Surprisingly, questions are being asked why the world easily aligns with the French in such cases, when it has not done so for Nigeria, over Boko Haram.
As often is the case, many have argued that although Britain and America have the ability to wipe out Boko Haram, they have failed to do so because of what is essentially, a regional consideration. In order words Nigeria doesn't matter as much to them.
While it is tempting to ignore these insinuations and maintain a degree of silence, after all, they are arguably, to all intents and purposes, mere conjectures, it does seem in order if one made a different contribution.
In truth, no one may say, with certainty, what the determining factors for high level governmental decisions are - unless they have bee privileged to be part of the relevant committee to recommended it, but given what we know, I have had to argue that, we must understand for one thing, that our disposition to issues that concern us also affects other people's reaction to our predicament.
Inferentially, a leader's initial reaction to acts of terror against his people, affects his capacity to attract outside help. It is a simple matter of syllogy - if you hate a certain pain so much, you are almost certain to be willing to accept help when offered.
Time and time again, France, and indeed, all civilized nations have shown their disdain for any form of acts of terror - irrespective of whether the individual is a citizen or not. Terror is terror, and very often seen, it hardly does a victim any good.
Now..in the case of Boko Haram, did the Nigerian government show immediate reaction and determination to counter it?
I remember watching a video of a BBC interview of former President Jonathan Goodluck was almost loosing his temper during an interview, when the journalist wondered why Nigeria had not showed as much seriousness in fighting back until the last months of his administration....
* Culled from Leadership Lane. Read the full article here: [ Leadership Lane.]