Does the U.S. Have to Rid the World of Boko Haram?

When it comes to saving 300 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls, President Barack Obama's feelings are as understandable as U.S. military involvement is misguided. Without giving specifics, he's said that "a combination of military, law enforcement, and other agencies" are already in Nigeria.

In a recent column for Time, I argue that emotionalism and trending topics on Twitter is no way to create a coherent and effective foreign policy. A snippet:

“As a father of two girls, I can’t imagine what their parents are going through,” he told the press. “We’re also going to have to deal with the broader problem of organizations like this.”

As a matter of fact, the U.S. does not have to rid the world of Boko Haram, no matter how disturbing and repellent its actions are. As with the once-fashionable hunt for Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army (remember that?), this is a battle to be fought by the nations directly affected, with help from regional and transnational bodies such as the UN. Until Boko Haram shows itself ready, willing and able to do real damage to America, its destruction should not be our goal. There is simply too much awfulness going on in all the corners of the world for the U.S. to wade into such situations.

For virtually the entirety of the 21st century, the U.S. has racked up a perfectly miserable record in bringing stability and calm to countries roiled by terrorists and civil war. Even supporters of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars don’t claim the U.S. left those countries better off. Obama’s unilateral and unconstitutional decision to wage war in Libya didn’t just result in the death of U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, it has created a situation where “so many jihadists are flocking to Libya, it’s becoming ‘Scumbag Woodstock.’”

Read the whole piece here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    As Joseph Biden might put it - remember when Mrs. McKinley was photographed holding a sign reading #RememberTheMaine?

    Or Eleanor Roosevelt rallying the people by holding up her #DayWhichWillLiveInInfamy sign?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Or Michael Stipe holding up #DontGoBackToRockville?

  • Just Sayin'||

    Monkey see, monkey do.

  • Number 2||

    "Involving ourselves in Nigeria will create yet one more distraction for a government that hasn’t figured out how to deal with far more consequential situations involving Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Russia and Venezuela, not to mention myriad domestic problems."

    But it will distract attention from those myriad domestic problems when Team Donkey is facing midterm elections.

    (A comparison of the Nigerian kidnappings to the Republican War on Women coming in one...two...three.....)

  • sasob||

    But it will distract attention from those myriad domestic problems when Team Donkey is facing midterm elections.

    Bingo!

  • Ken Shultz||

    That sign Michelle is holding up is begging for Photoshop.

    The sign should read, "My Husband Killed 168 Children".

    http://www.thebureauinvestigat.....d-somalia/

  • Hyperion||

    ^THIS^

    Why doesn't Captain Murderdrone just drone Boko Haram and call the girls 'collateral damage'.

  • MacGhil||

  • Ken Shultz||

    Great minds think alike!

    I don't know anything about that guy, but he nailed that one.

    Kudos.

  • IceTrey||

    Not to mention 4 innocent US citizens.

  • Mike M.||

    Ideally the civilized peoples of the world would join together to wipe radical Islam, the greatest man-made cancer in history, off the face of the earth, much in the same way we did to German Naziism. The United States obviously can't do it on its own.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, direct religious war, that's the solution to America's problems.

    The communists aren't even that stupid.

    And to achieve what? So that weirdos in Nigeria will stop with the kidnapping?

    Incidentally, Britain's adventure with imperialism in Africa began with good intentions. It was originally meant by abolitionists (we'd call them progressives), who wanted to stamp out slavery at its source in Africa. It ended in tears--as such thing inevitably do. In the end, Africa being in the state its in, certainly in Nigeria, is in no small part due to the efforts of people from the UK trying to solve their problems from the outside.

    Anybody who was forced to read Achebe's Things Fall Apart in college should see why we shouldn't get involved in Nigeria.

    The amazing thing is that the Nigerians themselves have show themselves extremely reluctant to let outsiders come in and try to solve their problems for them--precisely because of their experience with colonialism--and everyone's ignoring that.

