The United States recently conducted airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants in north-western Nigeria, an intervention that has drawn a mixed reaction from Nigerian political figures. Segun Sowunmi, a prominent chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State, acknowledged the significance of the US action but concurrently expressed strong criticism regarding what he perceives as the belated arrival of international support in Nigeria’s protracted battle against terrorism.
Speaking in an interview following the strikes, Mr. Sowunmi asserted that global powers, particularly those possessing advanced security and surveillance capabilities, should have acted much earlier. He highlighted that despite the long-standing presence of “eyes in the sky” and the extensive capacities of many nations, a timely and decisive response was conspicuously absent as the security situation deteriorated across parts of Nigeria.
Sowunmi specifically pointed to the perceived silence of countries like Britain and China, nations with considerable historical and economic interests in Nigeria. He contrasted their inaction with the eventual intervention by the United States, remarking that while Britain, which he suggested should have a “bigger interest,” remained silent, and China, actively involved in various projects, also held back, it was the US that ultimately “spoke up.”
This American intervention came after then-President Donald Trump announced on Christmas Day that US forces had carried out the strikes, explicitly warning of further action if militant attacks persisted. President Trump justified these operations as a direct response to what he characterized as a “genocide against Christians” in Nigeria, claiming the violence had reached alarming and unacceptable levels that demanded international attention and intervention.
Despite his criticism of the delayed global response, Mr. Sowunmi commended the United States for its collaborative approach with Nigerian security agencies. He underscored the critical importance of this partnership, cautioning that any unilateral military action undertaken without prior consultation with the Nigerian government would have raised serious questions about national sovereignty and the country’s deterrent capabilities, potentially complicating an already delicate security landscape.
Sowunmi further urged Nigerians, irrespective of their religious affiliations, to unequivocally view terrorism as a national tragedy rather than framing it along ethnic or religious lines. He advised that a more effective and unified strategy for Nigeria would involve treating terrorism primarily as a form of criminality, thereby fostering a cohesive national response against the pervasive threat that transcends communal divisions.
The ongoing insecurity in Nigeria, particularly in the North West, has been a significant concern for both local authorities and international observers. The region has witnessed a surge in violence attributed to various armed groups, including elements linked to the Islamic State, which have engaged in kidnappings, banditry, and attacks on communities, displacing thousands and exacerbating humanitarian challenges.
The context of these US airstrikes and the subsequent reactions from Nigerian political figures like Sowunmi underscore the complex dynamics of international counter-terrorism efforts. It highlights the delicate balance between sovereign integrity, the urgent need for external support in combating transnational threats, and the political implications of foreign military involvement within a nation’s borders.
Sowunmi’s remarks also serve as a broader commentary on the role of the international community in global security crises. His contention that advanced surveillance capabilities should have prompted earlier intervention raises questions about intelligence sharing, diplomatic pressures, and the thresholds for direct military action when sovereign nations struggle to contain internal threats with international dimensions.
Ultimately, the PDP chieftain’s perspective advocates for a proactive, collaborative, and nationally unified approach to tackling terrorism. His emphasis on de-ethnicizing the conflict and treating it as a criminal enterprise suggests a strategic shift in narrative that could potentially garner broader support and more effectively address the root causes and manifestations of insecurity across Nigeria.
This development continues to fuel discussions within Nigeria’s political circles regarding the effectiveness of current security strategies, the necessity of international partnerships, and the long-term stability of the nation. The US intervention, while welcomed by some, also serves as a stark reminder of the persistent and evolving nature of terrorist threats that demand continuous vigilance and adaptable responses from both national and global actors.
