happening? Nonsense. Just bullshitting from a Senator near retirement.

[Simon_Jester]

The Nigerians would, realistically, be very unlikely to declare war over it, any more than Pakistan declared war over the bin Laden raid.

I'm OK with the idea that we're going to take a "let us not mince words" and take a strong interpretation of "this is a violation of sovereignty!" But in that case, let us also not mince words about the odds of a Third World government declaring war because some dastardly foreigner invaded and used their commandos and precision-guided munitions to beat up their enemies. Really, does anyone expect that to take place? Is Nigeria that scrupled a country? Because pretty much nobody else is.

[Alkaloid]

Of course Nigeria.aren't going to declare war over it, no one is going to declare war on the US because no one expects they'd win.

It absolutely does not change the fact that if any other nation did exactly the same thing the US would at the very least have them sanctioned so hard they'd be eating their children within two weeks. But apparently violating another nations sovereignty in the most egregious and obvious way possible is ok as long as they aren't big enough to threaten you and the public have decided it's for a really, really good cause.

[Irbis]

The Nigerians would, realistically, be very unlikely to declare war over it, any more than Pakistan declared war over the bin Laden raid.

I'm OK with the idea that we're going to take a "let us not mince words" and take a strong interpretation of "this is a violation of sovereignty!" But in that case, let us also not mince words about the odds of a Third World government declaring war because some dastardly foreigner invaded and used their commandos and precision-guided munitions to beat up their enemies. Really, does anyone expect that to take place? Is Nigeria that scrupled a country? Because pretty much nobody else is.

Do you know what one country barging into another with armed force, doing something they wanted, then leaving without a word to supposed authorities was called? Colonialism

Guess why quite a few people, number possibly ranging in the million, if not tens of millions, would be outraged if USA did something like this? Did the comparison with 'big satan' opinion USA already has in Arab world didn't teach you anything? You seriously think it would be ok to add Africans to that list just because all Nigeria would be able to do is clench their teeth with anger?

Oh, and literally only difference in your land grab side topic is that USA did that before and without such pesky things as, I don't know, having very strong claim or majority of the population for the rejoining. Remind me, when USA will let go of say Guantánamo (which is held without rightful government's consent for what, 70 years now?) or Puerto Rico (perpetually frozen in half-occupation state)? Not to mention dozens of other territories where USA planted their flag on might makes right once and to this day refuses to even talk about changes?

[Siege]

A big reason not to drop the marines into Nigeria and stormtrooper your way to victory, quite aside from all the reasons already mentioned, is because if you do and you're succesful and you even pull it off with minimal casualties, i.e. the optimal outcome, then you're expected to do it the next time it happens too.

Congratulations, you're now literally 'Team America World Police': every time a bunch of assholes do anything terrible in any underdeveloped nation people will be wondering why you don't chopper in the Rangers to fix the problem. And every time you don't and innocent people die in these situations that happen all the damn time, it'll be on you too because you had the means to do something about it and clearly there's political will for it so why didn't you save these people too? Why rescue 200 people in Nigeria but not these 110 people detained by the UFR in Chad? Why not these 45 people held by FARC in Colombia? Why didn't the SEALs rescue this one dude tortured by a gang in the favela's of Rio de Janeiro?

It sucks to stand by and watch these situations develop knowing you might be able to do something but the concept of 'sovereignty' is no laughing matter. It is no laughing matter exactly because everybody knows that shrugging off concerns about it will lead to highly unwanted situations further down the line. So stand down until someone asks you for your help. It's in your best interest as much as theirs.

[Channel72]

I've long since stopped taking seriously anything John McCain says. The shit that comes out of his mouth has little to do with his actual views. Almost everything he says is just politically motivated trash-talk to score points against the Obama administration, using whatever latest headlines from the current news cycle.

McCain doesn't care about Nigeria's sovereignty, eh? Well... when Barack Obama was being interviewed during the 2008 election, he insisted that if he knew Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and had his exact location, he would order a raid to go capture him... a claim he made good on in 2011.

But you know what McCain's response was, back in 2008? He called Obama "naive" and "inexperienced" for thinking you could just violate Pakistan's national sovereignty like that.