    How could the Nigerians be so silly? Don't they know our intentions are good? Why can't we centrally plan other people's cultures? It's for their own good! And as soon as we find those girls, we'll be outta there anyway!

    The Nigerians have seen this all before. When they they seem reluctant to accept our assistance, we should pay attention.

  • Hyperion||

    So that weirdos in Nigeria will stop with the kidnapping?

    Look on the bright side for Nigeria. They now have a 2 faceted economy, internet dating scams and selling wiminz! JERBZ!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I knew a Nigerian physician, practicing here in the U.S., of course, and his wife wanted to go back and visit her village in Nigeria--show everyone how successful she'd become. So, she had her Mercedes flown with her into Nigeria. When she got the car unloaded, she was driving out of the airport--past the first security check--and the authorities were so friendly! They thanked her graciously. It was like they'd won the lottery!

    They loaded her Mercedes into the back of a truck right in front of her and drove away with it. The car never even made it out of the airport.

    When I lived in a Mayan neighborhood in Merida, Yuc. I learned some things. There was almost no crime to speak of among the Mayans--even though they're poor. In more recently tribal societies, there's almost nothing in the way social stratification. Few few people have something everyone else doesn't have. So, why would there be a lot of crime?

    But you drive a Mercedes into the middle of a culture like that, and you're kinda askin' for it.

  • Robert||

    Jim Rogers managed, although in some cases just barely.

  • ||

    "Africa being in the state its in, certainly in Nigeria, is in no small part due to the efforts of people from the UK trying to solve their problems from the outside."

    Or large part either. It was no different before the Brits showed up. What you see going on in Africa now has been going on there since the first time the sun rose.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I do not believe Nigeria was a corrupt nation state before the British arrived.

    You may not share their values. They were undoubtedly more warlike, and some of their cultural practices may seem barbaric to us today.

    But they were not a corrupt nation state.

  • Redmanfms||

    But they were not a corrupt nation state.

    What does that even mean?

    "Oh sure, they were more violent, had constant tribal wars and slavery, but at leas they weren't a 'corrupt nation state.'"

    Do you think this shit through before you post it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you know anything about how tribal societies function? The history of Nigeria? The history of Colonialism?

    Have you read Things Fall Apart? "Shooting an Elephant", maybe?

    Maybe this will get through: if the British somehow recolonized the U.S. and did away with the Second Amendment, and gun deaths dropped precipitously as a result, do you imagine that would mean we were better off--in that respect--because we were colonized?

    I don't think so. I think that kind of assessment would be ignoring the qualitative judgements of people like me. Even if (IF IF IF) the right to bear arms means more innocent people are unjustly murdered, I prefer to keep the freedom to bear arms anyway--for qualitative reasons.

    Now, you're suggesting that colonization and the imposition of a nation state was obviously better because they had more tribal warfare and violence before?

    You're certainly not taking the free, qualitative judgements of the people you're imposing your values on, are you?

    Oh, and let's not forget, the colonization you seem to be defending--because it led to less tribal warfare and ostensibly less slavery?

    Actually, problems like "spirit children" still persist, and they may not have called it "slavery", per se, but if you think African labor was well treated because of colonialism, you're out of your mind.

  • Redmanfms||

    Jesus you are insufferably smug twat Ken, no wonder almost everyone here hates your guts.

    And no, I'm not defending colonialism you disingenuous sack of shit.

    You're certainly not taking the free, qualitative judgements of the people you're imposing your values on, are you?

    If their values involve constant murder and enslavement of each other than your damn skippy I do. I don't think it is "our" place to impose our values militarily, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them as fucking valid.

    And honestly Ken, if you do, you are vile garbage.

  • Redmanfms||

    you're*

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'm not defending colonialism you disingenuous sack of shit."

    ----Redmanfms

    "Oh sure, they were more violent, had constant tribal wars and slavery, but at leas they weren't a 'corrupt nation state.'"

