General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, now that we're back in the World Police business let's talk about
When, Where and How Much
Yes, the Nigerian situation is horrific. If every member of Boko Haram met a violent end in the next few days I would not -- God forgive me -- shed a tear but merely offer a snort of muted satisfaction.
However, many are calling for some form of US military intervention. Some are calling for non-lethal methods, i.e. surveillance and intelligence; while others are ready to send in Nuclear Ranger SEAL Team 33 and 1/3. Regardless of the depth of commitment the fact remains these voices are claiming the US ought to get involved because of a horrific situation.
But the world is full of horrific situations. The definition of "Earth" should be changed to "one giant horrific situation orbiting a small yellow star in the Milky Way galaxy." What filters are we using to determine when we leap into action?
It's easy to pick Boko Haram, not so much when the Saudis force school girls back into a burning building to die because of their "immodest dress." Is our moral message that we only pick on people we aren't allied with but friends are free to act with impunity?
What is the limit to what we'll spend in blood and treasure? It's easy to say "Non-lethal interventions only!" but all that does is telegraph that you aren't a threat. And what, in the eyes of the rat bastards of the world, is the functional difference of the US supplying intel while some other nation's commandos kick in the door? A strict no-direct-action policy implies that a retaliatory attack against the US could easily "punish the Yankee imperialist running dogs for their colonial meddling" so maybe we stop supplying intel that leads to commandos kicking in doors while guaranteeing no direct US response.
If you do say you'll respond then, congratulations, you just found the quagmire.
If you say you will limit lethal responses you assume perfect execution (heh) based on perfect intel (HA!). Nobody is that good and it bespeaks a level of lacking self-awareness worthy only of Donald Rumsfeld. Something will eventually go wrong. For every Entebbe there is a Desert One, if not more.
Speaking of ol' Don. How will you keep your policies and idealism from being exploited the next time the spiritual successor of Rumsfeld holds the authority to commit US forces? Don't tell me you rely on the sobriety of the electorate and don't tell me you trust a unitary executive.
I understand the inner scream of wanting to do some--THING in Nigeria but have we stopped and considered the near and long term implications of what we're asking for? Have we forgotten every argument we leveled -- probably correctly -- against those who sought wars based on humanitarian sentiments? Not once did we rebuff those arguments on matters of fact. There really were atrocities being committed on a mass scale. There were, in spite of those facts, other considerations. Just because "our guy" is the one with the pen and phone (but only for 2 more years) doesn't meant those arguments cease to be relevant.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Nigeria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea
Why do you think these poor Nigerian girls are all over the US media while the starving North Koreans are seldom mentioned?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)North Koreans have been starving under the thumb of that family for 60 years. If they want to be free they can man up and fight their own war of independence.
Or maybe the Chinese, the real powers that be over there can invite him to some function, and accidentally blow his brains out. Problem solved.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can balance the ability to help with the cost to us. It's silly to take the position of all or nothing on these things.
The Russians too can be left to their own devices. They live in a tyranny without Free Speech but it's too much for us to help them with wars. But not too much to help a country like Nigeria. They've clearly lost control of some of their territory to this Boko Haram.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Part of the reason is the south koreans wouldn't need us any more.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Sun May 11, 2014, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)
It depends on whether you use the traditional exchange rate method or the "purchase power parity" method. But both methods say China is the bigger economy by about 2020.
And how did that happen? We willingly outsourced much of our manufacturing to China, and we spend a huge chunk of our wealth on a completely unsustainable military. Those things have to change.
China isn't going to be the world's policeman. They prefer to spend their efforts eating our lunch.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Take a look at China. Their 1% and 99% relationships make our society look positively socialist.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Or at least they recognize that as a an important national priority.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/371702/China-we-must-narrow-income-gap
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)population of Seoul before can do anything about it. It has nothing to do with oil, or lack of it, neither does Nigeria.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I remember all the accusations when we helped Haiti after the earthquake? So how have we benefitted since? It's time for this type of thought process to deal with that question.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)My point is that I don't always trust our official motives.
treestar
(82,383 posts)when have our official motives ever been ok?
WWII? Can we ever help out in a humanitarian way anywhere? Does the place have to have no oil or resources in order to prove it?
What did Haiti have? How did we exploit their earthquake by helping them for our own motives?
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Data released by the US agency for international development (USAid) last year shows it spent more than $270m on projects in Haiti in 2013, with US-based companies receiving almost half of this and American non-profits a further 37%. One Washington-based company, Chemonics International, received more than $58m of USAid funding for agriculture, infrastructure and other projects.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2014/jan/10/haiti-earthquake-us-aid-funding-data
treestar
(82,383 posts)You mean there is something wrong with the US paying for the improvements? Paying companies to do the helpful re-building? Are you saying Chemonics international should not have been paid and should have done it for free? 