McCain just says anything to score points. It's just sad that it once appeared he had actual integrity.

[Simon_Jester]

I've long since stopped taking seriously anything John McCain says. The shit that comes out of his mouth has little to do with his actual views. Almost everything he says is just politically motivated trash-talk to score points against the Obama administration, using whatever latest headlines from the current news cycle.

Now this is probably the most sensible thing any of us have said on this thread...

And yeah, McCain is almost certainly just trash-talking to score points. I think a lot of my frustration comes from the idea that I can view sympathetic, reasonable people who would agree with this remark of his. It's a tempting thing to agree to- see my response to Siege.

A big reason not to drop the marines into Nigeria and stormtrooper your way to victory, quite aside from all the reasons already mentioned, is because if you do and you're succesful and you even pull it off with minimal casualties, i.e. the optimal outcome, then you're expected to do it the next time it happens too.

Congratulations, you're now literally 'Team America World Police': every time a bunch of assholes do anything terrible in any underdeveloped nation people will be wondering why you don't chopper in the Rangers to fix the problem.

Now see, I totally, totally agree with this.

It sucks to stand by and watch these situations develop knowing you might be able to do something but the concept of 'sovereignty' is no laughing matter. It is no laughing matter exactly because everybody knows that shrugging off concerns about it will lead to highly unwanted situations further down the line. So stand down until someone asks you for your help. It's in your best interest as much as theirs.

And that too. But I'm getting mobbed here because of people who flip their shit at the very suggestion that yes it does suck to stand by and watch knowing you might be able to do something. Or that there are sane, moral motives for wanting to do something. That it might not all just be mindless muscle-flexing MURCA FUCK YEAH horseshit that causes people to say "you know what, if I were in charge I'd just save the goddamn little girls."

Sure, it makes a person with such bad impulse control out to be the equivalent of former SDN poster Ryan Thunder, but it's not like I ever had any trouble understanding Ryan's motives.

---

Of course Nigeria.aren't going to declare war over it, no one is going to declare war on the US because no one expects they'd win.

It absolutely does not change the fact that if any other nation did exactly the same thing the US would at the very least have them sanctioned so hard they'd be eating their children within two weeks.

If the US faced a serious threat from a guerilla movement that was escalating its attacks and strength so that civil war loomed... I don't actually know. I think you may be taking for granted "it would be stupid, so America would do it."

So just to be clear, violating sovereignty is a bad idea, it CAN definitely lead to wars. It's a bad idea. Just in case anyone was wondering about that.

But there's this... brick-stupid blindness involved in asserting that there's no moral difference between violating sovereignty in order to save children from terrorists, versus violating it in order to take land from another country and tack it onto your country, or a puppet state under your control.

That is what I am reacting against.

I mean, I feel a bit plaintive saying this, but:

Isn't it possible for us to recognize the moral impulses that make us want to save people, and not condemn those, while being aware that we cannot always do what we would like to do? Can we recognize that a person may want to do provocative and stupid things out of a desire to save people, and that this does not make them OHMIGOD THE NEXT HITLER or something?

Because if you can't do that, it's impossible to understand and properly analyze the bizarre stuff coming out of the American right. Not if you aren't capable of toning down your loathing for them long enough to recognize that they sometimes act out of understandable human motives. They're not Captain Planet villains.

Do you know what one country barging into another with armed force, doing something they wanted, then leaving without a word to supposed authorities was called? Colonialism

Gee, I thought "colonialism" was when you tried to make other nations into your colonies, hence the word 'colony' being in 'colonialism,' rather than calling it "high-handed-invasionism."

Guess why quite a few people, number possibly ranging in the million, if not tens of millions, would be outraged if USA did something like this? Did the comparison with 'big satan' opinion USA already has in Arab world didn't teach you anything? You seriously think it would be ok to add Africans to that list just because all Nigeria would be able to do is clench their teeth with anger?

Do you even read my posts? Or do you just hallucinate some generic imaginary American to make fun of?

Would staging a commando raid into Nigeria to rescue the hostages here be a bad idea? YES. Would it have all manner of bad consequences? Yes. Is it something the US government is going to do? Almost certainly not. Should McCain be kept out of responsible offices because he would presumably do such things? Yes.