    ----Redmanfms

    You're not defending colonialism, you're just saying that before they had slavery and tribal warfare--and now they don't--so I'm dumb for not appreciating the upside?

    If you're not defending colonialism by pointing out that it seems to have stopped slavery and tribal warfare, then you tell me what that's supposed to mean.

    Saying that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just running off at the mouth would make a lot more sense--in the meantime, if you "seem to be defending" colonialism like that, it isn't disingenuous for other people to point it out.

    P.S. Is that you, Mary?

  • Redmanfms||

    I do not believe Nigeria was a corrupt nation state before the British arrived.

    You may not share their values. They were undoubtedly more warlike, and some of their cultural practices may seem barbaric to us today.

    But they were not a corrupt nation state.

    I guess I should have added a sarc tag considering I was restating exactly what you said.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I guess I should have added a sarc tag considering I was restating exactly what you said."

    Oh I understand what you were saying--and you were disagreeing with what I said!

    I said that they may have had problems before, but at least they were free to make choices for themselves without having choices imposed on them by a colonial administration or a national government.

    And you disagree with that! You're a disgusting statist who doesn't care whether people get to make free choices for themselves--so long as the choices they make are the choices you like!

    I'm a real freedom guy, and you're a phony.

    Believe me, I understand what you're saying. You're slightly more tolerant than a Soccer Mom imposing your values on other people, but you're not fundamentally different from them.

    I want to legalize drugs even if it means more children smoking marijuana--and when I say something similar about tribal warfare in Nigeria or the Second Amendment here in the Untied States, like a Soccer Mom, you're so shocked at my preference for freedom, that you assume I must not have thought about the implications of what I was saying...

    Do you drive a mini-van?

  • Redmanfms||

    Trying to back away from being a defender of slavery and tribal warfare with obfuscation and outright lies won't work Ken.

    You're on the record.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Trying to back away from being a defender of slavery and tribal warfare with obfuscation and outright lies won't work Ken."

    All I defended was not colonizing and subjugating people. Certainly not because the government justified it by claiming it was to stop slavery.

    How many times have I made that clear in this thread?

    Not believing that the Iraq War was really about WMD and stopping Al Qaeda, by the way, doesn't mean I support WMD or Al Qaeda either.

    You just got stuck like a pig with defending all kinds of disgusting statist authoritarianism in the name of whatever some sick oppressive government uses as a fig leaf--and you're not big enough to own up to the fact that you don't understand what you read...

    But that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    Because the other explanation is that you're easily manipulated into supporting whatever some authoritarian statist fuck uses as a fig leaf--and a fig leaf is all it takes to make you disown real libertarians and denounce them in public.

    Seriously, I think it's a reading comprehension problem you have. That and ignorance. Maybe you should read more. Try this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Things-F.....0385474547

    It's like "Animal Farm" only about Colonial Nigeria.

  • Redmanfms||

    How many times have I made that clear in this thread?

    Zero.

    In fact, exactly the opposite. You've been vociferously defending the practices and claiming any criticism of barbarism is defense of colonialism and imposition of "qualitative judgement."

    You just got stuck like a pig with defending all kinds of disgusting statist authoritarianism in the name of whatever some sick oppressive government uses as a fig leaf--and you're not big enough to own up to the fact that you don't understand what you read...

    So back to lying Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How many times have I made that clear in this thread?

    Zero?

    You really claim that I haven't been opposing colonizing and subjugating people?

    You're a vile troll.

  • Redmanfms||

    You really claim that I haven't been opposing colonizing and subjugating people?

    No Ken, you're opposing colonialism by defending slavery and war.

    You're a vile troll.

    What, because I exposed you as a jackass? That I got you to bloviate yourself into a corner defending the indefensible all the while pompously declaring you're moral superiority?

