#Warfare

After the monumental success of Jen Psaki's "promise of hashtag", the administration is scrapping the bottom of the 'ever-more-ridiculous' barrel to come up with what is undoubtedly what they consider to be the best idea that they have. Pander to people who are trendy. To this end, along comes no less than Michelle Obama, the woman who stands behind the man who leads from behind, with this contribution:

"Our prayers are with the missing Nigerian girls and their families. It's time to #BringBackOurGirls. - mo"

Her pouty duck face of sadness will only provide some mirth to the Boko Haram terrorists who have kidnapped hundreds of adolescent schoolgirls as fodder for the sex slave trade. The recent attacks also resulted in over 300 people slaughtered in the process: throats cut, shot in the head, some burned alive.

Hastag warfare to this date has had as much impact in Nigeria as it has had in Ukraine. This, in all fairness, is also equivalent to productiveness of the administrations efforts to stop chemical warfare in Syria and come to a peace deal with Palestine and Isreal. Which (for those of you who are not picking up satire and vehemince in my text up to this point, is nada, zilch, zippo, nothing.)

This administration has had absolutely zero impact on world events over the past year.

Which begs the question, why through up this petty attempt at solace? Does Michelle actually believe that the families of the girls will receive some comfort from this narcissistic little tweet? Pretty sure market penetration of twitter is pretty low in Nigeria considering only about a third of the population even has internet access. Let's assume for a moment then that the answer is 'No'. 

Hashtag warfare, shockingly enough, is not about winning over any enemy abroad, but about winning easy points at home. The hope is that as people see this sorrowful face spread across twitter, a sympathetic reaction will befall not the victims of the violence of Nigeria, but rather those here who are powerless to stop them, our leadership.

After all, what could the US do to combat these kinds of atrocities? 

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton (also hopping on the hashtag bandwagon) repeatedly and inexplicably refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, despite many attempts by the CIA, FBI, and members of Congress to have her make that declaration in the wake of a 2011 bombing in Abuja (Last November, under Sec. Kerry, the group was finally added). This was hand-in-glove with the refusal to recognize a terrorist risk in Benghazi because, after all, the Obama campaign kept insisting that groups like the al Qaeda-affiliated Boko Haram were on the run.

In the end, we find ourselves once again reacting with disgust while hiding the paper trail that makes is obvious that we shouldn't be all that surprised by what's happening in the first place. It is apparent that this administration is concerned first, foremost, and almost exclusively about one war, the war of perception. Specifically, making sure the perception of him and his Presidency is just as trendy and hip as the hashtags that he is now basing his legacy on.