The recent military strikes carried out by the United States against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) terrorists in Tangaza, Sokoto State have generated considerable debate, with some quarters viewing the intervention through a distorted lens of suspicion rather than recognizing it for what it truly represents: a significant victory in Nigeria’s ongoing battle against terrorism. The operation, which decimated multiple terrorist camps, should be celebrated as a landmark moment in international cooperation against violent extremism that has plagued Nigeria for far too long.
For years, ISWAP and its affiliated terrorist groups including bandits have unleashed unprecedented sorrow, tears, and blood upon innocent Nigerians. Communities across the Northeast and Northwest have been terrorized by these merchants of death who have shown no mercy to their victims—whether Christian or Muslim. They have burned villages, kidnapped people , even schoolchildren, displaced millions, and created a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportions.
The unrestrained and unprovoked violence has disrupted agriculture, education, and commerce, leaving entire regions in perpetual fear. Against this backdrop of sustained brutality, the US airstrikes represent not an infringement on Nigerian sovereignty but rather a much-needed reinforcement in a battle that demands every available resource and capability.
President Donald Trump and the United States deserve commendation for such decisive action and, perhaps more importantly, for the manner in which this operation was conducted.
Rather than acting unilaterally—which would have been problematic—the Trump administration demonstrated respect for Nigerian sovereignty by fully coordinating with Nigerian authorities at the highest levels. Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar’s account of the coordination process reveals a textbook example of how such operations should be conducted: Nigerian intelligence formed the foundation of the strike, consultations occurred between the foreign ministers of both nations, and President Bola Tinubu personally authorized Nigerian participation before the operation proceeded.
READ ALSO; 10 things to know about late actress Allwell Ademola
This is not colonialism or imperialism, as some critics would have us believe. This is a partnership. This is the international community exercising its responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities while simultaneously respecting the sovereignty of nations. Nigeria maintained full agency throughout the process—providing intelligence, granting permission, and participating actively in an operation on its own soil. The terrorists were eliminated, no innocent lives were reported lost, and Nigeria’s territorial integrity remained intact. This is precisely what win-win cooperation looks like in the 21st century.
The United States, in carrying out this operation, fulfilled its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine—a principle that recognizes that sovereignty is not a license for governments to abandon their populations to mass atrocities, nor is it a barrier to the international community assisting when such threats emerge. Nigeria, for its part, demonstrated the maturity and pragmatism of a nation that recognizes its own limitations and is willing to accept assistance from capable partners. There is no shame in this; there is only wisdom.
Moving forward, this operation should serve as a template for expanded cooperation between Nigeria and the United States. The fight against ISWAP, Boko Haram, and affiliated terrorist networks is far from over. These groups remain entrenched in multiple states, and their capacity for violence remains substantial. Nigeria needs more than occasional airstrikes—it needs sustained intelligence sharing, advanced surveillance equipment, tactical training, and yes, arms and ammunition that can match the firepower that these terrorists somehow continue to acquire.
The United States should be urged to deepen its commitment to Nigeria’s security. Intelligence sharing should become routine rather than episodic. Nigerian security forces need access to advanced technology—drones, night-vision equipment, armored vehicles, and precision weaponry—that can tilt the balance decisively against the terrorists. The Nigerian military has shown courage and dedication, but courage alone cannot compensate for technological and logistical deficits. America has these resources, and providing them to a strategic partner in Africa’s most populous nation serves American interests as much as Nigerian ones.
Yet, predictably, there are those who have chosen to criticize rather than celebrate this development. Among the most prominent of critics is the voluble purveyor of nonsense, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, whose posturing about American “unclean hands” makes one genuinely wonder whether the Islamic cleric is becoming senile or simply willfully blind to reality. Gumi’s suggestion that only nations with “clean hands” should conduct such operations is not only impractical but reveals a staggering ignorance of history that one would not expect from someone of his supposed learning.
The sheikh’s implication that certain nations possess moral purity that qualifies them to combat terrorism while others do not is laughable when subjected to even cursory historical scrutiny. He mentions China, Turkey, and other nations as somehow preferable alternatives, apparently oblivious to their own extensive records of violence and oppression. China’s brutal occupation of Tibet, its intervention in Korea, and its ongoing persecution of Uighur Muslims are well-documented. Turkey, as the Ottoman Empire, perpetrated the Armenian genocide—one of the twentieth century’s most horrific mass atrocities—and its military operations in Cyprus resulted in substantial civilian casualties and displacement. Every major power has blood on its hands somewhere in history. Now, this is not to excuse American foreign policy mistakes nor misdeeds, but rather to point out that Gumi’s standard—if applied consistently—would disqualify literally every nation on earth from conducting counterterrorism operations. It is a standard designed not for practical application but for rhetorical grandstanding. One must ask: does Sheikh Gumi prefer that ISWAP terrorists continue their reign of terror unimpeded? Does he believe Nigeria should refuse all international assistance until it finds a nation that has never committed any historical wrong? Such a position is not principled; it is absurd.
Equally risible is the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its attempt to politicize this security intervention. The ADC should know that not everything is about partisan advantage. Not every development should be viewed through the narrow lens of domestic political competition. Nigeria and Nigerians—regardless of party affiliation, ethnic identity, or religious background—benefit when terrorists are eliminated. The question should not be whether the ruling party gets credit, but whether Nigerian lives are saved and national security is enhanced. The answer to that question is unambiguously yes.
The ADC would do well to remember that terrorism recognizes no party lines. ISWAP nor bandits do not request party affiliation or voter registration cards before attacking communities. When terrorists are destroyed, all Nigerians are safer—whether they support APC, PDP, ADC, or Chop and Quench Party. To oppose effective counterterrorism operations because they might reflect well on the current administration is to place political calculation above national interest, and it is a position that deserves nothing but contempt.
The US airstrikes in Sokoto State represent a significant achievement in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism. They demonstrate that international cooperation, when conducted with mutual respect and proper coordination, can deliver results that serve both partners’ interests. Rather than engaging in misplaced criticism or cynical politicization, Nigerians should recognize this operation for what it is: a down payment on the security and stability that our nation desperately needs. The path forward is clear—deeper cooperation, enhanced intelligence sharing, and sustained commitment to eliminating the terrorist threat. Much has been made of this bombing, but the real story is simple: terrorists were destroyed, Nigerian sovereignty was respected, and both nations are safer for it. That is worth celebrating, not criticizing.
Happy New Year my dear readers, we go again in 2026, in our prime desire for a better, prosperous and progressive Nigeria.