But if you cannot grasp why a basically sane human being might nevertheless wish they could use known military capabilities to try and prevent a bunch of schoolgirls from being held or killed by terrorists...

One possibility is that you're such an inhuman fuck that I have no interest in talking with you.

The other is that you're so obtuse that your "condemn Americans" reflex overrides literally everything else in your brain, including empathy, common sense, and perspective.

Do you even bother trying to comprehend the motives for actions taken by Americans? Or do you just think of us as motiveless blobs of pure evildoing? Is it that hard for you to have a meaningful conversation involving the US that doesn't purely revolve around condemning literally every thing about every individual American action, personality, or statement?

Oh, and literally only difference in your land grab side topic is that USA did that before and without such pesky things as, I don't know, having very strong claim or majority of the population for the rejoining. Remind me, when USA will let go of say Guantánamo (which is held without rightful government's consent for what, 70 years now?) or Puerto Rico (perpetually frozen in half-occupation state)? Not to mention dozens of other territories where USA planted their flag on might makes right once and to this day refuses to even talk about changes?

So... your response to "there is a moral difference between rescuing little girls and grabbing territory" is to point out that the US has in the past grabbed territory. When I already said that.

God, it's bizarre, this kneejerk urge I see in you. This impulse to bring up as many American crimes and offenses as possible, and to otherize and reject any indications that Americans might act out of human motives, or might not be the worst party in a given multi-sided issue.* To try and change the subject** every time anyone dares to speak of things other than America-criticism. You're like a chatbot or something.

*I think in this case the 'worst people' involved would have to be Boko Haram, but I am honestly no longer sure you'd agree.

**The land grab 'side topic' was not a side topic at all; it was a direct response to a claim that the US sending commandos to rescue the hostages in this case would be morally equivalent to Russia sending commandos into the eastern Ukraine.

[Siege]

I'm getting mobbed here because of people who flip their shit at the very suggestion that yes it does suck to stand by and watch knowing you might be able to do something. Or that there are sane, moral motives for wanting to do something. That it might not all just be mindless muscle-flexing MURCA FUCK YEAH horseshit that causes people to say "you know what, if I were in charge I'd just save the goddamn little girls."

Indeed. It's important to distinguish between those who'd throw the US' military might around simply because swinging their dicks around gets their rocks off, and those with an honest desire to use that clout to try and make a bad situation better. Frankly I don't think there's all that many people in the former category by the way. I suspect most people responsible for the decision to, for example, invade Iraq genuinely thought they were making a bad situation better too. Thinking of your opponents as moustache-twirling villains in it for the villainy is generally not a good way to come to a deeper understanding of their motives.

It's perfectly understandable to want to help kidnapped girls, or for that matter a people oppressed by a brutal dictator. Unfortunately we live in a world where acting on such desires (or at least doing it by applying direct military force) has consequences that may actually be worse than the problem we're trying to solve. That doesn't mean the desire to solve the problem is bad, it just means the military solution is usually a bad one.

I also by the way don't actually think tens of millions of people would be outraged if they saw on the 10 'o clock news that Delta Force liberated 200 Nigerian schoolgirls. Let's be realistic: those guys would not be seen as evil American usurpers but as big damn heroes. Maybe not in the halls of power of the Nigerian capital, but that'd be the overall reaction: holy shit these dudes just came in and saved a bunch of little girls like badass guardian angels. The problem here isn't that picture on the news. The problem is all the things that could go terribly wrong with a rescue operation before it gets to the tea and medals stage, and the consequences the operation would have later down the line.

[Thanas]

John McCain and all the others in a nutshell

[Simon_Jester]

John McCain and all the others in a nutshell

Pretty much.

I'm getting mobbed here because of people who flip their shit at the very suggestion that yes it does suck to stand by and watch knowing you might be able to do something. Or that there are sane, moral motives for wanting to do something. That it might not all just be mindless muscle-flexing MURCA FUCK YEAH horseshit that causes people to say "you know what, if I were in charge I'd just save the goddamn little girls."

