By DAILY REVIEW ONLINE
Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump that the United States might take direct military action against Boko Haram insurgents in northern Nigeria have revived debate over foreign intervention in Nigeria’s internal security challenges. While the fight against terrorism is undeniably a global responsibility, the implications of direct U.S. military involvement on Nigerian soil are far-reaching and must be assessed with caution.
First, such an intervention raises fundamental questions of sovereignty. Any foreign military operation, without Nigeria’s explicit approval, would undermine the country’s authority over its territory and security institutions. Nigeria has consistently maintained its status as an independent nation capable of managing its internal affairs—allowing open military intervention would set a precedent that could weaken this principle.
Diplomatically, the proposal places Nigeria–U.S. relations under pressure. Acceptance could portray Nigeria as reliant on U.S. military capacity, while rejection could strain partnerships in trade, development, and global security cooperation. It also risks overshadowing ongoing African-led security collaborations, such as the Multinational Joint Task Force, potentially weakening regional unity and ownership of the counterterrorism fight.
The economic consequences would likely be felt most in northern communities already burdened by conflict. Increased military operations can disrupt farming, markets, and trade routes, worsening poverty and food insecurity. Military airstrikes or troop deployments could lead to displacement, compounding Nigeria’s already significant humanitarian crisis and straining limited relief support.
There is also a serious human security concern. The possibility of civilian deaths—whether through misidentification, airstrikes, or crossfire—cannot be ignored. Civilian casualties fuel distrust, trauma, and resentment, and could inadvertently strengthen extremist recruitment. Boko Haram and ISWAP could exploit U.S. involvement to spread propaganda claiming an attack on religion or local culture, drawing more young people into extremism.
Politically, the move could cause tensions within Nigeria’s democracy. Opposition parties and civil society may interpret such cooperation as an admission of government weakness or a tool to suppress dissent. Public trust in the Nigerian Armed Forces—already under scrutiny—could further erode if foreign forces are seen as more effective. The result could be reduced confidence in democratic institutions and national leadership.
Yet, it is important to acknowledge the potential benefits. The United States possesses advanced intelligence systems, satellite tracking, drone surveillance, and special operations expertise that could significantly weaken Boko Haram’s operational networks. Joint operations could improve the tactical skills of Nigerian forces and enhance regional intelligence sharing. In the short term, U.S. engagement could disrupt terrorist training camps, weapons supply routes, and leadership structures.
Furthermore, if well-coordinated, such cooperation could attract humanitarian support and post-conflict reconstruction assistance to northern communities, improving infrastructure, livelihoods, and long-term resilience.
However, the risks outweigh the rewards if Nigeria approaches this hastily or without strategic control.
The way forward
Going forward, Nigeria must adopt a measured and strategic approach that preserves its sovereignty while strengthening its ability to combat terrorism. Any partnership with the United States should be carried out strictly on a cooperative and clearly negotiated basis, ensuring that assistance enhances rather than replaces Nigeria’s own military capacity. The Nigerian government must also reinforce collaboration with regional partners through the Multinational Joint Task Force, as the battle against Boko Haram affects the entire Lake Chad Basin. Alongside military strategies, Nigeria must improve the welfare, training, and equipment of its armed forces to strengthen confidence and efficiency on the frontlines.
However, no military effort will succeed without addressing the underlying drivers of radicalization in the North. Poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and perceptions of marginalization continue to fuel extremist recruitment. Therefore, investment in economic empowerment, youth employment, education, and community development is essential to build long-term peace.
Protecting civilians must remain at the center of any security operation. Humanitarian agencies, religious leaders, traditional rulers, and civil society groups should be actively involved to ensure displaced families receive support and trust is rebuilt within affected communities.
Any success against Boko Haram lies not only in firepower, but in restoring opportunity, security, and hope to the people.
Nigeria must not shy away from partnerships in the global fight against terrorism—but neither should it sacrifice sovereignty, civilian safety, or regional stability in the process.
Commendably, President Boka Tinubu while addressing the Federal Executive Council (FEC) assured the readiness of his administration not only to combat but to defeat terrorism in Nigeria. He deserves all the support at this time.
The goal must not merely be to defeat insurgents militarily, but to restore peace, dignity, and development to affected communities.
We urge for caution among all involved in this enterprise, more so among Nigerians. We should not use this opportunity to further evidence the religious and ethnic lines that have divided this nation for long.