It's Time To Rescue The Nigerian Girls

Jay HallenContributor

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Two weeks ago, Michelle Obama posed for a photograph holding a sign saying “#BringBackOurGirls,” in support of the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria by Al Qaeda-affiliate Boko Haram. While the sentiment is sincere, there is something perverse about an American First Lady – perhaps the second most powerful person in the world – resorting to social media to counteract a crime against humanity. Can a single image better encapsulate American futility? Islamist terrorists kidnap and rape at gunpoint, and the U.S. responds with hashtags. Little wonder that Putin laughs at us, while Chinacontinues to harass its neighbors in the East China Sea.

Fortunately, there is more the U.S. can do, and Mrs. Obama should start lobbying her husband. The kidnapping debacle demands American intervention, and the President should execute a rescue mission with an elite unit such as a Ranger or SEAL team TISI -0.29%. While West African nations are currently deliberating joint military action (even local hunters have even pledged their support),Washington knows full well that only decisive U.S. action has a serious chance of success.

Severe human rights violations occur all over the world, and have from the beginning of time. The U.S. cannot possibly intervene on all of them, but in this case, several arguments strongly endorse a rescue mission:

Humanitarianism. Any argument for a rescue mission begins and ends with the human impact. School-going girls have been kidnapped, and are being held hostage by a gang of Islamic extremists bent on selling them into sex slavery, if not murdering them outright. There is no moral ambiguity: the actions of Boko Haram (whose name literally translates to “Western education is a sin”) are a crime against humanity, and a direct affront to female educational advancement, a theme that resonates deeply in all parts of the developing world. Decent people everywhere have been united in their outrage.

Boko Haram is a legitimate threat to regional security. A successful rescue mission would seriously weaken Boko Haram, which has used the kidnapping as a propaganda tool. Boko Haram is an al-Qaeda affiliate whose power has steadily grown over the past year. Islamic extremism very much remains the greatest threat, and the only existential one, to America and her allies. Boko Haram threatens to open a new front in the war on terror.

Sub-Saharan West Africa, from Senegal to Cameroon, has a large Muslim population that to date have been moderate and disengaged from global jihadi activities. In fact, West Africa has one of the world’s highest concentrations of Muslims and Christians living side-by-side, mostly peacefully as neighbors over the last decades since independence. The religious mix provides fertile ground for radicalization, and Boko Haram has repeatedly tried to spark a sectarian war. This kidnapping, which targeted a school of mostly Christian girls, is yet another attempt to provoke reprisal. Not only would a sectarian civil war ignite Muslim-Christian tensions elsewhere in the world, but in would destabilize Nigeria’s weak national government, and the country of 169 million would descend into a vacuum of lawlessness, like Libya (population 6 million) but on a far worse scale. At best, Boko Haram’s endgame resembles that of Ansar Dine, which declared a breakaway Sharia state in northern Mali in 2012. At worst, it results in ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Critics of intervention would likely cite the “Black Hawk Down” disaster in Somalia in 1993, the bitter memory of which still lingers among the Army Rangers and Deltas. In Somalia, the U.S. intervened among rival warlords that were starving the civilian population, but posed no direct threat to U.S. strategic interests. It was a humanitarian mission, not a geopolitical one. With Boko Haram it is both, and the strategic stakes are far higher.

Rescue missions play to America’s strength. If there is one area where America excels, it is targeted military missions. Removing Saddam and the Taliban from power were the “easy” parts of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Seal Team TISI -0.29% Six’s flawless execution of the bin Laden mission showed the American military at its best. Even Hollywood, no cheerleader of the Pentagon, could not resist glorifying success stories in Captain Phillips and Zero Dark Thirty, both Academy Award nominees. There should be no doubt that America’s elite military units are up to the task of rescuing the Nigerian girls. President Obama and the American public know this, and should have full faith and confidence in a positive outcome.

The mission is well-defined. Military action is most palatable when objectives are clearly defined. The open-ended nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the difficulty of identifying “victory,” played a major role in U.S. public opinion turning against them. Even in Libya, the air assault that quickly toppled Qaddafi set the conditions for the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since 1979, leading Americans to question the bombing mission’s original purpose. Situations such as these make Americans extremely uncomfortable with the use of military force.

The mission in Nigeria, however, could not be more straightforward and limited: rescue the girls, and deliver them safely to their families. If the mission weakens Boko Haram, so much the better. No nation-building is needed to accomplish this, and the existing government in Abuja is friendly. The clarity of the mission and the definition of victory both differentiate intervention in Nigeria from the experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Bipartisan political support. Domestically, this is a rare occasion in which core principles of both the political left and right converge. Both sides have loudly denounced the kidnapping and called for action. Where the left sees a watershed moment for global women’s rights, the right sees the next front in the war against al-Qaeda. Wide backing extends internationally as well. European nations have unanimously voiced their support for the kidnapped girls, and even China and Russia would have little excuse to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution. All military action, even that which is purely humanitarian, requires political calculation and risk. In this case the politics could not be more accommodating for the President. Given the current era of near-permanent Congressional gridlock, this should not be overlooked.

Revival of America’s moral authority. America’s reputation as a global force for good suffered greatly in the last decade, from the collateral damage of Iraq and Afghanistan. A successful rescue would begin to reverse this tarnished image. While bolstering reputation should never be a reason for American military action, it is certainly a fine byproduct. Few will admit it, but the world still craves American leadership, particularly when it comes to preserving individual liberties. The world knows that rescuing the girls would be an act of compassion, the kind of mission that only the United States could or would unilaterally undertake. If this happens, America the indispensable lives on.

An American-led rescue mission makes sense on many fronts: it is morally right, it is strategically right, and it is well within the military’s capabilities. In a dangerous world, only U.S. firepower can Bring Back Our Girls.