Indeed. It's important to distinguish between those who'd throw the US' military might around simply because swinging their dicks around gets their rocks off, and those with an honest desire to use that clout to try and make a bad situation better. Frankly I don't think there's all that many people in the former category by the way. I suspect most people responsible for the decision to, for example, invade Iraq genuinely thought they were making a bad situation better too. Thinking of your opponents as moustache-twirling villains in it for the villainy is generally not a good way to come to a deeper understanding of their motives.

I so much agree. It's frustrating to watch sometimes, because it basically results in people starting to discuss complicated issues, then just... stopping because they've hit on a narrative that lets them satisfy their "condemn America" urge

It's perfectly understandable to want to help kidnapped girls, or for that matter a people oppressed by a brutal dictator. Unfortunately we live in a world where acting on such desires (or at least doing it by applying direct military force) has consequences that may actually be worse than the problem we're trying to solve. That doesn't mean the desire to solve the problem is bad, it just means the military solution is usually a bad one.

Agreed.

I also by the way don't actually think tens of millions of people would be outraged if they saw on the 10 'o clock news that Delta Force liberated 200 Nigerian schoolgirls. Let's be realistic: those guys would not be seen as evil American usurpers but as big damn heroes. Maybe not in the halls of power of the Nigerian capital, but that'd be the overall reaction: holy shit these dudes just came in and saved a bunch of little girls like badass guardian angels. The problem here isn't that picture on the news. The problem is all the things that could go terribly wrong with a rescue operation before it gets to the tea and medals stage, and the consequences the operation would have later down the line.

This. There are probably at least a dozen good reasons for the US to not send commandos to intervene in a situation like this, so many reasons that it would justify not-intervening several times over.

But it boggles my mind that Irbis can say "tens of millions would be outraged," because you have to be really out of touch with how real humans think, and really deeply sunk into the armchair of your armchair geopolitics. The idea that there is no moral difference here between the purely hypothetical commando raid that would (hypothetically, hopefully) save 200 Nigerian schoolgirls, the assassination of bin Laden, and/or the 2003 invasion of Iraq, because all are "violations of national sovereignty..."

I just can't wrap my mind around the attitude of a person who is willing to go that far to avoid actually thinking about the morality of prospective American actions, that willing to short circuit their own common sense and understanding of history.

[Channel72]

Face it. Sending in Delta Force to rescue kidnapped girls is fucking awesome in theory.

In practice... it's unfortunately a bit sticky. Although, honestly, if the US for some reason did decide to do that, I very much doubt the fallout would be any more severe than what happened after various US interventions in Somalia, Pakistan, etc.

And it's not like the US is the only power to do these things. The UN has ordered various military interventions to help alleviate humanitarian crises.

[Simon_Jester]

If the rescue attempt succeeded, little or no fallout. If it failed dramatically there would be a lot of fallout. Plus, whether it works or not, Boko Haram would predictably acquire an anti-American focus and be a constant new source of potential international terrorism directed against the US.

But if we start using American commandos to deal with every high profile Third World terrorist action, we end up with the scenario Siege describes- in essence we're funding the entire planet's counterterrorism efforts, which is a losing proposition.

[Block]

If the rescue attempt succeeded, little or no fallout. If it failed dramatically there would be a lot of fallout. Plus, whether it works or not, Boko Haram would predictably acquire an anti-American focus and be a constant new source of potential international terrorism directed against the US.

But if we start using American commandos to deal with every high profile Third World terrorist action, we end up with the scenario Siege describes- in essence we're funding the entire planet's counterterrorism efforts, which is a losing proposition.

Dumb as a lot of the most recent Clancy novels were, Rainbow was an interesting concept. An independent multinational force to deal with stuff like this would make a lot of the sovereignty issues less relevant.

[Gaidin]

Dumb as a lot of the most recent Clancy novels were, Rainbow was an interesting concept. An independent multinational force to deal with stuff like this would make a lot of the sovereignty issues less relevant.

Well, all things being equal, the only thing that really made Rainbow work as far as sovereignty issues goes was that they didn't move until the official request came down from the country that wanted help. It was like there was a treaty in the desk drawer that none of the terrorists they were fighting knew about. Which in and of itself made no sense, but then again, it was Clancy having his fun.