  • Calidissident||

    I don't know enough about precolonial Nigeria to say that your statement that things were more violent is inaccurate, but I know enough to say that it might be. Nigeria has had some brutal civil wars and conflicts in recent decades, leaving millions dead.. In terms of raw numbers, it's no competition and the modern era has been much worse, but of course the better comparison would be per capita given the difference in population size. I'm not sure if there's enough historical evidence to quantify the typical ongoing death toll due to warfare and violence in the precolonial era.

  • Redmanfms||

    I don't know enough about precolonial Nigeria to say that your statement that things were more violent is inaccurate, but I know enough to say that it might be.

    Whoa there hoss, that's not what I said. I was repackaging what Ken said:

    They were undoubtedly more warlike
    In terms of raw numbers, it's no competition and the modern era has been much worse, but of course the better comparison would be per capita given the difference in population size.

    Access to modern weapons certainly had a pretty profound effect too.

  • Calidissident||

    Redman, ok, I didn't catch that you weren't actually advocating that position, just sarcastically criticizing Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't know enough about precolonial Nigeria to say that your statement that things were more violent is inaccurate, but I know enough to say that it might be."

    Not all societies find violence completely horrifying.

    As I posted elsewhere, there are things I prefer for qualitative reasons even if they mean more violence.

    Like gun rights. Even if gun rights means more innocent dead children are killed in gang warfare, I prefer to have my gun rights anyway.

    But, yes, I think it can be said that there was more tribal violence before colonialism. And if it can be said that there are more people covered with insurance after ObamaCare, what difference does that make to me? I prefer having more freedom to make choices for myself--for qualitative reasons that such quantitative evaluations can never account for. That's why we should all be free to make choices for ourselves.

    Me. Your average Nigerian. Everybody.

  • Redmanfms||

    As I posted elsewhere, there are things I prefer for qualitative reasons even if they mean more violence.

    Like gun rights. Even if gun rights means more innocent dead children are killed in gang warfare, I prefer to have my gun rights anyway.

    You've posted some profoundly asinine shit over the years Ken, but this, this, just fucking wow.

    Are you actually comparing a negative right to slavery and warfare?

    I'll ask again, do you think this shit through before you post it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'll ask again, do you think this shit through before you post it?"

    Qualitative preferences for freedom aren't shocking to libertarians.

    Are you a progressive?

    Are you Mary?

  • Redmanfms||

    Qualitative preferences for freedom aren't shocking to libertarians.

    Defending slavery and war using cultural relativism sure as shit is shocking Ken.

    Are you Mary?

    Nope.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Defending slavery and war using cultural relativism sure as shit is shocking Ken."

    It's libertarianism.

    I'm justifying not subjugating people by way of colonialism or a nation state simply because when they make free choices they don't choose the same thing I do.

    Although namecalling directed at other people's ideas is better pretending you weren't defending colonialism or the nation state--you statist pig.

    Because the only alternative to tribal warfare or slavery was colonialism and the nation state?

    What a phony you are!

  • Redmanfms||

    It's libertarianism.

    Uh yeah, no it isn't Ken.

    I'm justifying not subjugating people by way of colonialism or a nation state simply because when they make free choices they don't choose the same thing I do.

    So those are the two choices Ken? Either we just blithely accept that some people are just barbarians or we must subjugate them?

    It isn't possible to find both colonialism and slavery and tribal warfare deplorable?

    Because the only alternative to tribal warfare or slavery was colonialism and the nation state?

    So, lying Ken?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So, lying Ken?"

    When did I say that it was impossible to be against both colonialism and tribal warfare?

    Making things up--again?!

  • Redmanfms||

    When did I say that it was impossible to be against both colonialism and tribal warfare?

    Ken, go back and actually read what you posted. You spent this entire thread, the whole fucking thing, claiming that any condemnation of slavery or tribal warfare was itself an imposition of "qualitative judgement" and therefore a defense of colonialism.

    This is precisely why I asked you more than once if you actually read what you fucking post before you post it.

    Making things up--again?!

    Polly want a cracker?

