The recent United States airstrike targeting alleged terrorist positions in Northwest Nigeria has ignited a contentious debate among experts regarding the implications for Nigeria’s sovereignty and national interests. While confirmed by both Washington and Abuja as a collaborative counter-terrorism effort, analysts caution that such engagements carry significant risks and could have unforeseen consequences for the West African nation’s long-term stability and autonomy. The operation, which reportedly struck targets in Jabo, Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State, underscores the complex challenges inherent in international military partnerships.
The strike, executed on Friday, December 26, followed a directive from former US President Donald Trump, who publicly stated he ordered the action as Commander-in-Chief against ISIS fighters responsible for attacking and killing Christians in Northwest Nigeria. His declaration was echoed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who warned of further robust action if the violence persisted. This high-profile US intervention, complete with video evidence released on social media, brought immediate international attention to Nigeria’s ongoing struggle with insurgency.
Nigeria’s Federal Government swiftly confirmed its cooperation with the United States in conducting “precise airstrikes” in the North-West. Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, affirmed Nigeria’s commitment to structured security cooperation with international partners, including the US, to combat terrorism and violent extremism. The Ministry emphasized that this collaboration involves intelligence sharing, strategic coordination, and other support, all consistent with international law, respect for sovereignty, and shared commitments to regional security.
However, diplomatic expert Ahmad Isma’il expressed profound skepticism regarding the nature and intent of the US involvement. He cautioned Nigeria against uncritically embracing joint military operations with the United States, asserting that Washington’s interventions are invariably driven by its own strategic interests, not altruism. Isma’il challenged any notion that the US acts solely for Nigeria’s protection, drawing parallels with US actions in other resource-rich nations, suggesting that foreign military presence might not be exclusively for combating insecurity and could prove difficult to curtail once established.
Isma’il also highlighted a notable discrepancy in the public narratives surrounding the operation. He pointed out the difference between Trump’s justification, which focused on “Christian Genocide,” and Nigeria’s stated aim of attacking “insurgents.” This divergence, he argued, raises questions about the Nigerian government’s full control and understanding of the operational objectives, potentially undermining its leverage and strategic independence within the partnership.
Retired Captain Abdullahi Bakoji, a security expert, offered a nuanced perspective, acknowledging both the potential advantages and inherent risks of the US airstrike. On one hand, he recognized that the deployment of advanced US drones and satellite technology could significantly enhance Nigeria’s surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. Bakoji suggested that precision attacks could demoralize insurgents and, through potential training benefits, strengthen the Nigerian military’s operational effectiveness.
Conversely, Bakoji issued a stark warning about the potential erosion of Nigeria’s sovereignty. He stressed that an uninformed populace might perceive foreign military presence as an unwelcome interference, providing fertile ground for insurgent propaganda. Such narratives, he warned, could be exploited to convince impressionable youths that external powers aim to dominate Nigeria, thereby fueling anti-government sentiment and potentially exacerbating the conflict.
Furthermore, Bakoji underscored the critical risk to civilian lives. He cautioned that airstrikes based on flawed or insufficient intelligence could inadvertently harm innocent people, leading to widespread anger, resentment, and further social unrest. He firmly asserted that military action, particularly foreign-led operations, constitutes merely a short-term palliative. Nigeria’s pervasive insecurity, he argued, stems from deep-rooted socio-economic and governance issues that military solutions alone cannot effectively address or resolve.
The incident thus spotlights the delicate balance Nigeria must strike in leveraging international assistance to combat terrorism while safeguarding its national sovereignty and managing the complex geopolitical interests of its partners. The warnings from experts urge a cautious and comprehensive approach, emphasizing the need for robust oversight, clear strategic alignment, and a long-term vision that prioritizes indigenous solutions over reliance on external military interventions.
