I suppose abuses by the Nigerian military is still the least of worst considering the deaths by Boka Harem.

January 18, 2015

By Kathleen Caulderwood

Boko Haram members (click here) have killed thousands of people, kidnapped hundreds of children and claimed responsibility for increasingly violent attacks around northern Nigeria for more than five years. Hundreds died during the Islamist militant group’s latest and deadliest massacre in the city of Baga.

A week later, one reporter asked the White House an obvious question at a briefing, “Why haven’t we seen U.S. intervention in Nigeria?”

The U.S. has employed military intervention to stop brutal campaigns before, and recently announced plans to send 1,000 soldiers and personnel to help Syrian rebels fight the Islamic State group, another terrorist organization known for widespread brutality, as the New York Times reported. But Nigeria presents a difficult case.

Although Boko Haram is an obvious problem, a U.S. decision to work with a government associated with corruption and possible war crimes presents a dilemma. But experts say there are ways to intervene without a military presence. It will just take time....

...Although Boko Haram’s abuses are horrific, Nigerian security forces aren’t blameless themselves. 

Amnesty International recently documented large-scale human-rights abuses by the Nigerian military and police forces in a report titled “Welcome to Hell Fire.” These abuses included torture, enforced disappearances and the deaths of people in custody. But even more troubling for Amnesty researchers was the impunity with which Nigerian forces operate.

“Security officials are rarely held accountable are rarely held accountable for failures to follow due process or for perpetrating human-rights violations such as torture,” Amnesty International said in the report. “The absence of acknowledgement and public condemnation of such violations by senior government officials further assists in creating a climate for impunity and raises serious concern about the political will to end such human rights violations."

Earnest pointed to this problem at his press briefing. “We’re going to keep the pressure on the security forces to do a better job of protecting their population from the violent extremists, while at the same time those security forces do a better job of respecting basic human rights,” he said.'''...

To align with the Nigerian military is to realize most of the country opposes them because of their atrocities in killing villagers to benefit the petroleum industry. There are vast legal monetary settlements from the petroleum industry that was suppose to benefit the villagers. The money disappeared. The small circle in control at the capital city made use of it without doing anything to benefit the people. 

How does the USA make a choice in where to begin with this mess? First Lady Michelle Obama attempted to unite the country behind the President to find the will to oppose this scourge of insurgents. It has yet to work while the sentiment is strong because of the upcoming elections. If the Nigerian people would unite and find the will to act against this insurgency the place for USA aid and training for soldiers would be clear, but, there is no structure that is remotely decisive.

Nigeria's future is even worse than that of Syria's. Syria has a coalition of countries willing to act to contain the violence while soldiers to fight on behalf of the people of Syria are being trained. None of that is remotely possible in Nigeria because of it's violent history among the people.