Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's not easy, changing their societies. We've been trying to do it for 13 years in Afghanistan. There is a significant part of the population that still have no idea why we are even there...

So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

You just know Russia would veto any attempts simply to spite the West.

I would love to see more European leadership on stuff like this. Unfortunately I think we're a bit prone to navel gaze and pontificate instead of doing anything concrete. And I include myself in that.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Dreadclaw - Oh I never said it would be easy, nor even possible, but it stands to reason that if the dogma was taken away, the concept of going out an murdering 'random' civilians would be far less appealing. You are right of course, that it's a nigh on impossible task. The trouble is, the 'religion' is just a mask, the real motivater is a lust for wealth and power that they cannot obtain from a 'normal' course of life. Religion is simply a convenient excuse used by the leaders of ISIS/Al-Quaeda/The Taliban, to justify grabbing more land and controlling more people - ostensibly all to make themselves richer and damn the rest.

And as long as they have a cleric to justify their deeds their religious cover remains in place. That is not something that the West can force (especially when the name Boko Haram is explicitly anti-Western), it has to be a change that comes internally. When, or if that ever happens remains to be seen.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would love to see more European leadership on stuff like this. Unfortunately I think we're a bit prone to navel gaze and pontificate instead of doing anything concrete. And I include myself in that.

I think the European solution to this problem would be to point towards the general direction of Africa and say "keep that stuff over there m'kay".

It's not something a military solution will fix. If anybody tries they will simply be the next target.

I don't even mean a military solution. I'd actually be more in favour of targeted aid of different kinds, something complex and far reaching. It's not a fully fleshed out idea, but I feel like it could at least help.

I agree there, any solution will have to be a non-military one (or with very a minimal component). I think, or at least hope, that we are finally leaning that "just kill the bad guys" isn't any kind of long term solution and doesn't give any stability.

A military solution will be required, but it can't be the only one. There will have to be a lot more involved.

And I hope folks don't feel that what we did in Iraq, and what we're doing in Afghanistan, was purely military.

It would be stolen by the various rebel groups and entrepeneurs in the region (or the government). Graft and illegal siezure are raft there. Its really pretty in many areas with LOTS of different guerrilla groups.

Doing business in Nigeria almost automatically makes you a candidate for bribery investigations.


This is what happens when you are not steeped in the tradition of fine Tex Mex cuisine.

Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

 Jihadin wrote:
Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

I don't know if they let enlisted guys fly the drones that make things go boom. I know if the AF it's officers. Army's Shadows are enlisted flown, but they don't have things that go boom. Can't speak for Grey Eagles, we don't have any here yet.

 Jihadin wrote:
Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

Just as long as you stay of Twitter and FB.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-cybersecurity-centcom-hack-idUSKBN0KL1UZ20150112

Their equipped with laser designator

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

I'm not advocating that we cowboy. Boko Haram is not a very large organization that has national backing like Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Military intervention would at best be small. Air strikes, SpecOps teams, etc... Having Nigeria's military lead the majority of the efforts is required.

As for the other aspects, it'll take a lot of work. Gotta figure out a way to make Nigeria economically viable...

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

I'm not advocating that we cowboy. Boko Haram is not a very large organization that has national backing like Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Military intervention would at best be small. Air strikes, SpecOps teams, etc... Having Nigeria's military lead the majority of the efforts is required.

As for the other aspects, it'll take a lot of work. Gotta figure out a way to make Nigeria economically viable...

I agree.

What we need is the same sort of industrializations that China experienced in the last 20/30 years. Nigeria (and rest of Africa for that matter) has a boat load of labor (cheaper than even China probably) and regional resources to support heavy manufacturing.

The trick will be, how do you ignite that?

I'd imagine a key concept in bringing that about would be some form of pride. For a large part, the west has been as successful as it has been in a large part due to patriotism. Initially in Europe each nation was galvinised by pride in their nation, their nations past successes and their nations future innovations. As such, the will of the people to succeed drives the nation forward. Take a look at the United States for example, and you'll see a superb example of how the people's belief in a manifest destiny brought about mass drives to succeed in the face of harsh physical and economic challenges (I'm talking about the 'Wild West' period more than any other). If Nigeria and other African countries are to succeed, it must be because they want to succeed. Currently they are divided into an every man for himself attitude, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they lack a sort of national pride that enables them to band together and further the nation as a whole. Of course, another challenge is that corruption is rife in countries like Nigeria - that is one of the main obstacles to Western aid right now as a large percentage of Western (Or even Global) aid fails to reach it's target. Whether it's siphoned off funding or physical aid being used as leverage, corruption really decreases the effectiveness of any Western, non-military, intervention.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
I'd imagine a key concept in bringing that about would be some form of pride. For a large part, the west has been as successful as it has been in a large part due to patriotism. Initially in Europe each nation was galvinised by pride in their nation, their nations past successes and their nations future innovations. As such, the will of the people to succeed drives the nation forward. Take a look at the United States for example, and you'll see a superb example of how the people's belief in a manifest destiny brought about mass drives to succeed in the face of harsh physical and economic challenges (I'm talking about the 'Wild West' period more than any other). If Nigeria and other African countries are to succeed, it must be because they want to succeed. Currently they are divided into an every man for himself attitude, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they lack a sort of national pride that enables them to band together and further the nation as a whole. Of course, another challenge is that corruption is rife in countries like Nigeria - that is one of the main obstacles to Western aid right now as a large percentage of Western (Or even Global) aid fails to reach it's target. Whether it's siphoned off funding or physical aid being used as leverage, corruption really decreases the effectiveness of any Western, non-military, intervention.

Fair point.

I believe people are forgetting a major point: The sovereign nation of Nigeria does not want our (military) help. Actually, their government does not want our military assistance. We have offered it before and they have turned it down.

It is really a sad situation.

Sometimes you have to fail on your own.

It's also a tricky situation politcally there. I believe one of the biggest reasons Boko Haram still exists is because they operate around several borders with neighbouring countries where whichever military is chasing them after another massacre can't follow, not because the Nigerian isn't strong enough to handle them. If memory serves Nigeria actually has one of the largest armies in West-Africa.

IIRC Nigeria and its neighbours are working to form a coalition that would allow them to actually catch these bastards when they skip across borders.

Just to add to another point made in this thread, the leaders of these organisations also know that hearts and minds (whether by sympathy or fear) are the way to keep power, or lose it. That's why schools, especially ones that teach girls are such favoured targets of these cowards.

From Nigeria's Wiki page:
"Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the African Union, OPEC, and the United Nations among other international organizations."

What are the UN doing about Boko Haram? Why should the US intervene when Nigeria is a member of these organisations?
Britain has a history of taking military action abroad, then having to deal with the horrible legacy of that action. The US has some too (Vietnam).
Humanitarian atrocities like those caused by Boko Haram are becoming all too common. Lots of it is regarded as being in the name of religion, and Boko Haram is all up for some of that.

The only way I can see any of the religious group to tone down is for the equivalent of excommunication, being kicked out of the queue for paradise. Does Islam (or at least the supposed branches they claim to adhere to), have a head/spokesperson or leadership? If the Pope spoke out against a Catholic-based group, I guess it would have some affect. Is there an Islamic version of the Pope? Would it matter what he/they said? Would Boko Haram care?

One thing I havent failed to notice is just how quickly this attack is becoming old news.

 Orlanth wrote:
One thing I havent failed to notice is just how quickly this attack is becoming old news.

#BlackLivesMatter


Insert Eye Roll Emoticon

Just look at how quickly bringbackourgirls spread then died.

 Skinnereal wrote:
The only way I can see any of the religious group to tone down is for the equivalent of excommunication, being kicked out of the queue for paradise. Does Islam (or at least the supposed branches they claim to adhere to), have a head/spokesperson or leadership? If the Pope spoke out against a Catholic-based group, I guess it would have some affect. Is there an Islamic version of the Pope? Would it matter what he/they said? Would Boko Haram care?

You can be declared outside the fold of Islam, and lose certain privileges, such as losing the standard muslim greeting, attendance to hajj, etc. The Ahmadiyya muslim community was declared outside the fold of Islam in the late 1800's, only a few years after it was founded and has faced heavy persecution in the countries its adherents live. Its worth noting that they espouse non-violence as one of their core values and also have a caliph. Sorta the non-violent ISIS. They are regarded as worse than non-muslims, because they left mainstream Islam, according to their detractors.

A muslim scholar would be hard pressed to declare these groups as outside the fold of Islam because they are doing exactly what their book and hadiths tell them to do. The only thing that can be said about them is that they are interpreting the book wrong and practicing the readings wrong. They'll reply that they are doing exactly what they're supposed to and that's its the moderates that are wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/13/cameroon-govt-says-143-boko-haram-militants-killed-after-attack-near-border/?intcmp=latestnews

Good news. Camaroon offs 143 Boko Haram fighters.