  • Calidissident||

    "But, yes, I think it can be said that there was more tribal violence before colonialism."

    Again, how are you quantifying this? I suppose it's likely that there was less death due to violence in Nigeria during colonization, or at least the more peaceful parts of it, as the British were holding the entire place together by force (which itself is violence as well), but I'm not seeing how you can easily assume that's the case when compared to post-colonial violence.

    And of course, Nigeria isn't all of Africa. Places like the Belgian Congo (today the DRC) were certainly less violent in pre-colonial times than they were during colonization and in all likelihood today as well.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My understanding from people I've read, such as Achebe, suggest to me that inter-tribal warfare was more common before colonization.

    If that isn't so, then okay, but my understand is that it was. My larger point, I hope, isn't getting lost--that projecting our own values on other people and assuming that they're better off because of colonialism or any other form of authoritarianism is bullshit.

    We cannot make qualitative judgements for other people.

    Some American a hundred years after the fact says less violence means that's better than it was before--but the only way to know what was qualitatively better to the people being subjugated was to let them make free choices for themselves.

    Many Nigerians responded positively to Christian missionaries before the colonial administration became more repressive. But how many Nigerians willingly chose to be colonized and subjugated to a nation state?

    Again, in an example from my own life, if drug abuse did go down as a result of the Drug War, I'm not going to tell anybody that means the Drug War was a good thing. Personally, I'd rather people stayed away from dangerous drugs, but saying that the Drug War was good because fewer people are taking drugs is simply justifying my own personal preference being imposed on other people.

    Same thing with Colonialism--more violence beforehand or less.

  • Redmanfms||

    Again, in an example from my own life, if drug abuse did go down as a result of the Drug War, I'm not going to tell anybody that means the Drug War was a good thing. Personally, I'd rather people stayed away from dangerous drugs, but saying that the Drug War was good because fewer people are taking drugs is simply justifying my own personal preference being imposed on other people.

    There you go again Ken, comparing a negative right (self ownership) with things like slavery and warfare.

    Seriously man, have you ever read back one of your posts aloud and thought about what it says?

    BTW, nobody is talking about "imposing" values on Nigerians or anyone else using force, but you are certainly going the while nine bending over backwards trying to defend barbaric behavior with a hamfisted bit of relativism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your qualitative judgements don't justify authoritarianism.

    Not here in the U.S., when the progressives and the Soccer Moms do it, and not in Nigeria when the colonial government or the nation state did it.

    If you can't understand that, you're being willfully obtuse.

  • Redmanfms||

    Your qualitative judgements don't justify authoritarianism.

    I wasn't using them to justify authoritarianism/colonialism.

    Reference my second post responding to you in this thread @3:38 Ken, specifically this portion:

    If their values involve constant murder and enslavement of each other than your damn skippy I do. I don't think it is "our" place to impose our values militarily, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them as fucking valid.

    You've spent the last hour defending slavery and war using cultural relativism and, even more disturbingly, comparing them to negative rights (arms ownership/self-defense, self ownership), and all you've been doing is arguing with the voices in your head.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If their values involve constant murder and enslavement of each other than your damn skippy I do. I don't think it is "our" place to impose our values militarily, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them as fucking valid."

    Do you still claim you're not defending colonialism?

    Like really?

    And do you really think that everybody that doesn't like colonialism is defending slavery?

    Or have you just painted yourself into such a pathetic corner that you can't stop yourself from both defending colonialism and claiming people who won't are somehow pro-slavery?

    Are you drunk?

    Are you sure you're not Mary?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Redmanfms|5.11.14 @ 4:06PM|#

    Trying to back away from being a defender of slavery and tribal warfare with obfuscation and outright lies won't work Ken.

    Yeah, ten years of comments on Hit & Run, and I've suddenly been outed as a defender of slavery--because I oppose colonialism on the basis that authoritarianism is pathetic and wrong.

