Nigeria Razes Boko Harem Neighborhood

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22366016

It needs to be noted these are loosely constructed thatched roof houses that can be rebuilt elsewhere.

Boko Harem is a Islamic front known for breaking into houses and killing people- be they Christian or Pagan.

It’s a nasty move made here… increasing government loyal militias and increase the fortifications if a village is realistically defendable, as well as mandating house holders to be armed (rifle, bow, whatever) would of substantially slowed down Boko Harem attacks before it ever evolved to this.

Going this route of burning their houses, and scaring them away is about the dumbest thing possible. I’ve talked to people via the net on both sides, and while none are going to be winning a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon for intelligence, they are not as ignorant as the media makes either side out to be, and now they have a solid case (whereas before they had a bullshit case) that the Muslims are being persecuted, and can claim a legitimate Jihad, with better quality foreign fighters pouring in.

The other alternative would of been a Boer War style concentration camp, which unlike Nazis camps, was just a big ass prison people sit in.

Was the Muslim community innocent? No… they’ve been pushing lies and cultural hysteria to the max, and brought a lot of this shit down on themselves for not speaking out against, obstructing their movements, or warning others of these attacks. A community that willfully backs terrorism and watches its neighbors die is a community that shouldn’t continue to exist as is.

A classical solution would be to take random household, and forceably transplant them into communities that can be more easily watched and economically dependent upon the government well with the governments rear.

The current tactics of the Nigerian government shows they are increasingly forlorn, and giving into darker impulses. If a building has to be burned, or people moved fine… but to it right. Cordon the neighborhoods off, go in with overwhelming force so the militants don’t organize or fight back- pluck them, and bring essentials along in a second wagon to their new home elsewhere.

All this stupid shit does is make a bunch of pissed off free range militants who now have legitimate gripes. Some will stay, others will leave for neighboring countries, funneling supplies and support back in.

Very fucking stupid move.

2

Well in every problem and argument there is a stupid move made.
Diplomats and military need to work together not separately. It would be good if military leaders had to study diplomacy and a bit of psychology. Trusting military leaders in some situations is like trusting a rabid dog in a school.

3

Actually Kriswest, they do study diplomacy and psychology to a limited extent. I’m open to providing to any nation state a listing of classical works on the subject, even if its Iran or Cuba… I think one of the reasons why wars exist is from poorly educated officers and NCOs… having a literature or accounting or mathematics degree doesn’t cut it for being a officer- you gotta know the history of philosophy, first and formost strategy and statecraft.

Your basic lowest ranking office should have a background in the basic works.

I think there should be a international test for entry level officers requiring knowledge of basic writers from ancient to modern on strategy, ethics, and historic stratagems for resolving difficult, paradoxical situations, and this needs to be mandated for students in universities the world over.

We would have considerably less war if officers understood the basics. Many countries just rush forward guys who can take orders, and get their men to move and shoot. They worry about the rest via reading lists and courses down the road… but the majority of officers in the field are noobs with relatively little education in what they need to be educated in. More strategy and ethics, and how to embed it with their operational needs, with clear emphasis on human rights. If you didn’t take this hypothetical course in college, then you gotta take it before becoming a officer. It would be great if the larger electrolate was aware if these works, and make international joint operations more acceptable, as well as more respect between nations military operations if we know Mynamar and English officers took the same standardize martial philosophy course we all do, and will react with similar intentions.

4

I agree, one small problem is the field promotions. Especially officers. How can you train an officer in the field?

5

It’s rather easy actually, because they have experienced NCOs attached and other officers. If you get promoted in the field it means your worth it.

You can get prepped up by the other officers, and take the class online in the rear, or via paperwork pen and pencil even.

These works are not hard, many compilations, such as The Seven Military Classics, were compiled together exactly for this reason.

I think the international corpus should be from international works, preferably historical. Try to have western-eastern contrast and comparisons of otherwise paralleled elements, asking the officer-candidate why it could differ, the psychological reasons for this, and why they the two authors are right and wrong, and what the ethical considerations are.

Emphasis on passing should be ethics first, inventiveness to problem solving, and understanding of principles of strategy and statecraft third. I don’t think a person who flunks the ethics section should pass, might consider weaknesses in the other areas if they are at least ethical, as the military they join could drill that in at a later date.