you, becausewith you just got back from nigeria. i want to start with what happened over the weekend. jonathan and others were called together for a summit. what do we know and what we believe happened in that meeting? isthe threat of boko haram becoming a regional problem. it is trying to create a lawless state between nigeria, chad, and egypt. they are creating this enclave where they can fully operate and do whatever they want to do. for allraining ground the terrorists in the african region. was called in paris to discuss how to declare full-scale war against boko haram. in terms of action on the ground, we haven't seen anything showing that that determination or the resolution has been implemented yet. tavis: i think most americans now, sadly, we all know the phrase al qaeda. tell me about oh, wrong -- tell me about boko haram, and i wonder if pose any threat to western civilization? >> any terrorist group anywhere in the world with the kind of ideology and manpower that boko capable ofs k -- attacking america. all they needed

we are certainly not going to , becausewith weapons we cannot and we could not cause any civilian harm what does that do to negotiations and the peace process? that is an interesting question. for those who believe that harry s truman was right in dropping the bomb, because it stopped japan in their tracks, how does that make sense if you are not able to use military force and cause civilian harm? these are the real questions that policymakers grapple with. the international forces in afghanistan created, in 2011-2012, a zero tolerance policy for civilian harm. we will not cause one civilian casualty. they had been beaten down to not cause harm. i can appreciate that, from and as an old -- ethical standpoint. say you are not going to cause any civilian harm, the population thinks they are protected. they are not. the population stop rejecting themselves and stop thinking that they need to do things to mitigate what happens on the ground and in the country. in the bigger picture, and makes us more likely to say that we will use military force. we are not going to cause civilian harm. do

we are certainly not going to , becausewith weapons we cannot and we could not cause any civilian harm that do to negotiations and the peace process? that is an interesting question. for those who believe that harry s truman was right in dropping the bomb, because it stopped japan in their tracks, how does that make sense if you are not able to use military force and cause civilian harm? these are the real questions that policymakers grapple with. the international forces in afghanistan created, in 2011-2012, a zero tolerance policy for civilian harm. we will not cause one civilian casualty. they had been beaten down to not cause harm. i can appreciate that, from and as an old -- ethical standpoint. say you are not going to cause any civilian harm, the population thinks they are protected. they are not. the population stop rejecting themselves and stop thinking that they need to do things to mitigate what happens on the ground and in the country. in the bigger picture, and makes us more likely to say that we will use military force. we are not going to cause civilian harm. do not worry