    Is this really about you wanting to hate on Muslims in Nigeria and use my tax dollars to do it? Is that what this is about? You want to go all Afghanistan in Nigeria, and hate on Muslims, so defending colonialism back then, you think, is suddenly all libertarian now?

    Nah, that's giving you too much credit. You're just a low-info troll.

  • Redmanfms||

    Yeah, ten years of comments on Hit & Run, and I've suddenly been outed as a defender of slavery--because I oppose colonialism on the basis that authoritarianism is pathetic and wrong.

    No Ken, not because you oppose colonialism, but because you actually spent all Sunday afternoon defending slavery and warfare by comparing them to negative rights and claiming that making "qualitative judgements" was itself a defense of colonialism.

    Is this really about you wanting to hate on Muslims in Nigeria and use my tax dollars to do it? Is that what this is about?

    No, Ken. This about me confronting you for posting incredibly stupid shit.

    You want to go all Afghanistan in Nigeria, and hate on Muslims, so defending colonialism back then, you think, is suddenly all libertarian now?

    See, that's the thing Ken, you're arguing with the voices in your head. I was never defending colonialism. I was pointing how absurd your approach to condemning colonialism was.

    Fuck me, you can't genuinely be this God-damned stupid.

  • Redmanfms||

    Do you still claim you're not defending colonialism?

    Yeah, that is exactly what I'm claiming you incredible nincompoop. Read the post @3:38, I posted it fucking twice Ken.

    Like really?

    Yeah, really.

    And do you really think that everybody that doesn't like colonialism is defending slavery?

    No Ken, just you, because that is exactly what you did all yesterday afternoon.

    Or have you just painted yourself into such a pathetic corner that you can't stop yourself from both defending colonialism and claiming people who won't are somehow pro-slavery?

    You see Ken, if you reverse slavery and colonialism and apply it to yourself that would describe this entire thread. You painted yourself into a corner, it looks like it took a few hours to sink in, so you came back and started counter accusations.

    The problem is Ken, they don't fucking stick.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There you go again Ken, comparing a negative right (self ownership) with things like slavery and warfare."

    There you go again, completely missing the point.

    The comparison is between forms of authoritarianism and pathetic justifications for it.

    Authoritarianism isn't the solution to America's problems now, and and projecting it from London wasn't the solution to the problems of Nigeria in the colonial era, either.

    This latest incident is kind of an interesting comparison. When the British went into what is now Nigeria, the Islamic regions in the north were raiding the south for the slave trade. Colonialism happens, and what's new? Raiders from the Muslim north are stealing schoolgirls as slaves again.

    Thank goodness for colonialism--is that what I'm supposed to say?

  • Redmanfms||

    Thank goodness for colonialism--is that what I'm supposed to say?

    Yeah Ken, that's it.

    /sarc

    Jesus you are fucking dumb.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not saying warfare wasn't common in precolonial Nigeria (the term "tribal" isn't particularly accurate - people seem to think Africa was populated by a bunch of hunter-gatherers throwing sticks at each other in precolonial times. There were cities, kingdoms, and empires in Nigeria before the British got there). I'm saying describing it as more violent isn't obvious - 1 to 3 million people died just in the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. About 2-6% of the population dead in less than three years. Maybe, on average, things were more violent in precolonial times, but that's not obvious.

  • Robert||

    The Monitors

  • Calidissident||

    That's not really accurate. Like every other continent, Africa has always had its fair share of conflict, slavery, etc. but the specific current circumstances of the place are, for better or worse, a direct result of colonization and decolonization (and indeed, you could go back another 300-400 years when Europeans started massively influencing the political situation of West Africa through the slave trade, and hundreds of years earlier in both West and East Africa for Islamic influence). Again, this isn't to suggest that Africa today would be some sort of serene paradise absent European intervention, but to sum things up as "Nothing would be any different" is certainly not correct either.

  • Calidissident||

    Ken, I think your analysis of the reasons for colonization is a bit simplistic and leaves out a few important things.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the justifications with average people in the UK at the time had to do with stamping out slavery and spreading Christianity.

