The ones who fight back too hard.

and how long this lasts.

And I think there would be a difference between deliberately allowing a girl or girls to die, and running into circumstances where that happens.

willing to sacrifice their daughters depending on the judgement of someone in the US which is not known for its concern for the children they kill with drones already. We know what those parents think of the decision to toss away their children's lives for the sake of, what someone in the US decided, was a greater cause.

I'm not willing to sacrifice other people's children. Do you think these people are not intelligent enough to make these decision on their own? I have seen some of them and listened to what they have to say. I didn't get the impression they were willing to allow the US to decide to sacrifice one single child for what, in our utter sense of superiority, we believe we know best.

They were hiding their identities of course because they have determined that it would harm their children if their relatives and friends were to speak openly to the media.

And even if they do, I'm still just asking -- my opinion is still forming.

drones without hurting the girls. I'm pretty sure we'll use surveillance drones because of where they're hidden.

These poor girls are presently doomed to physical bondage, sexual slavery, and a high likelihood of being tortured and slain.

The group has not ceased its activities.

I'd prefer an outcome like the Maersk Alabama (e.g., sniper bullets to the head), but if that reality is not feasible then I support droning of this group.

to sell them all into slavery.

This isn't some trivial " just because."

rescue them, would you agree to that? Or would you prefer if someone else in a far off land made that decision for you?

Several women here in stories recently reported in the news, escaped from ten or more years of captivity where they were subjected to years of horrors we can only imagine.

What you seem to be saying is they would have been better off dead. They don't seem to think so and neither do those who love them. IS that what you are saying btw, I don't want to misinterpret you.

Did you give that even a moment's thought?

women captive for over ten years because they would have been better off dead?

As if that has any actual relevance...

Boko Haram has a fair amount of public support in the north, and the prospect of them getting martyred by the big, bad USA (who would be doing the "dirty work" at the bidding of the south) might rally a lot more people to the BH cause...

There might also be some sovereignty issues when attacking the BH leaders who jump back and forth between the borders...

Putatively, they'd be giving the orders, even if the way it works is we first tell them what to tell us in order to achieve the desired outcome...!

That is all.

The only legitimate use of military force is in self-defense (i.e., response to actual or imminent and intended military attack). What happens in other countries can often be tragic but that does not make the U.S. into the world police. The overall record of the U.S. as world police is a net loss for the world -- millions of innocents dead, entire nations burned up and destroyed. In the long run, the cumulative effect of such actions is to destabilize regions and to legitimate other, less humanitarian military actions. Even if this action is noble in itself, it will serve as PR for the next invasion of Iraq or attack on the new "Hitler" in Whereveristan. That is how it has always worked.

In the long run, the way to deal with crazy armed militias is to rededicate military spending to human development, and to shut down the world arms trade. Negotiate conventional disarmament all around. Switch your war on drugs to a war on international arms shipments of any kind. War has scarred the planet for centuries. Shutting it down can be a matter of decades, but it is possible. Root causes must be addressed. That means no drama with drones. It means paying for real development (not exploitation, as is usually the case with "aid&quot and ending the arms trade.

start killing, we seem to never stop.

No to drone wars.

girls being torn from their families in order to be sold into a life of sexual servitude. Of course, that's just me.

used as a catch all for males between puberty and senior status.

OK with them as well, since you are now equating them with the words you used.

-does the Nigerian government approve of such action
-does the U.N. approve of the violation of Nigerian territory
-what are they risks of collateral damage
-would killing the leadership make any difference or would it be business as usual under new leadership
-would there be reprisals against the captives


The quick solution is not always the best solution. Also goals must be clearly defined and any proposed military action and determined if they will improve or worsen the situation.
Too often these parameters are overlooked IMO.

But I thought I read that the government was asking for this. I certainly don't think we should send in drones or anything else unless they ask. In which, of course, it wouldn't violate their territory.

probably part of our soul would be left on the ground next to the dead terrorist

However, I would consider sending in special ops forces (including things like attack helicopters) to try and locate these goons, and then rescuing the girls with the specialized forces. If there was resistance, then deadly force could be used in this situation.

This would be a horrible use of a drone. You have HUNDREDS of Boko Haram "soldiers" out there. Do you think they're all going to set the girls free and go home when their leader gets blown up? No, they'll slaughter them to "send a message".

A lot of the girls will be murdered in any kind of rescue operation, but a ground assault is the best military option for them. A negotiated settlement or a ransom would be even better (and you can drone the hell out of them after the kids are clear).

and is going to sell them?

Him, Yes.

There is no imaginary world where you could get just the bad guys

If they all die, would it have worth it to stand on principle?

Talking about tactics and strategy. We need boots on the ground not drones.

The whole point of drones, despite the hand-wringing, is that they kill much fewer innocent people than artillery and infantry do.

Drones are not subject to emotional outbursts due to the stress of combat conditions, so they don't ever turn around and blast the entire crowd or their own crewmembers.

I wasn't even getting to your point, but that's valid too.

Tons and tons of Pentagon studies on this; they didn't go to drones on a whim. It's a way to attack a target without the immense collateral damage associated with infantry and its artillery support.

A single high explosive 155mm shell from an M777 will flatten a three-story brownstone rowhouse and shatter every window for 200 meters. A single fire mission or barrage consists of 12 of these shells falling within 30 meters of each other. A platoon moving through an urban area can expect to call in a fire mission for about every 100 meters traveled. A battalion (the smallest unit realistically sent after a target) is 9 such platoons. So, 9 of those barrages for every 100 meters traversed, just to get the infantry into position to then attack. (And the infantry are bringing mortars along to do a smaller version of what the M777 does once they start the assault.)

Even without artillery support, infantry are absolutely devastating to inhabited areas. Consider the battle of Mogadishu (the primary reason infantry only move with artillery support nowadays): the best estimate is that 3000 civilians were killed in that fighting, all just to get Omar Elmi. That's actually a great example of when a drone would have saved thousands of lives: bomb the building he was meeting in, and that's 3000 Somalis who wouldn't have died that day.