The deployment of a United States military advisory team to Nigeria and a Christmas Day airstrike on a terrorist stronghold in Sokoto have done little to stem the wave of killings and abductions sweeping the country. If anything, the strike appears to have triggered a surge in retaliatory attacks, exposing deep fractures in Nigerian society over how far foreign military involvement should go.
The debate has drawn in activists, retired generals, security analysts, civil society leaders, and regional groups — each offering starkly different prescriptions for a crisis that shows no sign of abating.
“Strike Again — Without Telling Our Military”
Some voices are not merely welcoming deeper American involvement; they are demanding it. Zik Gbemre, Coordinator of the Niger Delta Peace Coalition, argued bluntly that the Christmas Day operation succeeded precisely because Nigerian military commanders were kept in the dark. In his view, sharing intelligence with local officers is counterproductive, as he believes top military and political figures profit from the continuation of the conflict. He called on Washington to carry out further strikes independently, without coordinating with Abuja.
Security consultant Nasiru Braimah echoed the demand for stronger foreign assistance, though he framed the Nigerian Army’s difficulties less as betrayal and more as a resource and strategy problem. He argued that troops cannot fight effectively without proper equipment, modern tactics, and adequate welfare — and that corruption among political leaders has allowed insecurity to fester.
Mercenaries Over American Boots
Former MOSIED spokesman Amaebi Clarkson took a different position, warning that direct US combat deployment would not solve the problem and could make things worse. Drawing on America’s record in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, he argued that wherever Washington has intervened militarily, instability has deepened rather than eased. His preferred solution was a return to the approach used briefly under former President Goodluck Jonathan — hiring South African private military contractors, who he credits with nearly dismantling Boko Haram in the northeast before the effort was abandoned.
Chief Festus Ogwuche of the Campaign for Social Justice and Constitutional Democracy agreed that partnership with the Nigerian state has consistently been undermined by the involvement of politically connected figures in sponsoring terrorism — a charge that has surfaced repeatedly in security circles for years.
“More Than Intelligence Gathering”
Civil Liberties Organisation chairman in Bayelsa State, David West, said he had previously opposed the idea of foreign military intervention but has changed his mind given the scale of daily carnage. He supports expanded US involvement on the condition that Nigerian authorities remain formally in the loop on all operations. Political activist Blessing Adima went further, arguing that terrorists now appear to be better equipped than Nigerian soldiers, making direct foreign operational support unavoidable.
Public affairs analyst Ayo Fadaka struck a more measured tone, recalling how Nigeria once fought its civil war without any external help and took great pride in its military self-sufficiency. He suggested that the current crisis reflects a structural mismatch — the Nigerian military was trained for conventional warfare and is now confronting an entirely different kind of conflict. American experience, including hard lessons from Afghanistan, could help retrain Nigerian forces. He stopped short of calling for combat deployment but urged the government to pursue the fight with far greater intensity, including further targeted strikes if necessary.
Caution From Security Professionals
Retired Brigadier-General Idada Ikponmwen, former Provost Marshal of the Nigerian Army, framed the argument in stark terms: sovereignty is meaningless if citizens are not alive to enjoy it. He supports seeking foreign help where the state has failed to protect its people, but insists the deeper problem is structural — security agencies have been assigned each other’s mandates, creating overlap, rivalry, and inefficiency. Returning each institution to its proper role, he argued, would do more than any foreign deployment.
Retired AIG Austin Iwar backed enhanced foreign collaboration but was careful to distinguish between support and substitution. He noted that US satellite imagery and signals intelligence have already proved valuable in tracking insurgent movements around Lake Chad, and that Special Forces trainers are building genuine capacity. However, he warned that allowing Americans into direct combat roles risks making Nigerian soldiers complacent, hollowing out the very institutions the country needs to sustain long-term security.
Major Rasaki Salawu, pioneer Director of Operations of the Federal Road Safety Commission, offered perhaps the most detailed caution. He argued that the spike in violence following the Sokoto strike does not necessarily mean the operation emboldened the terrorists — it may instead reflect desperation and an attempt to project relevance after suffering a blow. He warned that foreign combat troops could become a propaganda gift to terrorist recruiters, who would frame the conflict as resistance against foreign occupation. The priority, in his view, must be reforming Nigeria’s own security architecture: better intelligence fusion, stronger inter-agency coordination, improved border management, and deeper community networks.
Northern Groups Draw a Hard Line
The sharpest opposition came from northern Nigeria. The Arewa Defence League declared outright resistance to any expansion of the US military footprint in the region, citing what it described as lasting damage done to Nigeria’s defence structure during a previous period of military cooperation under former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The group alleged that granting American access to defence doctrines at that time contributed to the long decline in military effectiveness that Nigeria is still paying for. Drawing parallels with US interventions across the Middle East and North Africa, it urged the government to pursue homegrown solutions and partnerships with neighbouring countries facing the same threats.
The Northern Youth Council of Nigeria echoed these concerns, cautioning against what it called the outsourcing of national security. While accepting the value of intelligence sharing and technical training, the council argued that Nigeria’s crisis is fundamentally one of political will, not firepower. It also raised pointed questions about the country’s ever-growing security budgets, suggesting that the failure to achieve results despite massive spending points to vested interests that benefit from the continuation of insecurity — and demanded full transparency in how security funds are managed.
A Nation at a Crossroads
What unites nearly all sides of this debate — despite their sharp disagreements — is a recognition that the status quo is unsustainable. Citizens are being killed and abducted at an alarming rate. The military, whatever its reasons, is not winning. And the government has yet to articulate a clear, coherent strategy that commands broad public confidence.
Whether the answer lies in more American strikes, African mercenaries, deeper institutional reform, or some combination of all three remains bitterly contested. What is no longer in dispute is that something has to change.
RAD ALSO:
- Putin Offers to Mediate Iran–US Tensions After Collapse of Negotiations
- INEC Denies Copying Statement from Tinubu’s Aide, Insists Claims Are False
- Ambode Lost Second Term Over Failure To Align With Tinubu’s Expectations – Ex-Presidential Aide
- Dozens Feared Dead as Airstrike Hits Border Market in Borno–Yobe
- Dauda Lawal Mourns Victims Of Bandits’ Attack In Bukkuyum
