The Nigerian Schoolgirl Kidnappings Are None of Our Business

[DonViejo]

Nick Gillespie @nickgillespie 10:29 AM ET

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv and the co-author with Matt Welch of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America.

The goal of U.S. foreign policy should always be tightly tied to protecting American lives, interests and property.

“It’s a heartbreaking situation, outrageous situation,” said President Barack Obama, referring to the kidnapping of more than 250 schoolgirls in Nigeria by the radical terrorist group Boko Haram.

That’s absolutely true, but why in the world is Obama directly involving the U.S.—“we’ve already sent…a combination of military, law enforcement, and other agencies”–in the search for the girls, who are reportedly being sold into slavery?

The goal of our foreign policy, and especially interventions involving soldiers, should always be tightly tied to protecting American lives, interests and property. If the past dozen years and actions of the two most recent presidents should have taught us anything, it’s that the U.S. is not particularly adept at solving its own domestic problems, much less those in faraway lands. That’s the reason why Gallup reports a 40-year low in trust in Washington’s foreign policy, with just 49 percent of Americans saying they have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the government’s ability to handle international problems.

As usual, the Obama White House hasn’t been fully forthcoming with details about the American intervention—it’s unclear how many soldiers have been dispatched or whether the Nigerian government has even officially signed off on U.S. involvement—but the president has left no doubt about his priorities. “As a father of two girls, I can’t imagine what their parents are going through,” he told the press. “We’re also going to have to deal with the broader problem of organizations like this.”

-snip-

more
http://time.com/93969/the-nigerian-schoolgirl-kidnappings-are-none-our-business/

[KeepItReal]

1. ...and we should let American businesses decide who they can and cannot serve

Please spare me the Libertarian take on this.

[pampango]

2. Libertarian foreign policy: If they ain't Americans, we don't care. No nation should care about

people who are not citizens of that nation. Because once you start caring about someone, you are perilously close to considering their welfare to be 'your business'. Our 'business' should be restricted to our people and our stuff.

It's consistent with the libertarian commitment to the 'free market' and its "invisible hand". "Each person pursuing his own self-interest will produce the greatest common good. Likewise, each country pursuing its own national interest will produce the greatest common good."

Pretty obvious that a libertarian wrote this, not a liberal.

[Supersedeas]

24. if it doesn't affect the interests of white Americans, Libertarians don't care

[whistler162]

32. Worked well in the 20's and 30's so why not try it again!

[NuclearDem]

34. Yeah, other than defanging the League of Nations

and enabling the rise of fascism in Europe, it worked terrifically.

[pampango]

35. I was hoping whistler162 was being sarcastic.

I doubt many liberals think that our foreign policy in the 1920's and 1930's was very wise.

[Brickbat]

3. ...Say the ones who always tell us about how the goodwill of a truly free people will solve all of

the world's problems.

[Supersedeas]

26. good will and plausible deniability

[Blue_Tires]

4. In all seriousness: Why even post this fuckwit??

Not even worth debating...

[msanthrope]

6. Because it's interesting to see who lines up with the fuckwit. Especially on a board where

the "true" progressives hang.

[DonViejo]

12. Are you serious?...

He that posts negative comments about Glenn Greenwald doesn't want to read other posts unless they are "worth debating."

[Blue_Tires]

17. I didn't say I didn't want to read it

I'm just questioning the value of the column...We all know the boilerplate libertarian arguments against compassion and humanitarianism...

Not sure why you felt the need to mention Greenwald -- If you want to discuss him we can do so in another thread...

[LanternWaste]

5. The limits of placing a higher priority on imaginary red and blue lines than on actual people are of

The limits of placing a higher priority on imaginary red and blue lines than on actual people are ofttimes frustrating...

