John McCain vs Boko Haram

[Channel72]

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.

We're already dealing with a steady stream of moronic underwear bombers. You think Boko Haram makes any difference? They're just a bunch of ignorant thugs. At least Al Qaeda has real engineers, and significant funding. Really, Boko Haram is totally useless as a terrorist organization outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. They're like a poor-man's Al-Qaeda. As an American, I'd be more concerned with fucking Cliven Bundy than Boko Haram.

I'm not advocating a "World-Police" mentality here - it's probably a bad idea if the US directly intervenes in Nigeria. All I'm saying is that if the US were to intervene, I doubt there would be any serious political consequences.

[Metahive]

I'm not advocating a "World-Police" mentality here - it's probably a bad idea if the US directly intervenes in Nigeria. All I'm saying is that if the US were to intervene, I doubt there would be any serious political consequences.

The threat of Boko Haram is that even if a hypothetical rescue operation succeeds, they're likely to vent their anger on Nigerian civilians within their reach with more atrocities. That's why I think the better way to deal with them is by supporting the Nigerian government instead of going for some stupid one-off McCainian publicity stunt.

[Channel72]

Yeah, I agree. The best strategy, if we really insist on intervention, is to assist the Nigerian government in cracking down on these idiots. Although, the Nigerian government itself isn't exactly an organization with an A+ human rights record.

[Metahive]

Maybe, but currently they aren't the faction that's murdering or enslaving children, so they get my vote.

[Simon_Jester]

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?

That relies on the World Police act succeeding every time. Which is not likely; witness Mogadishu or the attempt to rescue the hostages in the US embassy in Tehran.

It also relies on us responding to literally every high profile terror attack or atrocity on the planet, which would be staggeringly expensive and embroil us with nations whose governments actually would object to our presence.

We're already dealing with a steady stream of moronic underwear bombers. You think Boko Haram makes any difference? They're just a bunch of ignorant thugs. At least Al Qaeda has real engineers, and significant funding. Really, Boko Haram is totally useless as a terrorist organization outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. They're like a poor-man's Al-Qaeda. As an American, I'd be more concerned with fucking Cliven Bundy than Boko Haram.

I'm not advocating a "World-Police" mentality here - it's probably a bad idea if the US directly intervenes in Nigeria. All I'm saying is that if the US were to intervene, I doubt there would be any serious political consequences.

Eh, I don't know. Events in Afghanistan and with al Qaeda have made me very blowback conscious. Sure, Boko Haram isn't a threat now to anyone outside the reach of their Kalashnikovs. But that doesn't preclude them becoming better organized, equipped, and prepared in the future. Or them acting as a huge recruiting ground while other smarter but weaker organizations direct their followers and make the international attacks actually work.

It's not that we will be attacked, it's that I'm reluctant to make the War on Terror any more protracted and complicated than it already is. Because it's already a Gordian knot too tangled to cut without using nuclear weapons. We might seriously want to consider pulling our strategic posture back just so we have capability to think about other things, rather than projecting it further forward and picking fights with even more enemies.

I'm not advocating a "World-Police" mentality here - it's probably a bad idea if the US directly intervenes in Nigeria. All I'm saying is that if the US were to intervene, I doubt there would be any serious political consequences.

The threat of Boko Haram is that even if a hypothetical rescue operation succeeds, they're likely to vent their anger on Nigerian civilians within their reach with more atrocities. That's why I think the better way to deal with them is by supporting the Nigerian government instead of going for some stupid one-off McCainian publicity stunt.

This is also an issue, although frankly it's a risk if Boko Haram loses in any capacity, and for that matter if they win in any capacity...

[Grumman]

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?

...
It also relies on us responding to literally every high profile terror attack or atrocity on the planet, which would be staggeringly expensive and embroil us with nations whose governments actually would object to our presence.

I don't agree with that. In order for the police and justice system to create a deterrent they do not need to imprison literally every criminal. Unless there's some reason for terrorists to be more prone to believe that reaction is something that happens to other people than run-of-the-mill criminals are, the same would apply.

[Metahive]

My point is that fly in, kick ass, fly out, feel good and then forget about it will at best only be a temporary band-aid. If people really care about improving things then a more long-term solution ought to be found.

[Simon_Jester]

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?

...
It also relies on us responding to literally every high profile terror attack or atrocity on the planet, which would be staggeringly expensive and embroil us with nations whose governments actually would object to our presence.

I don't agree with that. In order for the police and justice system to create a deterrent they do not need to imprison literally every criminal. Unless there's some reason for terrorists to be more prone to believe that reaction is something that happens to other people than run-of-the-mill criminals are, the same would apply.

The police do, however, respond to basically every crime that gets reported and catches the public eye. What do you think the reaction would be if there was a bank robbery, the clerk pushed the panic button, and nobody came? Or if there was a murder and nobody investigated?

It takes very few conspicuous cases of the police being needed and yet not showing up to give criminals the impression they will not be punished reliably for their actions.

So the problem here isn't the conviction rate, it's the frequency of response, which has to be damn near 100% or the police aren't taken seriously at all. The problem is that once you are a police force, you don't get discretion as to which problems you respond to. You can't say "I don't feel like it" or "I don't like the person placing the call," not if you want the minimum level of respect and deference it takes to be police.

[Steel]

Well looks like troops are going in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

Not a ground force, but mainly airforce planes and drones. Also in neighbouring country, not directly in Nigeria.

[Elheru Aran]

Anecdotal but a strongly reliable source, from the military man in my family, people with fluency in Hausa (the predominant trade language in northern Nigeria and surrounding countries) are being earmarked for deployment. That suggests that we could very well have at least some military advisers on the ground in Nigeria or possibly Cameroon and Niger before too long. I'd rather not say more publicly as he's a close relative.