[Block]

Yeah, I think there was a treaty of some sort, and they still pretended to be local elite forces to keep it a secret.

[Channel72]

If the rescue attempt succeeded, little or no fallout. If it failed dramatically there would be a lot of fallout. Plus, whether it works or not, Boko Haram would predictably acquire an anti-American focus and be a constant new source of potential international terrorism directed against the US.

But if we start using American commandos to deal with every high profile Third World terrorist action, we end up with the scenario Siege describes- in essence we're funding the entire planet's counterterrorism efforts, which is a losing proposition.

Nah... I think Siege overestimates the general public's interest in consistency. The actions of the United States are already ridiculously inconsistent; we intervene in Somalia, but not in Sudan. Why? Who knows... it's just the way the political winds blow. Let's chalk it up to whatever story of the week the American media is able to successfully generate ad revenue from.

As for Boko Haram, they already have a pretty strong anti-American, anti-Western focus. And they're really not that competent or threatening outside of their "jurisdiction". If they actually started implementing terrorist plots that directly affect Americans, Obama would just drone-strike them with little hesitation. Call it "MURICA FUCK YEAH" dick-waving or whatever, but that's the likely outcome.

[Metahive]

The failure in Somalia is the reason why the US have not been as intervention happy afterwards, Bush's warmongering notwithstanding. Remember the mutilated corpses of american special forces getting dragged through the streets of Mogadishu? That's what Americans don't like to see repeated and why it took 9/11 to pave the ground for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Thanas]

Also, people might want to read this. A bit simplifying but it gets the point across

[Metahive]

The War Nerd? Isn't that the guy who thinks all of the West's problems could be solved just by torturing and murdering more brown people?

[Thanas]

The War Nerd? Isn't that the guy who thinks all of the West's problems could be solved just by torturing and murdering more brown people?

No. He is the guy who thinks the entire US command should have their heads chopped up for Iraq. And I don't believe I have to say this, but...he is a parody of neoconservatives. Think Colbert in print.

[Metahive]

Then it's probably some other guy. There was someone who also wrote disparagingly about the Iraq war and his ideas to solve the mess where to commit more mass-murder and torture because "that's how it was done in the good ol' times and that's how the Viet Cong/Mao/whoever won their war" or something. That guy also didn't sound at all like a parody.

[Thanas]

Then it's probably some other guy. There was someone who also wrote disparagingly about the Iraq war and his ideas to solve the mess where to commit more mass-murder and torture because "that's how it was done in the good ol' times and that's how the Viet Cong/Mao/whoever won their war" or something. That guy also didn't sound at all like a parody.

No, the guy wrote that as well. It was a critique of how the USA expects to win due to democracy and pretty flowers instead of having the guts to realize what winning such a war would entail.

[Simon_Jester]

Nah... I think Siege overestimates the general public's interest in consistency. The actions of the United States are already ridiculously inconsistent; we intervene in Somalia, but not in Sudan. Why? Who knows... it's just the way the political winds blow. Let's chalk it up to whatever story of the week the American media is able to successfully generate ad revenue from.

There are other reasons. Just off the top of my head, Somalia has a long coastline and is more accessible to US interventions; it also has a more strategic position so making sure threats don't arise there (like, y'know, pirates) is more of an issue.

But the more often the US pulls the Team America World Police act, the more likely it becomes that people will expect it of us.

As for Boko Haram, they already have a pretty strong anti-American, anti-Western focus. And they're really not that competent or threatening outside of their "jurisdiction". If they actually started implementing terrorist plots that directly affect Americans, Obama would just drone-strike them with little hesitation. Call it "MURICA FUCK YEAH" dick-waving or whatever, but that's the likely outcome.

Fair enough, but from the point of view of the US's strictly rational interests, we're better off letting them exhaust themselves trying to overthrow the Nigerian government than having to deal with a steady stream of moronic underwear bombers for the next twenty years.

[Grumman]

But the more often the US pulls the Team America World Police act, the more likely it becomes that people will expect it of us.

Wouldn't that also imply that the more often the US pulls the Team America World Police act, the less likely people are to do things like this in the future? Aren't you less likely to kidnap a bunch of schoolgirls if you expect doing so to get your ass kicked?