[Scuba]

7. It's heartbreaking, but so is the plight of children in North Korea. Why don't we hear about them?

Nigeria's proven oil reserves are estimated by the U.S. United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) at between 16 and 22 billion barrels ... but other sources claim there could be as much as 35.3 billion barrels ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Nigeria

The energy sector is one of the most serious bottlenecks in the North Korean economy. Since 1990 the supply of oil, coal, and electricity declined steadily, and seriously affected all sectors of the economy. Crude oil was formerly imported by pipeline at “friendship prices” from the former USSR or China ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea

Why do you think these poor Nigerian girls are all over the US media while the starving North Koreans are seldom mentioned?

[JoePhilly]

11. Can't save everyone ... don't save anyone.

[Scuba]

13. Actually, I think we should go save them. But I doubt our motives about any rescue are pure.

[chrisa]

20. It seems to be a common misconception that all of these girls are in the same place. They probably

aren't. Most of them are probably sold, and the rest are heavily dispersed. "Saving them" would actually be more of a police operation, not a military attack on a base, or something like that. The Nigerian police would be the best tool for doing this. We can give them help with intelligence.

[KittyWampus]

21. A rational person would understand going into N. Korea would start an international incident.

And would almost certainly end with many, many innocents dead or endangered at the very least.

Furthermore, the USA was asked for assistance.

[Scuba]

23. A rational person would understand my post wasn't about North Korea.

But good try at smearing me!

[NuclearDem]

15. Well, there was a massive grassroots outcry about the kidnappings.

And there's also more of a difference between Nigeria and North Korea than just in the energy sector.

Not excusing the lack of attention towards North Korea's children, but it's not entirely about oil.

[Scuba]

19. I'm just cynical, 'cause it seem our claimed humanitarian urges always point to profit of some sort.

[NuclearDem]

22. Oh I don't necessarily disagree with you.

An empire will always try to find some way to profit and mask it in humanitarianism to wave off criticism.

And frankly, I don't even necessarily disagree with your first post, it's just that there are numerous factors which complicate humanitarian relief in North Korea, like the notorious difficulties in reporting news not sanctioned by the regime, the widespread corruption that ends up putting that aid in the rulers' pockets or stomachs rather than the people, and it still legally being in a state of war with its neighbor.

If it had been just about any other country, I probably wouldn't have said anything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Easy: because there's nothing America can do in North Korea.

The problems worth paying attention to are *not* the worst problems, they're the problems where you can make the biggest difference.

What that means is that if a powerful state, like North Korea (or, still more so, China or Russia), commits human rights abuses, the US should probably be circumspect in its response, but if a weakish group like Boko Haram does, it may (and note that I don't go further than "may", because I don't know enough about the practicalities) be worth trying to stop them.

[Scuba]

27. And what a difference! Just look at Iraq!

[elehhhhna]

30. not to mention the children in Appalachia

[Scuba]

31. Yep, plenty of kids suffering right here at home.

[MineralMan]

8. Typical Libertarian Claptrap.

Maybe this writer is looking for a gig with Greenwald's new outfit.

Disgusting.

Let's see who steps up to defend this racist, jingoistic bullshit.

[JoePhilly]

9. Alternate Title: Those kidnapped girls ... F**k'em.

[Supersedeas]

28. that's pretty direct

[JoePhilly]

29. And very tweetable ;-)

[geek tragedy]

10. A more articulate version of Greenwald. nt

[randome]

14. Next time you see a homeless guy on the street, just walk on, right? It's none of your business.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[chrisa]

16. I get the point, but "None of Our Business" is overboard.

It's everyone's business. Fundamentalism is a scourge. These are our fellow human beings.

We shouldn't send troops, but the writer seems to go to the other nonsensical extreme.

[Capt. Obvious]

18. Fuck Glenn Greenwald!

[MohRokTah]

33. Sounds like a long verion of Greenwald's tweet. eom

[Nye Bevan]

36. Yep. If 200 Canadian girls were kidnapped in Niagara Falls, Canada,

and the Prime Minister of Canada asked for US assistance in rescuing them, our response should be "sorry, we only protect American lives". Because American lives are simply that much more important than foreign lives.

[Cha]

37. Yeah.. GG and this idiot are libertarian assholes. Fuck them and the stupid ideology they

rode in on.