Should the US try to free the kidnapped Nigerian girls using military means?

[Cali_Democrat]

24 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	10 (42%)
	No
	14 (58%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Throd]

1. No. It is not the duty of the USA to try to free them.

[Nye Bevan]

3. So, if we are asked for help with this, we should say to take a hike? (nt)

[Throd]

4. Help in what capacity?

Logistics? Yes.

US troops in active combat? No.

[nomorenomore08]

16. +1

I know there's the emotional temptation to "DO SOMETHING!!!" but it's gotten us in deep shit before.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. I have no idea if the situation is there to carry out a rescue mission with minimal risk of loss of

innocent lives. If it is possible to carry out such an operation with minimal risk - I certainly wouldn't be against it. I am in general an anti-interventionist when it comes to military interventions. But if and only if it is possible to carry out such an operation with little risk of causing numerous losses of lives - I would view this as a humanitarian operation worthy of support if and only if it is requested by the Nigerian government..

[cthulu2016]

5. If you stipulate practicality and permission... sure.

[CTyankee]

7. To me, that would include an OBL type of maneuver...

[Squinch]

18. Yes. Something that is just a rescue effort and then get out, if that is possible.

[quinnox]

6. I'm usually anti-interventionist, but this is a especially heinous situation

so I wouldn't be opposed to sending in some special forces teams to do this, nice and quick and clean, because this terrorist group has been killing kids in schools and kidnapping them, that is something that demands a response.

[CTyankee]

9. absolutely! I agree!

[hopemountain]

28. yes! nt

[Live and Learn]

29. +1 nt

[madville]

8. No

I would only be in favor of US military action if it was US citizens being held.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. that sounds kind of heartless, doesn't it?

Of course I have no idea if it is even possible to carry out such a mission with minimal risk - but if and only if it is possible and if and only if it is requested - I just can't see turning away humanitarian missions if and only if they can be done efficiently and quickly with minimal risk. That is just too cold blooded.

[sarisataka]

10. Insufficient data

While it is a noble thought and very well should be done if possible, this situation could easily become a new Mogadishu if it is not properly planned and supported based on very good intelligence.

Also, the chances of rescuing all of the girls with no casualties among them is a number so close to zero as to be insignificant. Any countries taking action must be prepared for the blow back that would result from a partial success.

[chrisa]

11. No - This requires police-type work, not the military.

It's a case-by-case basis. The girls are very likely scattered at this point.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Agreed. nt

[HooptieWagon]

20. Yes.

Its unlikely all the girls are held in one location, and many may even be already in other countries. US troops would be merely chasing rumors and ghosts, with nothing concrete turning up.

[2naSalit]

13. Interestingly...

I don't recall that the Nigerian government actually asked us to help, though the people did. I think that we offered to help in such a way that it was hard to refuse given the ire of the people actually affected.

Is that correct?

I don't like the smell of this because they actions of this group are getting louder and more heinous for the sole purpose of gaining international attention. I think it presents us with a slippery slope.

I am horrified at this issue and pray for the people affected but I wonder if our involvement will turn into yet another costly quagmire with no visible end. And what if those girls all end up dead? Then what?

Rock and a hard place with a slippery slope on the side.

[PeteSelman]

15. No. But I might send them in to destroy both of the religious psycho groups.

Kony's people and these assholes together. I doubt anyone would speak up for them.

[Chan790]

17. Yes, but that surprises nobody.

I'm not only a staunch supporter of humanitarian intervention, I believe the obligation of any superpower is to be the world's policeman and to practice the responsible application of globalist normative behaviors on the pointy-end of broad international coalitions and peacekeeping forces tasked with clear mandates and objectives.

Would I support a surgical strike to rescue these girls?

I'd support a 2-year interventionist action to track down and destroy every vestige of Boko Haram if that's what Abuja and (Nigerian) President Goodluck Jonathan wanted. I generally support any humanitarian action that has clear and achievable goals, doubly when those actions remove continuing threats to peace, freedom and security worldwide from the global stage.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Its probably not possible.

