Nigeria’s Fight Against Terrorism: A Critical Look at Shifting Strategies

The Nigerian Presidency has responded forcefully to criticisms regarding its handling of the nation’s ongoing struggle with terrorism, asserting that President Tinubu is meeting the challenge head-on. The statement, issued via presidential spokesperson Sunday Dare, defends the administration’s “whole-of-government strategy,” while simultaneously casting blame on previous administrations for allowing the problem to fester. It’s a familiar tactic in politics, but does it hold water?

Dare’s statement explicitly points the finger at former President Obasanjo, alleging that the “ideological foundations and early cells of Boko Haram were incubated” during his tenure. The claim suggests a lack of decisive action in the face of early warning signs. There’s truth to this. Many security analysts have suggested Obasanjo could have approached the challenge differently. Still, labeling him solely responsible simplifies a complex situation.

The statement correctly highlights the multifaceted nature of the terrorist threat Nigeria faces. It’s not just Boko Haram. ISIS-linked networks, al-Qaeda affiliates, bandits morphing into extremist cells, and cross-border gangs all contribute to a volatile mix. These groups, the statement notes, share resources and intelligence. Given these facts, a unified, multi-pronged approach is not just desirable; it’s essential.

Tinubu’s strategy, as described, seems to involve both kinetic (military) and non-kinetic (socio-economic) measures. Military modernization, intelligence gathering, and targeted operations are coupled with efforts to restore governance in neglected communities, counter radicalization, stabilize the economy, and build trust with local populations. It is the right approach, but execution is everything.

It’s worth noting that the statement emphasizes national unity and coordination, underscoring Nigeria’s willingness to collaborate with allies like the United States. Yet, there’s a firm stance against outsourcing internal security. This reflects a growing sense of self-reliance.

The criticism leveled against past leaders touches on a sensitive point: the potential for public pronouncements to undermine national security efforts. Suggesting that past leaders are giving “psychological victories to terrorists” raises the stakes.

One has to remember, this isn’t a new script. We’ve seen similar narratives play out across different administrations. Each new leader inherits a set of pre-existing problems. They then attempt to address them, often while simultaneously attempting to distance themselves from the perceived failures of their predecessors.

The statement’s call for Obasanjo to offer support, rather than criticism, sounds reasonable on the surface. Yet, constructive criticism, even if uncomfortable, can be valuable. It’s vital to create space for different opinions.

In any case, the effectiveness of Tinubu’s strategy will ultimately be judged by its results. Improved security, reduced violence, and a return to stability in affected regions are the metrics that matter.

This challenge of terrorism is not new. The ongoing conflict requires a constant reevaluation of strategy. There must be a commitment to transparency and accountability. The government must be honest about its successes and its failures.

From my experience in watching these patterns, what truly makes a difference is sustained, consistent effort. The problem demands long-term solutions that address the root causes of extremism. These causes include poverty, lack of education, and social injustice. Military force alone won’t solve this crisis.

Read Original

Keywords: Nigeria terrorism fight, Tinubu terrorism strategy, Boko Haram Nigeria, Nigeria security challenges, Counter terrorism Nigeria, Nigeria national security, Terrorism Obasanjo, Nigeria extremism solutions