Does the U.S. Have to Rid the World of Boko Haram?

When it comes to
saving 300 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls, President Barack Obama’s
feelings are as understandable as U.S. military involvement is
misguided. Without giving specifics, he’s said that “a combination
of military, law enforcement, and other agencies” are already in
Nigeria.

In a recent column for Time, I argue that emotionalism
and trending topics on Twitter is no way to create a coherent and
effective foreign policy. A snippet:

“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.”

As a matter of fact, the U.S. does not have to rid the world of
Boko Haram, no matter how disturbing and repellent its actions are.
As with the once-fashionable hunt for Joseph Kony and the
Lord’s Resistance Army (remember that?), this is a battle to be
fought by the nations directly affected, with help from regional
and transnational bodies such as the UN. Until Boko Haram shows
itself ready, willing and able to do real damage to America, its
destruction should not be our goal. There is simply too much
awfulness going on in all the corners of the world for the U.S. to
wade into such situations.

For virtually the entirety of the 21st century, the U.S.
has racked up a perfectly miserable record in bringing stability
and calm to countries roiled by terrorists and civil war. Even
supporters of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars don’t claim the
U.S. left those countries better off. Obama’s unilateral and
unconstitutional decision to wage war in Libya didn’t just result
in the death of U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens and other Americans in
Benghazi, it has created a situation where “so many jihadists are
flocking to Libya, it’s becoming ‘Scumbag Woodstock.’”

Read the whole piece here.