    It's very much like neocon justifications for invading Iraq--they're spreading Democracy. Hell, the neocons that frequented this board during the Iraq War were convinced that the good people of Iraq wanted to be bombed, invaded, and occupied.

    The actual reasons why Africa was colonized were much more complicated, but the justifications fed to the British public were more simple--as one would expect.

    Just like right now. I hope Obama can't use the pretext of saving Nigerian schoolgirls from Boko Haram to insert us into Nigeria, but if he does, he won't get traction with the American people because of oil or any other interests in the area. It will because of an oversimplification like saving schoolgirls from Boko Haram.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We did not go to war with German Nazism until they started it.

  • Mike M.||

    The west/non-Islamic world didn't start this global conflict with the Islamofascists, the Islamofascists started it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The question we should constantly be asking ourselves is whether what we're doing is in our own best interests. Just because someone punched us in the face, that's not a good reason to shoot ourselves in the foot.

    Because Osama bin Laden did something awful to us was no reason to invade Iraq, and it certainly isn't a good reason to get involved in Nigeria, either.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I've met more than a few that would convincingly argue that that is not accurate at all. Not that that excuses some of their behavior nor does it excuse our own.

  • Calidissident||

    "the greatest man-made cancer in history"

    Hyperbolic much? How do you even quantify that? What constitutes a "man-made cancer?" Couldn't I just say all violence is such, and therefore is a greater cancer than a subset of it?

    How do you propose this going down? The US, Western Europe, etc. launch a massive invasion of North Africa (and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa), the Middle East, large parts of Central and South Asia, parts of Southeast Asia, Europe, and the Pacific ... and do what? Kill anyone who they suspect of harboring "radical" sympathies? Installing puppet governments? Direct colonization? How exactly do you envision this putting an end to Islamic terrorism? Equating Nazis with "Islamofascism" and presuming that ending the latter is as simple as ending the former, just because both are bad, is pretty shoddy analysis.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "OUR" girls?

  • Hyperion||

    When their are no dead bodies of children to climb upon for political grandstanding, then kidnapped children will have to do.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Ideally the civilized peoples of the world would join together to wipe radical Islam, the greatest man-made cancer in history, off the face of the earth

    Yeah. Genocide. That's the ticket.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    “As a father of two girls, I can’t imagine what their parents are going through,”

    As long as you have your imaginating hat on, try imagining what all those fathers and mothers in Occupied Afghanistan are going through.

  • Hydra||

    I'm not sure how to parse that quote. Is he saying that if he didn't have two daughters, he would be able to imagine what the parents are going though?

  • IceTrey||

    Or anyone in America who's had a child kidnapped.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I imagine it's somewhat similar to the feeling that Pakistani parents have when they get to collect the pieces of their daughters, I mean collateral damage.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Bad people. They need killing. Nigeria should kill them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has anyone else heard about "Spirit Children"?

    There's a tradition in that part of the world, where...

    If a child is seen as being especially charismatic or charming or talented in some way, it's often thought that the child was possessed by an evil spirit in the womb and, hence, is a "spirit child". They have special practitioners who identify these children, and if a practitioner identifies a spirit child, then, with the parents' blessing, the child is executed.

    They often do the same thing with kids that are born with physical deformities.

    And the practice of killing these children is ancient and widespread. Where it's still practiced, it apparently happens frequently.

    "Cletus takes Sorious to meet his old school master who teaches a class of 8 to 12-year-olds under a tree. When Sorious asks the class what should be done with Spirit Children most of class agrees that they should be killed."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldserv....._one.shtml

  • Ken Shultz||

    Eskimos used to abandon their elderly on ice floes. People in Papua New Guinea were recently practicing cannibalism. A professor once told me about a culture in the South Pacific that still believes virility isn't something boys are born with--so the older men have to pump it into them. Child prostitution is common in certain parts of the world, and bride abduction, likewise, isn't unusual in some parts of the world.