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Clearly, there are opportunities for profit without it. Do you honestly believe US corporations would be involved if there wasn't?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The Nigerian president has asked for assistance.
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/20145423528504411
randome
(34,845 posts)I think we should leave it to the experts to decide how to handle this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)military stock portfolio.
They clearly know that war and profits are not unrelated!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)as infallible authorities to go unquestioned.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Hence, the industrial boom immediately proceeding the U.S. air operations over Bosnia?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Here's how Dyncorp fared during Iraq/Afganistan... in five minutes of searching I was not able to correlate Bosnia to war profiteering but that does not disprove that war profiteers profited from the operations in Bosnia.
treestar
(82,383 posts)For the use of military? There must be some times when it is not just for profit. You wouldn't seriously argue we should do without a military.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who ever gets involved in any government position. Expert in the sense of determining if the cost to us of helping is too great or not.
Expertise is a thing. Like you don't tell your doctor what to do, you rely on your doctor's opinion.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)for us to intervene militarily.
Are they the same people?
Some doctors have committed malpractice. So we should never trust any doctors after that?
Squinch
(50,950 posts)personnel wise.
Also, the culture of the military at the highest levels where decisions are made, and the people who control the purse strings of what the military is used for have stayed largely the same.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)That's why I'm going to be checking into GD first thing in the morning to find out what the panel of DU experts have come up with! 
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)We're all experts on this boat!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If the principle is a leader has asked for help there follows a myriad of other considerations. Not all leaders are legitimate. Not all who are not leaders are illegitimate. Not every request, regardless of who is asking, is legitimate or practical or moral.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)a few years ago?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Seriously?
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)the FBI and an act of war? We're not the only ones there, either. The UK has sent experts in this type of thing. China is giving satellite intel and has promised more help, and France will be stationing 3,000 troops in the border areas to help the local forces with security. Not everything is a conspiracy, some things are for good. I can tell you hate our government and probably our country, but some times we do good things. And btw, the military was the one involved in Tsunami relief, military aircraft, personnel, ships and helicopters, not civilians. That was a military operation, but it was not an "act of war".
treestar
(82,383 posts)It must be equally mal-intented on their part, I would think. What are they getting out of it? Or is less cynicism to be attributed to their government, and why?
treestar
(82,383 posts)What's wrong with helping these girls as opposed to those in the tsunami?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)stoning for adultery in Abu Dhaba. Just some of the stuff our buddies have been up to in just the past couple of weeks. I know people get bored if the solution doesn't involve shooting people, but it'd be nice if there was as much outrage over the actions of our allies - countries we actually have some leverage over.
It'd also be nice if people paid attention to these places when it stopped being in vogue - after all the cries for intervening in Mali a year ago, it seems it's mostly been forgotten (a french soldier there was just killed). Same with Darfur, where the UN mission is failing to stop the violence because it doesn't have enough support. This doesn't even touch on the violence that's never been popular (who's looked at the Central African Republic lately?).
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)can't see the difference between 200 school girls kidnapped from their classroom for having committed the sin of learning and institutional problems in allied countries.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)we do with Boko Haram. Of course, I also wouldn't dismiss the mass sentencing of hundreds of political opponents to death as merely institutional problems.
I'm sorry my life is such that I haven't been blessed with myopia.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)What is happening in Nigeria is tragic, but equally tragic things are occurring in other parts of the world and nothing is done.
Having said that, I would be ok with providing surveillance and intelligence using drones, planes and/or satellite assets. Using military forces to rescue the hostages is more problematic.
Suppose we rescue this batch of kidnapped girls (if a rescue attempt is tried some of them WILL die in the attempt), what about the next batch of kidnapped girls or the one after that and so on?
How many American soldiers killed or wounded is an acceptable number to rescue those girls?
It's things like this that make me glad I never wanted to be President, because no matter what a President decides to do or not do, people are going to die, either through action or inaction.
It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and insist that someone do SOMETHING, because we're not the ones that will have deal with the responsibilities or consequences.
randome
(34,845 posts)We do what we can. Trying to reduce all of this to some sort of statistical analysis is not the way to go.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)We literally can not intervene everywhere we are needed, the just isn't enough money, equipment and people to help everyone who needs it. So how do you decide who gets help?
randome
(34,845 posts)All any of us can do is make the best decision at the time. It's a messy world out there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And that is how we get into the messes realpolitik have created.
randome
(34,845 posts)Ignoring what's happening isn't an option, either. There aren't any easy answers here, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Are you claiming there is a moral imperative?
randome
(34,845 posts)If you expect strict consistency in terms of morals, you're not likely to find it at the center of any one individual's beliefs any more than you are to find it in a nation of 300 million ideologically diverse citizens in this country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)All the more reason to tread carefully.
randome
(34,845 posts)But all morals are subjective. That's the human condition. And a country's actions are the sum of its individuals. The international community wants someone to step up. Obama wants to step up. No doubt the military personnel involved feel more than just cogs in a machine as they were in Iraq.