I imagine the kidnappers and girls are fairly widely dispersed by now. Probably not in one location where a military strike can free them in one fell swoop. Thus, freeing the girls likely would involve a prolonged military presence, often chasing rumors and ghosts, with only the occaisional freeing of a handful of girls. And of course, all the while the US troops would be attacked or ambushed by Boko Haram. I cant see success under the circumstances, and would be another quagmire.

[Kaleva]

21. I think the use of drones and satellites to provide military intel is warranted.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. It's a heinous situation but if we're suddenly in favor of playing world police let's discuss terms.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I think these lives are just as valuable as American lives.

Although some in this thread obviously disagree.

[davidn3600]

24. A few things...

1. We are not the world's police. It's not our job to fix every country's problems.
2. This isn't a situation where Islamic terrorists kidnapped people and is holding them hostage in a big building or something. These girls are being trafficked. Which means they are scattered all over the place and could be in multiple countries. It's not like a "lets go in and rescue them!" type of situation. Human traffickers have these girls at this point and it becomes much more a law enforcement issue than a military one since this deals with a criminal underground network.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. I wouldn't rule it out.

But it wouldn't be my first choice either.

[larkrake]

26. covert only

[BainsBane]

27. No, because that is likely to result in death of many hostages

Negotiation is far more successful at getting hostages released unharmed. The key issue now is actually finding them.

[Kaleva]

31. Rather hard to negotiate with someone who thinks he's doing God's work.

Edit: And i think they've already been harmed to a certain extent. Certainly emotionally and possibly physically assaulted.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Depends wholly on the practicalities, which I am not in a position to have an informed opinion on.

Obama should ask his generals "Do you think that it would be possible for the US armed forces to free the kidnapped Nigerian girls using military means?"

They will, hopefully, be able to make at least an informed guess at the answer, or have specialists who will.

If they answer "probably", he should tell them to attempt to do so; if it is "probably not" he should defer to that expertise and tell them not to try.

[951-Riverside]

32. No, just tell the Nigerian government to stop dragging their feet and get these girls already

These girls didnt disappear into thin air, they know exactly where they are.

If the US goes in there with white navy seals there will be a big hubbub if the kidnappers get as much as a scratch.

"Excessive force!"

"You're killing our people!"

"Imperialists!"

and so on.

[pampango]

33. Yes but only with UN authorization to protect (rescue) civilians that the government

can't or won't protect. Also, there has to be a realistic plan with a reasonable chance of success.

[pampango]

34. Boko Haram- a suitable case for UN-approved intervention

• A classic case of 'responsibility to protect'
• Principle designed to prevent atrocities undermined by distrust of UK and others using intervention as means for regime change

The whole question of how to intervene, when, and with what, was the subject this week of a high-level roundtable in London run by the British United Nations Association (UNA-UK) on the "responsibility to protect". This principle or pledge - R2P, as it is known - was agreed by heads of state and government at the 2005 UN world summit. It held out the promise of a world free from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

The principle was employed by the UN security council in response to crises in Darfur, Libya, Ivory Coast, Yemen, South Sudan, and Mali. It raises the whole question of national sovereignty and of (often pre-emptive) "liberal intervention".

On the face of it, the R2P principle should be more acceptable now given that most violent conflicts are intra-state rather than between states.
"Non-state" actors - terrorists, warlords, drug traffickers - are the common enemy of states, east and west - Russia, China, and the US - which otherwise have competing interests.

Boko Haram attacks might seem to be a clear candidate for R2P intervention approved by the UN. The UN should be seen as a legitimate arbiter of intervention, one leading participant at the UNA-UK roundtable suggested.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2014/may/08/nigeria-boko-haram-uk-un

[cbdo2007]

35. Yes - as a singular, covert mission against Boko Haram to rescue any hostages they have

and wipe them out of existence.