    The overreactions of American Soccer Moms to how the people down the street are raising their children is an extreme danger to our liberty domestically (check the Drug War), and we should watch out for the same dangerous impulses projected internationally. Yeah, girls were kidnapped by bad men, and that's a terrible thing. But the overreactions of well intentioned people to such things are often much, much worse.

    How many children have died because American Soccer Mom type overreactions and wanted to save children from drugs?

    Nothing the Obama Administration can do will solve Nigeria's problems.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You think we're there to save schoolgirls? HA! Boots are on the ground for two reasons and two reasons only:

    1.) To take advantage of Boko Haram's close relationship with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb so that we might gather intelligence.

    2.) Sweet, sweet Nigerian crude.

  • Ken Shultz||

    But those are the kinds of justifications they'll use.

    Did Cecil Rhodes ever give a damn about the abolition of slavery?

    Who knows?

    But the people back in Britannia originally thought it was all about the white man's burden to Christianize the heathen and stamp out slavery--and stop practices like killing "spirit children".

    They'll use whatever will get them public support.

    And it's amazing how much bloodshed people can stomach so long as they think they're helping the defenseless. How many tens of thousands of people have died in Mexico because we want to save children from marijuana? How many children are suffering becasue of our overreaction?

    Looking back, it seems so ridiculous how we justified all that bloodshed and suffering; but looking forward, oh, we gotta save all those Nigerian children before it's too late!

  • GILMORE||

    there's no "intelligence" is Boko Haram. and the west already has total access to Nigerian oil sources

    you are not cynical *enough*. all Obama wants is a 'distraction'

  • Mike M.||

    you are not cynical *enough*. all Obama wants is a 'distraction'

    It's even worse than that: it turns out that the real reason the Obamas want to help these kids so much is because they look like Sasha and Malia (translation: they're black).

  • Ken Shultz||

    What a stupid thing to say.

    If you go around saying stupid shit like that, do us all a favor and don't tell people you're a libertarian.

  • ||

    Agreeing with Ken Shultz here. If Obama's doing it because they are black like his own girls, then that is the BEST POSSIBLE reason he could have for doing it.

    So please, shut the fuck up.

  • GILMORE||

    its ok to stick with 'self-serving' without going 'racist'

    although i agree if the hostages were somewhere else, it would be less of an issue

  • ||

    I'm with GILMORE on this. This is a PR stunt. This is exactly the kind of thing Clinton did with Bosnia and Kosovo, and Bush I did with Somalia. Humanitarian, save the children, feel-good optics.

  • R C Dean||

    The US, as currently constituted, should stay the hell out of Nigeria.

    Which is a shame. The locals are obviously incapable of exterminating Boko, and they badly need exterminating.

  • Number 2||

    Nigeria has one of the most advanced economies in sub-Saharan Africa. It should be able to exterminate these bastards on their own.

  • GILMORE||

    thats like saying nigeria is the best babysitter on death row

  • GILMORE||

    #IDontEvenUnderstandWTFaHashtagIs

  • AuH20||

    Man, anger is better than coffee in the morning.

    This Week on ABC had a softball interview with Clapper where they just shit on Snowden, then they brought in Richard A Clark to tell us that the NSA revelations damaged homeland security and plug his book which is a drone warfare thriller like The Hunt for the Red October.

    Here's the thing: what kind of homeland are we securing? One that shits on pur civil liberties and the commmitment to freedom that is ons of our sacred values? Because then what is the point?

    I'm sure if we stuck a cop in every home there would be less crime, but the ends do not always justify the means.

    Seriously, fuck the statist taint lickers in the media, fuck Keith Alexanxer, fuck Richard A Clark, and if the NSA records this communication- pour gasoline on yourself and go die in a fire

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.YourAnon.tk

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Do we not have a few weapons and ammo to spare?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement