As promised, fucking Boko Haram has grabbed more girls.
Of course it has. It’s easy. Soft targets. Villages of ordinary people; it’s dead easy to burst in with guns and grab a bunch of the girls. Anybody could do that at any time. But decent people don’t do that. We’re all soft targets; we don’t all prey on each other just because we can.
Suspected Boko Haram gunmen kidnapped eight girls aged 12 to 15 from a village near one of their strongholds in northeast Nigeria overnight, police and residents said today.
“They were many, and all of them carried guns. They came in two vehicles painted in army colour. They started shooting in our village,” said Lazarus Musa, a resident of Warabe, where the attack happened.
So what could the people of Warabe do? Nothing. So the men with guns were able to grab the girls.
Homo homini lupus.
So what could the people of Warabe do? Nothing. So the men with guns were able to grab the girls.
I’m waiting for the NRA spokesperson to pop up and exclaim that the solution to this kind of thing is more guns!
Unfortunately, guns are probably going to be a big part of whatever solution happens. Boko Harem are like rabid dogs. You can’t have people like that in a civil society. If someone weer to put them down violently, with extreme prejudice, I can’t say I’d shed a tear. I wish there were a more elegant & peaceful solution, but I don’t see it.
The question becomes, then, how can those of us in the West try to help without creating more harm? Our military solutions are prone to making even more casualties among the civilians we want to help; supporting the local government has often led to propping up kleptocracies with little actual result.
Does Boko Harem have a source of outside aid, at this point? Could that be targeted, thereby assisting the Nigerian government by reducing the insurgents’ capacity for violence?
Actually guns probably would help in this case. This is organized crime where the assailants and their actions are unmistakable. Though it would be idiotic for the NRA to try to compare Nigeria to the US.
I actually think direct military intervention from a first world power is not only feasible but necessary. This isn’t Syria, where a complex interplay of politics and allegiances complicate any question of action. We know who did this: Boko Haram is a terrorist organization, not a state. We know who they are attacking: their targets are civilians, not soldiers or any other kinds of combatants. And we know they cannot possibly win in a straight fight against any first world military. I do believe the odds are reasonably in favor of direct military action.
The Nigerian government doesn’t seem to give a toss. I agree it’s a clear case for military intervention if ever there was one, if you have a shred of moral decency. NATO should go in and stop them by force. But they’ve only taken hundreds of girls to rape, they haven’t taken any oil fields. So NATO doesn’t give a toss either. NATO has their priorities.
I don’t believe that any government is going to act “just” for girls. Has there ever been an instance when anyone goes to war for women or girls? Wars are only fought for men’s rights. There is always some consideration more important. “Freedom” is a male cry, not a woman’s right. “Right” is a male word. Only charities work for girls. Shekau is partly correct when he says that we don’t understand human rights. We do understand them, but we prefer the edited version: like him, we don’t want them to apply to anyone except male me.
There is a bit of help, finally:
[T]he U.S. embassy in Abuja was prepared to assemble an interagency team “that could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations and hostage negotiations, could help facilitate information-sharing and provide victim assistance.”
The team “would include U.S. military personnel, law enforcement officials with expertise in investigations and hostage negotiations, as well as officials with expertise in other areas that may be helpful to the Nigerian government in its response,” the spokesman said.
Spooky Tran: Are you suggesting that we invade Nigeria as a whole (or otherwise send in troops unasked), or offer to send in troops in Nigeria’s government requests assistance (preferably making the offer ahead of time so as to let the Nigerians act in confidence of not being refused, at least)? The latter I would support, absolutely; the former seems likely to create a three-way conflict.