All we can do is hope for the best.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but there has to be some definable criteria when it is acceptable for the US to intervene.
So what's the criteria?
randome
(34,845 posts)It can't be defined any more than a national budget can be defined that mandates a 100% balanced budget. There will always be a need to respond to an emergency. This, IMO, is an emergency.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Things in those countries are at least as bad as Nigeria.
Yours is a perfectly legitimate and understandable emotional response to a tragic incident. So we intervene and manage to rescue SOME of the girls. What happens when the next batch is kidnapped?
randome
(34,845 posts)What is it about kidnappings and rescues that has some of you so freaked out?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
kcr
(15,317 posts)That the government would have just otherwise sat around and thought, gee, it's a shame we cant' do anything in our quest to dominate!/be the World Police!/our plan for evil! wouldn't it be nice if something happened, like a batch of girls being kidnapped... Ah ha! Our lucky day! *twirls mustache*
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)When have I even come close to suggesting some such nonsense? My every comment, while allowing for the dishonesty of the political class, has accepted without argument nobler sentiments of those here urging action.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)quest to "protect" ethnic Russians from -- something. However, all those wars Gen. Butler objected to were waged with humanitarian facades.
kcr
(15,317 posts)If our government is going to start wars on humanitarian facades, they're going to do it. They aren't going to sit around and wait for an opportunity. In the meantime, if a group of girls are kidnapped from their school, my inclination isnt' going to be to demand we turn our heads away. I'm certainly not going to question the motives of my government in pursuing it. It needs to be done anyway. I'm guessing they wouldn't pick this as the starting point.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Good thread.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Things in those countries are as bad or worse then Nigeria
I'm not freaked out about the idea of a rescue operation, I merely recognize that it would be much harder then people think, that a significant percentage of the hostages are going to die and that by intervening we risk entering into another open ended military commitment, because the only way to stop this is hunt down and kill or capture 99% of the Boko Haram members.
randome
(34,845 posts)They have a hell of a lot of problems but functioning governments, for the most part. Darfur is still at war and that's much different from a mass kidnapping.
But if a mass kidnapping occurred in any of them, I would completely support the use of troops and/or armaments to rescue the victims.
Anything is better than sitting around and wringing our hands. When something like this occurs, you can't take the time to debate. It's an emergency that demands action.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)counts as stable and does not warrant US intervention, but a couple of hundred kidnapped people does?
"Anything is better than sitting around and wringing our hands. When something like this occurs, you can't take the time to debate. It's an emergency that demands action." Sounds familiar, I wonder how many times people have said something similar to get the US militarily involved somewhere.
randome
(34,845 posts)Or nation conquering, for that matter. We're offering help where it's needed. I don't see the problem other than in imagining way too many 'what-if' scenarios.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)before we end not knowing how to get back out of the conflict.
And you're very quick to dismiss the thousands dying in other countries.
I guess my ethics just aren't as flexible as yours are.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If some significant movement arose in NK against Kim, would you support aiding those rebels in any way?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)And there is no chance of internal movement in NK arising on it's own. Any attempt to overthrow the NK regime would have to start outside of the country, probably in China.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are we already aiding in any way?
Why can't there be a rebellion in NK? Something happened or Kim would not have killed his uncle.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)these calls for action. If principles cannot be clearly articulated then we are, by definition, not acting on principle but only for some self-serving end draped in humanitarian pretense. MY principles tell me that military actions for self-serving ends, regardless of the facade, never lead to better things.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is a horrendous situation in Nigeria and we've offered to help. Does it need to be any more complicated than that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Taking polls, listening to pundits, those have an impact on government response, like it or not. "We do what we can." How's that for a set of principles?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Logistics is the tail that wags the dog in war. For every infantryman in the army, there are roughly ten people in support. That includes medical, supply, intelligence, artillery, engineering, aviation, armor, and command. Let's say that the Boko Haram have taken these two hundred girls, and broken them up into groups of twenty and separated them. A given unless you would like to pretend that the Boko Haram are mouth drooling idiots who would put all the girls in a single location. Let's say that those twenty girls are guarded by a mere twenty guys with guns. That means we need to send in at least that many to have even odds, and three times that many for conventional battle. Even if we went with ten "Special Forces" types, like the Seals, then you're talking about ten simultaneous raids with helicopter support, because if you don't raid them all the girls you don't rescue are dead at the first big boom.
The co-ordination of that is not impossible, but it is so close to impossible that it might as well be. We are talking Lottery odds of it actually happening perfectly and it would have to be done perfectly. But we have to do something right? Even if it is the impossible. So we write off about half the girls, because we can't raid ten locations at the same time. At least we got some back. Unless the terrorists have set up mechanism to kill the girls if anyone does raid, from bombs to a guy with a machine gun. Then we'd be lucky to get half of the girls back even with the ten perfectly executed raids.
Now, to evacuate twenty girls, we're going to need a blackhawk helicopter. Two would be better, or perhaps one CH-47. Don't you think that the terrorists would notice the sudden appearance of something like fifty helicopters? I mean, we're talking about an area that sees no helicopters, suddenly having enough flying overhead to put on an airshow.
Or we could go with airborne drop. A C-141 can carry a hundred plus troops. And assuming that the Terrorists were obliging enough to put the girls next to wide open areas where an airborne drop is possible, we could probably overwhelm the terrorists in fifteen or twenty minutes from the time the first troop jumps from the aircraft. Now, how long would it take for the aforementioned idiot with a machine gun to hose the girls down? Fifteen or twenty seconds?
OK, so Airborne Invasion is not a good plan, and helicopters flying overhead would be a dead giveaway. Perhaps we can use a convoy. Ten armored convoys moving through the town and nobody would notice. It worked so well in Somalia.
Now you should be starting to see the problem. Even if we had fifty helicopters handy, we probably don't have enough Special Forces trained troops handy. The cupboard where the military assets reside is not endless. There is not an infinite number of anything in the military. Tanks and Apache helicopters would be useless. It would be a raid, up close and personnel. Rangers could perhaps pull it off, but they might have unacceptable losses, both in hostages and in friendly casualties. So we're down to Recon Marines, Green Berets, Delta, and SEALs. No one group has enough to pull it off. So you would divide the targets giving each team one, until you were out of teams. Then a few days to train the troops up, praying that you are getting real time information on the target.
All the while you're hoping that the Terrorists don't locate the camp we've set up to launch the raid. We could set up outside of Nigeria, and Chad is supposed to be nice this time of year. Well, perhaps we could launch the assault from Carriers off the coast. If they are more than two hundred miles from the coast, the range of the Helicopters becomes an issue.
Wait, we have Osprey's now. They have more range. And they're about as stealthy as the Who in concert at a Stadium. In other words, again the entire nation would hear us coming.
Do you see the problems with logistically planning and executing the missions you're talking about doing so cavalierly? It's easy to bomb someone. It's easy to send a drone and have it fire a missile. It's a lot harder to put people down somewhere, and have them execute such a mission, especially ten missions, and it could be more, or less depending on what the Boko Haram have done with the girls. I used ten because it seemed like a decent number, but it could be locating girls in groups as small as five individuals, depending on the level of support the community gives the Boko Haram.
Special Operations are not indestructible soldiers. They are trained with a specific set of skills. They die just like everyone else. If the plan works, they are viewed as superhuman. If it fails, then they're viewed as a waste of time and money.
randome
(34,845 posts)As I said up-thread, that's up to the experts to decide. We can't armchair quarterback every single movement.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)How many cops or soldiers is it acceptable to be wounded or killed in any rescue operation?
"Ah, that's different" you say. "Those are American lives".
Shouldn't all human life be valued equally?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Acting in Nigeria or any other nation presumes we have the authority to do so. Assuming we are not claiming the authority out of sheer exertion of power we must then assume we claim the authority out of moral impetus. That ceases to be an authority and it becomes a moral obligation. THAT in turn becomes a HUGE can of worms.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They asked. For our help.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Not all leaders are legitimate. Not all who are not leaders are illegitimate. Not every request, regardless of who is asking, is legitimate or practical or moral.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but the brutal truth is we as a country can NOT save everybody.
So define when it is and is not acceptable for the US to intervene
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Not difficult.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It could be any combination/quantity of kidnappers, rescuers and hostages but people are going to die. We aren't talking about handing out bowls of porridge.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)All of them? If not how do we decide which ones? And how do we pay for it?
And specifically regarding Nigeria, what happens when the next batch is kidnapped?
I completely understand the desire to do something, but I recognize that putting one's foot on that path may very well lead to another long term military commitment in a foreign country.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Either we never help or we always help.
If we can afford it at the time. The scale of the operation. The sympathy factor - these are young girls, as opposed to an entire country.
The country is out of control of Boko Haram. That's do-able. Whereas the Egyptian example - there a government is in power and that's too much for us to handle at this time.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Rescuing these girls is not going to be easy and a significant percentage are going to die in any rescue attempt. Even if we do rescue most of them, without eliminating 99% of Boko Haram, all that's going to happen is that they kidnap or murder another bunch of people.
So how long to we stay in Nigeria rescuing people?
How many troops do we deploy to hunt down Boko Haram?
How much do we spend to do all of this?
Couldn't those millions be spent helping people here in the US?
treestar
(82,383 posts)But it doesn't have to be easy. Just not too much.
We can't rescue the Russians or North Koreans right now. But we could help with this.
Arguing some of the girls could get killed in the attempt means never make any attempt without 100% guarantee of safety for all - not going to happen. Or at least go after BH before they do more atrocious things.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)because the only way to really stop the killings and kidnapping is to hunt Boko Haram and kill or imprison them.
Come up with a set of guidelines as to when US armed intervention is appropriate and when it isn't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We are not doing that.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)when to send troops. That the White House has, so far, chosen not to do so doesn't change the discussion this thread was about.
Your posts certainly seemed to be advocating armed intervention against Boko Haram to rescue the kidnapped girls.
treestar
(82,383 posts)These are minor children. The basis behind it is extreme sexism. The group involved in big enough to do these things but small enough to stop.
Women were treated horribly by the Taliban too. It would not have been wrong to invade them for that.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)so why these children and not the others?
Why haven't we intervened in Dafur to save the all children in that conflict?
Come up with a set of guidelines on when and where the US should intervene and equally important, when not to get involved.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They would love the idea girls should not be educated but should be married off instead.
They might condemn it on the surface but would take little action.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Once the special forces are on the ground, the reason for sending them doesn't matter.
Uganda is one of the most vile governments on the planet but we're there propping them up looking for Koney.
kcr
(15,317 posts)But I am sad to see liberals/progressives starting to drink this kool-aid. Sad times on DU.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And many, many more like him.
kcr
(15,317 posts)This story about kidnapped girls is abosolutely the one to jump on for the cause of isolationism! And anyone who doesn't agree is a flag waving chicken hawk! The logic sure is rock solid on this one.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)guide this decision. As I stated in my OP, there is plenty of evil to chase on this planet. Why this and not other instances where innocent people are being abused with brutality?
kcr
(15,317 posts)You can't figure out what principles would guide such a decision? Well, there's your problem right there.
Why not this? The argument that one shouldn't do anything about one particular suffering because of all other suffering is a fallacy. Nothing would ever get done if that particular principal was always followed. But I don't think that's the argument that's actually being made. I think that tends to be a rationalization. There's usually another underlying issue going on. There are other causes they'll happily support, like animal rights. They wouldn't be on DU otherwise.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yes, we have the power to act. Are we then obligated to act in all instances where we have the power?
I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find hundreds, if not thousands of similar instances. The Taliban come to mind, especially the ones in Pakistan. Do they get a pass because they murder, rape and enslave in onsies-twosies (though cumulatively its hundreds of thousands!)?
kcr
(15,317 posts)Just as any entity on any scale should. If one can help, one should. You're just repeating the same thing over and over. We can't help everyone, so huh, we just shouldn't do anything, then!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No. I'm saying there are plenty of instances where we have the material power to help but doing so invites broader issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong but American interventionism is often cited as a reason for much of the instability and conflict in the world.
kcr
(15,317 posts)There is nothing wrong with analyzing the motives in our actions. But that quickly and easily turns into We Should Never Do Anything/We Can't Be The World Police. The US should be careful in how it intervenes, but that doesn't mean it never should. And the immediate knee jerk response of we should stay out of it in this instance is very suspicious.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And all I am asking for is an articulation of the principles (not rules, not motives) of when intervention is justified. I think that is an eminently fair question.
I am not a 100% pacifist. I think war and acts of war can be morally acceptable or even necessary; and as I said in my OP if the Boko Haram met a violent death in the immediate future I would offer a grunt of reserved satisfaction. I certainly would NOT be screaming, "ZOMG! Obamaz teh war criminalz!"
But establishing bright lines for when we will or won't use force is as much a moral necessity as coming to the aid of those who cannot help themselves. I know you're a decent enough person to understand this.
Is that really such a terrible thing that it cannot even be candidly discussed?
kcr
(15,317 posts)I don't know why you're having such a hard time with it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We aren't world police, so we aren't going to help with this or anything else. You'd support our country taking that view? We have too much else to do, OK, so we can't help with this.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)to Rumsfeld-style warmongering for an illegal invasion in search of non-existent WMDs.
What on earth is going on here today?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)for removing Saddam Hussein. Yes, I know the incubator story was BS but there were plenty of other reasons -- if we accept the humanitarian arguments for military action -- to remove that thug of a tyrant. Why should Saddam get a pass while Boko Haram becomes the war du jour?
kcr
(15,317 posts)Oh, so you know that the incubator story was BS? So what's with the false equivalency, here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A non-obtuse person would recall that easily enough. Nor would a non-obtuse person imply Saddam was a harmless lamb not engaged in genocide, torture, murder and terrorism. Despite individual accusations proving false no one has stepped forward to claim Saddam was a misunderstood lamb of a leader.
kcr
(15,317 posts)There is vast difference between starting a war based on lies and rescuing a group of girls.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It is a messy world and there cannot be absolute bright line rules.
If we had to be purists on that, we would be at war in every country where the citizens live in tyranny, from North Korea to Russia. Russia doesn't have Freedom of Speech, a very important value.
Also there is going to war and mere support. I don't think I'd oppose aid to any North Korean rebel group that had a chance of making a dent. Or any group fighting for freedom of speech where it is blocked in any fashion.
this is a specific instance and involves innocent young kids.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)getting involved.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If we are to engage in acts of war then an explanation is due.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)There are roughly speaking 200 schoolgirls who have been captured. Do you think that anyone is dumb enough to keep them all in one place? Nobody has done that since Iran in 1979 unless they have captured a location where the hostages are, like the Russian Theater rescue. Let's say that there are ten girls at each location. That is twenty places that would have to be raided simultaneously. Would you like to guess at the odds of 20 simultaneous raids going off without a hitch?
If you see the beginnings of the problem, welcome to the real world. If you are still of the mind that we have to do something, even if it results in half the girls being executed because we can't raid all the locations at the same time, then fine, which half die while the others live?
There are limits to power, and limits to ability that you are sadly unaware of. While you sit in your home and rant that somebody ought to do something, the reality is that there isn't much we can do.
Twenty raids, figure sixty helicopters, with what, six hundred trained commandos? You have to put overwhelming force on the target, and you can't do that with five guys and a drone. But the people will come to our aid, like they did in Somalia.
The enormity of the situation is one that I fear you have not yet grasped. That isn't selfish, that is realistic. That is an acknowledgment that there is a finite power that exists, and that finite power has limits. There is no such thing as unlimited, as in unlimited numbers of Special Forces, or Helicopters, or delivery assets. Those are all finite, and the probability that the Boko Haram guys will stand around pleasantly waiting to be shot and do nothing to execute the hostages is pretty slim. Or we could get lucky, and have another Son Tay on our hands.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)These are always tricky situations, but all human life is valuable, and we should provide help when asked.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We can play what if should that be your desire. But the first thing you have to do is deal with reality. The sun rises in the East no matter how much I might wish otherwise. Time Travel is a virtual impossibility, despite the number of what if books that exist.
But what if games are entertaining, but they should never be confused with reality. Because reality means we have to acknowledge that our power is not absolute. What if it was Texas, or Georgia, or Canada, or Mexico? So what if it was? The situation requires you to deal with the reality of this and not play what if games.
Why did the Raid on Cabanatuan work and the Son Tay raid fail? The simple answer is that in the Cabanatuan raid, we had the assistance of the local Philippine guerrilla forces. They provided intelligence, real time information on the camp and the guards and the response forces. That and the disarray of the Japanese Forces that were responding to the invasion of the island. For Son Tay, we had no real time intelligence, no idea that the prisoners had been moved. In other words, the locals were not on our side. This lack of intelligence caused the raid to be a successful failure. Two deaths of friendly forces. Two helicopters lost, one of which was part of the plan. That was the success. The failure was the fact that we got no prisoners back. We rescued air. The result was that all the outlying prisoner camps were shut down and all the prisoners were gathered at the "Hanoi Hilton" making future rescue attempts impossible. We had one chance, and it was a failure. All future chances were lost.
Gee, what if we had launched the raid earlier, or if we had put scouts in a position to see the camp, or we had managed to find a local who didn't hate us? What if monkeys flew out of my butt?
What is the cost of failure? If we rescue fifty girls, that means 150 are dead, either executed by their captors or killed in the crossfire battles. I'm not sure which would be better. We would be blamed for the deaths, and our excuse of we had to do something, all life is valuable, and we were asked to help won't go far in the World Opinion. There would be no shortage of experts on the news blaming the Americans for doing this wrong, or that badly when we can't accomplish the impossible.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't have to invade this place.
We have technology. We go after kidnappers here.
We can help with this.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)With the Ransom. We don't catch most kidnappers. http://www.missingkids.com/search?action=continueSearch&searchSubject=child
There are 898 missing children from January of last year to today. Eight Hundred Ninety Eight children missing in less than eighteen months.
Thirty Seven people are listed as abductors during that same time period. Does that sound like we're winning that battle? That is with nationwide surveillance, facial recognition, DUI and other checkpoints all over the place. Those 37 are still at large, in other words not in custody.
Should I continue? I can if you like. The logistical nightmare of trying to track down and rescue 200 girls is beyond the imagination of most people. Tell you what, take Google Earth, and try and plan a raid, just one raid. Using helicopters and overwhelming force, because if you don't use such force then the girls will be dead by the hand of the kidnappers.
There is an estimated 13 million children who have been sold into sexual slavery, which is where the Boko Haram are threatening to send these girls. Now, after we get the 200, do we quit?
I think that this problem is far larger than the two hundred girls. And I think this problem isn't going to be solved with a SEAL raid, because we don't have enough SEALs to do the job. We just don't have the manpower. It's cruel, and it's heartless, but no more for those girls than any of the other 13 million children who have had this exact same thing happen.
Combating this is not going to be a quick in and out, it's going to be a huge international effort, one that most of the world won't bother with. Kidnapping for profit, sure we've got that nearly licked her in the US. Kidnapping where no ransom is demanded? We haven't even made a dent in it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Or NZ.
And heaven forbid Egypt.
It'd be nice to change those dynamics.
I am totally ambivalent. Totally.
As for Greenwald, to use the unfolding tragedy to swipe at the USA is disgusting.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Saw another DUer get spanked for wondering aloud about why there's no discernible proactive Muslim action here.
Doncha know even suggesting that extremist countries like KSA turn off the funding AT LEAST to their puppets like Boko Haram means you are an Islamaphobe.
Be careful.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Im not saying we can't provide some support in the way of intelligence and maybe some spy drones and FBI. But putting military assets there and trying to hunt this group is going to result in getting a lot of these girls killed.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)“We are looking hard at trying to improve our posture in West Africa, which is really the toughest challenge for security,” Rodriquez said.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos recently said he would like to see some Marines based permanently along the West African coastline in the Gulf of Guinea.
“This is where we hope to be,” Amos told hundreds of officers at the annual Sea Air Space Exposition in Maryland on April 7.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140416/NEWS/304160040/DoD-quietly-expanding-AFRICOM-missionsa
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)This is a simple matter of right and wrong.
The USA has been asked by the government of Nigeria to help find the kidnapped children. The US has not been asked to go to war. The US government has not threatened war in Nigeria at all.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)without bloodshed. People will die; who and how many is the only question. Even if the US only offers intel that leads to an eventual rescue/retaliatory effort it will be in the minds of BH and their allies that such an effort would not be possible without US involvement. Would that not then incentivize BH and their ideological peers to act to make future efforts by the US as painful, particularly is we have announced we will not commit to violent action?
In other words, we may well be inviting an attack against us. How many times have we heard that such-and-such atrocities and animosoities committed against the US and our allies are the "chickens coming home to roost"? As soon as we get involved we have provided the malefactors the opportunity to register their opinion about our actions. We may think them reasonable and benign but the "evil-doers" may decide we need to be reminded of our place in their world.
To pretend this is not a distinct possibility is to peddle snake oil. If it is a serious consideration then we have to ask how we shall guard against it and what we shall do if those guards fail.
randome
(34,845 posts)If that's the price we pay for trying to rescue a bunch of kidnapped children, I say it's worth it. The alternative is to do nothing and let atrocities occur without a care in the world because there sure as hell isn't a diplomatic solution for something like this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)because people might die if anyone tries to stop it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"X is bad" is not a reason to go to war. There is plenty of X in the world. The wars would be endless.
However, if we play world police we will not only find ourselves in endless wars we will find that the those who would wage war for exploitative ends will seize on these demands of yours and use them to their own purposes.
Also, those we act against -- either in this case or some future instance -- will see America as an enemy in an active war. We will not be allowed to walk away for free. That implies we either absorb their response or make a response of our own. The latter seems improbable, there will be a response from the US. That means we will be dragged into an endless series of wars and that alone will weaken us, no matter how robust we make our MIC (weird how suddenly no one is talking about the MIC anymore).
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)the kidnapping of those children. If you know any actual information about this, please provide a link.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We may try to pretend we aren't in a war but those on the receiving end have their say in the matter. It is foolish/naïve/deceptive to act as if we can act unilaterally then slink back to our bases without other parties act on their own. Everybody knows this but those who are clamoring for "SOMETHING!" are overlooking this as much as the neocons who sold the Iraq war on the cheap.
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)There is no pretense of the USA not being in a war there, we aren't.
If you are claiming that the Nigerian government has no right to try to free Nigerian children from kidnapping, slave making terrorists, then you are confused about what acts of war are. Governments have an absolute right to protect their citizens from all criminals. They have a right to ask for and receive help in freeing their children from terrorists.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I want that to be 'smart' help whether it is in the US or somewhere else. Going in with guns blazing and no idea of what you are doing is a terrible strategy no matter whose country you are doing it in.
If a sovereign government asks for help, I expect my government to consider the situation. There will be times when we cannot help and times when we can. I do not want a government that says 'Yes' every time or 'No' every time. I do not want my government to be the world's policeman any more than I am my neighborhood's policeman. OTOH, I want may government to help when it can as a member of the world community, as I expect myself to help when I can as a member of my neighborhood.
In cases where civilians are killed, kidnapped, tortured, etc. and a sovereign government does not ask for and refuses to accept any help - indeed in some cases operates as though it believes that it has the right to do whatever it wants to 'its own' civilians, then the only recourse is the UN and the Responsibility to Protect which the UN enacted in 2005 after the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides. Sometimes the UN authorizes an international intervention to prevent civilian casualties and sometimes it does not, but that is the only legal recourse one has.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because some react as if it is always wrong. But can one support some interventions and not others?
I have been in favor of the idea of invading Northern Nigeria - I was probably not kidding when I wanted the world to invade when they were going to stone a woman for adultery and that's one adult woman.
It need not be the US alone, either. There are other countries with some decent values too and they are there too.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)who was kidnapped from school and sold into slavery you would have the same "let 'em die" attitude, I'm sure. Right?
It's OK, everyone, they're only girls. 
agentS
(1,325 posts)Hmm... I must've missed that memo...
Realpolitik plays a part here
1) We probably do have discussions with the King about these things. It's up to him whether or not he listens. He should listen or he'll learn his lesson the hard way like Qaddafi, Assad, and Mubarak had to learn.
2) Reciprocity: if we meddle too deep in Saudi affairs (more than we probably already do) they'll start meddling in our affairs. Sure you want Wahabbist Saudi intervention in Nevada (Cliven Bundy) or New Orleans? To be fair, I find more interventionism to be better than less interventionism, but the King of Saudi is no Qaddafi.
3) We have interests in the African continent; our allies do, and our enemies do, as well as our frenemies. If we're not active, they will be active. Sometimes getting involved is good, sometimes not (Khmer Rouge comes to mind). Either way we will face blowback and reap benefits. It seems like we stand to gain more from helping Goodluck Johnson stop Boko Haram than we do from ignoring the problem.
4) Boko Haram has been our asshole list for awhile now. NOW they have attracted our attention, seeing as how we had other problems elsewhere to deal with. Sucks to be them- maybe they should have pursued a different course of action with the government. Needless to say, we've been on their asshole list since they started. It was only a matter of time.
5) Now is not a good time to go into Saudi with a million troops. Might wanna wait and see if they can contain MERS first.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/05/08/Saudi-Arabia-vows-to-contain-deadly-coronavirus.html
Squinch
(50,950 posts)that this situation is way the hell over on the other side of it.
I understand that we are not consistent, I understand that there are politics all over the place in who we decide to intervene for. But I am paying a truck full of taxes, mostly to fund the Military Industrial Complex's junkets to Vegas, and Haliburton's Congressional palm greasing.
This is one of the places where, if we decided to spend money AND blood, I would not disagree. Because this fight is FOR blood. Not oil, not territory, not some political theory but people, children, who are being used up and discarded.
I think we should intervene.
MH1
(17,600 posts)There are some horrors we are clearly powerless to do anything about, at this time, so they're off the table. (Like 99.99% of the bad shit that happens in, say, North Korea and most other countries with whom we aren't officially allies).
If some relatively minor nutcase in Chicago is found to be holding some women as sex slaves, yep we can deal with that sh*thead, so obviously we do.
Then there's everything in between. That's where we rely on people who's job it is to understand our capabilities, our allies and their capabilities and real intentions, and the likely consequences in terms of geopolitical influence.
Oh how boring, right? Or some thing about the Great Western Evil throwing its weight around the world again, yada yada. But what's the opposite of influence? Vulnerability. (oh I can hear the shrieks ...) Anyway, it's going to happen, because lots of Americans don't want to be seen as weak patsies on the world stage. And they might have a point. (I for one, prefer to be fighting the relatively minor extremism of the current American Taliban, than the Boko Haram-like alternatives).
Anyway back to the kidnapped and probably sold into sex-slavery Nigerian girls: clearly there is a fairly broad international consensus that Boko Haram are evil and something should be done. There are other strong nations with certain interests in the area, that are aligned with some sort of action being taken by the US and allies. Therefore, THIS atrocity may be dealt with. Good for any of those girls that the effort manages to recover alive and reasonably whole.
In my opinion, this is reality, and trying to do something when we have some reasonable chance of success, rather than throwing up our hands, is better than nothing. Ideally, we act always in ways that increase our influence and decrease the times that we can't act effectively. But yeah, those pesky illegitimate and evil things our own country does from time to time will always get in the way, and it won't be a straight path to a better day.
