The reported United States military airstrikes on Nigerian soil—allegedly targeting terrorist elements in the North-West—have once again ignited a deeply emotional, divisive, and politically charged debate about terrorism, religion, sovereignty, and leadership failure in Nigeria. While the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) publicly suggested that the operation was conducted with the knowledge of “Nigerian authorities,” reactions at home have ranged from cautious approval to outright condemnation, exposing how fragile Nigeria’s internal consensus on security has become.
At the heart of this controversy lies a dangerous mix of facts, half-truths, ideological narratives, and social media manipulation—elements that have repeatedly undermined Nigeria’s capacity to address its security challenges with clarity, unity, and sovereignty.
U.S. Airstrikes in Nigeria: Joint Operation or Sovereignty Breach?
If the military strikes against terrorist targets in Sokoto State were genuinely coordinated with Nigerian authorities, as claimed by AFRICOM on its verified platforms, then such cooperation—strictly from a counter-terrorism standpoint—can be described as defensible. Terrorist groups operating in parts of northern Nigeria have long ceased to be mere security threats; they function as metastasizing cancer cells, destroying communities, displacing millions, and normalizing brutality.
Terrorists live by violence and die by it. No serious nation disputes the legitimacy of using force against armed groups that reject the authority of the state.
However, legitimacy in counter-terrorism does not automatically translate to legitimacy in governance or sovereignty. Even if Nigeria’s military consented, the optics remain troubling: Africa’s most populous nation, with one of the largest armed forces on the continent, requiring a foreign power to conduct kinetic operations within its borders.
This is not a victory. It is an indictment.
Foreign powers can assist, advise, or complement—but they cannot permanently fight Nigeria’s wars. Ultimate peace and security can only come from Nigerians themselves, under competent, credible, and nationally trusted leadership.
Terrorism and the Faith Narrative: A Country Held Hostage by Selective Truths
One of the most explosive aspects of the current debate is the recurring claim that terrorism in Nigeria is exclusively or primarily a campaign of religious extermination against Christians.
Christian leaders, communities, and advocacy groups have consistently argued that a pattern of targeted killings, church attacks, abductions, and forced displacement constitutes a form of genocide. They have presented timelines, figures, victim testimonies, and regional data—particularly from the Middle Belt and parts of the North-East—to support this claim.
On the other side, government officials and some commentators insist that terrorism in Nigeria is non-religious in intent, describing it instead as generalized criminality and insurgency that affects all Nigerians regardless of faith.
Muslim communities in northern Nigeria have also pushed back against the genocide narrative, emphasizing that they, too, are victims of Boko Haram, ISWAP, banditry, and mass kidnappings. Entire Muslim villages have been wiped out; mosques destroyed; traditional rulers assassinated.
Yet here lies the credibility gap: while Christian groups have compiled extensive documentation, Muslim counter-claims have largely relied on anecdotal rebuttals rather than equally structured, verifiable datasets with timelines and casualty records.
In the absence of a unified, transparent, and independently verified national security database, the vacuum has been filled by competing religious narratives—each amplified by emotion, trauma, and distrust of the state.
Nigeria’s Social Media Trap: How a Divided Nation Becomes a Global Pawn
Perhaps the most disturbing dimension of this crisis is how easily Nigerians are manipulated online.
With one of the largest and most active social media populations in Africa, Nigeria has become fertile ground for information warfare. External actors—state and non-state alike—have learned that all it takes is to pick a side, frame a compelling moral narrative, and unleash it into Nigeria’s polarized digital ecosystem.
Christians versus Muslims. North versus South. Government versus people. Nigeria versus the West.
Once the narrative lands, thousands rush to amplify it—often without verification—defending foreign interests that would, in reality, deny them visas, dignity, or relevance.
In this digital chaos, Nigerians now regularly speak against their own country, portraying Nigeria as irredeemable while absolving external powers whose geopolitical interests rarely align with Nigerian lives.
This is not activism. It is strategic manipulation.
Terrorism Is Not a Northern Monopoly
Another uncomfortable truth often ignored is that terrorism does not exist only in northern Nigeria.
Calls for U.S. airstrikes in the South-East against the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) reflect growing frustration with selective outrage. IPOB’s armed wing has engaged in targeted killings, enforcement of illegal sit-at-home orders, attacks on security personnel, and intimidation of civilians.
If terrorism is defined by violence against the state and civilians to achieve political goals, then Nigeria must confront all manifestations equally—without ethnic or regional sentimentality.
However, the claim that there are targeted Christian killings in the South-East lacks evidence comparable to what has been documented in parts of the North and Middle Belt. This distinction matters. Precision matters. Facts matter.
Nigeria must stop behaving like a fragile infant in its own affairs—reactive, emotional, and inconsistent.
Christmas Day Strikes and the Crisis of Leadership
Reports that U.S. forces conducted strikes on Nigerian soil on Christmas Day—announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump and senior U.S. defense officials—only deepen concerns about Nigeria’s weakening sovereignty.
While the Nigerian government later claimed awareness and described the operation as a joint effort with “international partners,” the vagueness of this explanation reinforces public suspicion. Nigerians were not addressed with clarity, confidence, or authority—only after-the-fact justifications.
This silence speaks volumes.
A nation that cannot clearly articulate who authorizes foreign military action within its borders has already surrendered a portion of its sovereignty.
Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria increasingly appears like a spectator to decisions affecting its territorial integrity. The tragedy is not merely that foreign powers act—it is that Nigerian leadership appears unable or unwilling to convincingly lead.
Sovereignty Cannot Be Outsourced
The confirmed strike on a village in Sokoto raises a fundamental question: does Washington truly understand Nigeria’s complex social fabric, or does it simply view Nigeria as another counter-terrorism theater?
History suggests the latter.
U.S. foreign policy is not humanitarian—it is strategic. Civilian casualties, cultural nuance, and long-term instability are often collateral considerations. No American president—past or present—will prioritize Nigerian lives above American interests.
Only Nigerians can do that.
Only informed, courageous, and nationally accountable leadership can secure Nigeria.
Final Truth: Failure of the State, Not the People
The deepest regret remains unchanged: Nigeria’s government has failed to protect its citizens.
Long before Boko Haram, long before ISWAP, long before banditry, there were unresolved grievances, ignored massacres, and institutional decay. The question of Christian genocide cannot be dismissed by government press statements alone. Nor can it be affirmed solely through emotion.
If genocide does not exist, then let every side present verifiable facts, figures, and timelines. Truth does not fear scrutiny.
Until then, Nigeria remains trapped—between foreign intervention, domestic denial, religious suspicion, and leadership paralysis.
And that, more than any airstrike, is Nigeria’s greatest security threat.
0 Comments