Al Jazeera: Boko Haram: To Fight or to Not Republicans and Democratic Senators discuss next step regarding Boko Haram Humanitarian Crisis.

UNITED STATES --- One of the deadliest attacks against innocent civilians in Nigeria happened yet again in recent years where 65 people were killed. The organisation behind the attack is believed to be Boko Haram. Although Nigerian military has been sent to assist the management of the violence, Boko Haram still retained control over some territories, launching other deadly suicide attacks and abduct civilians, mostly women and children. To make matters worse, Boko Haram took over lake chad, cutting off water supplies from the settlements around the lake. Rising concerns from other countries have been raised in the opinion to fight Boko Haram to cease the violence once and for all. As such, the Republicans and Democrats met up to discuss actions to be taken—to fight the notorious terrorists, Boko Haram, or not.

The Republicans believed strongly in the stance of “America comes first”. They argued that priorities need to be given to Americans instead of Nigerians and that American’s interest and

safety concerns should always come first. Romney argued that the government is not to “do

anything to endanger Americans in the form of sending troupes but if US Bases in Nigeria are attacked, they will step in and fight. Also, since information on the matter is not sufficient and there are no concrete evidences that Boko Haram is the cause of conflict, Republicans decide to not intervene at the moment. Therefore, their stance is to not devote too much resources to the issue. They have proposed the seemingly feasible solutions of increasing internal security measures through education, increasing security at US bases and increasing border control.

The Democrats on the other hand believed that the crisis indirectly affects America and that the understanding of security should not be limited to only military security as there are other forms of security such as social security. This is a valid point since the spread of homogenous propaganda

may cause social divisions which will influence politics and lead to social polarisation. This means that the Democrats push for unity against Boko Haram and against the seeping of extremist ideas into the US. They propose military control, information sharing, cutting off terrorist suppress and supply as well as deradicalisation.

It is true that Nigeria is US’s biggest economic supporter and it is only reasonable if US provide aid for curbing unrest of Boko Hara and in Lamar Alexander’s words, to attain “total destruction of the Boko Haram influence” so as to ensure the safety of Nigerian and Americans. However, this issue is not just about “war or anti-war” but also about finding the middle ground between intervening and isolationism as well as achieving agreement between the republican and Democratic Party. This means that a wholesome solution is required which satisfies both parties and takes into consideration all factors at the same time.

One solutions have been proposed to counter this issue. Since a full-on war will cause detrimental effects to US troupes, a good and effective solution to this would be air strikes through forms of drone attacks. This will be the best balance between taking action and to limit the bloodshed of innocent parties as well as US troupes. Additionally, this solution had been proven successful in previous cases of terrorism control, lending more credibility to it. Hence, after referencing to concerns from both the Republican and Democratic Party, it is concluded that an intervention is required in mitigating violent acts of Boko Haram but should be in the form of air attack.