At dawn in a corner of northeastern Nigeria a village that once woke to the sound of grinding stones and children reciting alphabets now wakes to silence. Roofs have collapsed. Footpaths are swallowed by weeds. The people who lived here are scattered across camps towns and graves. Some fled at night clutching nothing but children. Others did not flee at all. This is the landscape in which extremist flags rise and where foreign drones now circle overhead unseen.
When news broke that the United States had carried out military strikes against ISIS targets linked to Nigeria many Nigerians paused not in celebration but in quiet discomfort. It was not the usual outrage or applause. It was something heavier. A question that sat in the chest rather than the mouth. How did we get here.
For decades Nigeria has fought insurgency within its borders. Boko Haram began as a local extremist movement feeding on poverty ideology and state neglect. Over time it fractured mutated and aligned with global terror networks. ISIS West Africa Province became a name Nigerians learnt not through textbooks but through blood soaked headlines. Villages emptied. Soldiers fell. Children disappeared. And still the violence endured.
But foreign boots even when unseen foreign missiles even when precise introduce a new chapter in a nation’s story. It is one thing to battle insecurity with your own forces however imperfect. It is another thing entirely to watch a foreign power strike targets on or connected to your soil. That moment carries symbolism far beyond military success.
The United States insists that its involvement is intelligence driven targeted and in partnership with Nigerian authorities. It frames the strikes as support not substitution. A helping hand not a takeover. On paper this is reassuring. In practice Nigerians are wary. History has taught us to be cautious when powerful nations arrive bearing security assistance.
Nigeria is not new to foreign influence. Colonialism left scars that still shape our institutions borders and conflicts. The Cold War turned African nations into chessboards. More recently the global war on terror has redrawn security relationships across Africa. Libya collapsed under foreign intervention and the weapons spread south. The Sahel burned. Nigeria felt the heat.
So when American firepower enters the Nigerian security equation it triggers layered anxieties. Sovereignty is not just about flags and anthems. It is about control narrative and dignity. A country that cannot fully secure itself begins to lose moral authority over its own space.
Supporters of the strikes argue from realism. They say terrorism is transnational. Borders mean little to extremist groups. Intelligence technology and air power matter. If the United States has capabilities Nigeria lacks then refusing help out of pride would be foolish. Lives are at stake. Villages are burning. Children are dying. Ideology does not stop bullets.
There is truth here. Nigerian soldiers have fought bravely often under equipped and overstretched. Morale has been tested. Intelligence gaps have cost lives. The terrain is vast. The enemy adapts. In such circumstances international cooperation is not weakness. It is pragmatism.
Yet realism must be balanced with reflection. Foreign military involvement rarely comes without long term consequences. The immediate tactical gain can mask strategic dependency. Once intelligence systems command structures and surveillance pipelines lean too heavily outward local capacity development slows. The country begins to outsource its own security imagination.
There is also the issue of narrative ownership. When foreign governments announce strikes on groups operating in Nigeria it subtly reframes the conflict. It becomes part of a global terror map rather than a Nigerian tragedy rooted in local grievances. The stories of displaced farmers abducted school children and broken communities risk being reduced to footnotes in international briefings.
Another layer is public perception. Many Nigerians already feel abandoned by their government. Insecurity has become normalised. When foreign forces step in it reinforces a painful impression that Nigerian lives only matter when they intersect with global interests. That our suffering requires external validation to be taken seriously.
Then there is the geopolitical question. Why now. Why this scale. Why this theatre. Global powers do not act in vacuums. The Sahel has become strategically important. Competition between major powers is intensifying. Terrorism provides both justification and opportunity. Nigeria must be careful not to become a proxy arena for interests that extend beyond its wellbeing.
None of this is to romanticise insurgents or downplay the horror they inflict. ISIS affiliates are brutal nihilistic and dangerous. They thrive on chaos and fear. They deserve no sympathy. But how they are defeated matters as much as that they are defeated.
Military force alone has never ended insurgency. Nigeria’s own experience proves this. Years of operations have weakened groups but not eliminated the ideology that feeds them. Poverty marginalisation poor governance and environmental stress continue to provide recruitment soil. Until these roots are addressed strikes will remain temporary relief not lasting cure.
The presence of foreign military action also raises accountability questions. When something goes wrong when civilians are harmed when intelligence fails who answers to Nigerian citizens. Foreign militaries answer to their own governments not Nigerian communities. Transparency becomes blurred. Responsibility becomes diluted.
There is also the quiet fear of escalation. What begins as targeted strikes can expand. Advisory roles can deepen. Footprints can grow. Even with the best intentions lines shift over time. Nigeria must clearly define boundaries timelines and control mechanisms if it is to avoid mission creep.
At the heart of this issue lies a deeper national conversation Nigeria has long avoided. What does security really mean. Is it the absence of gunfire or the presence of justice. Is it military dominance or social cohesion. Is it external strength or internal legitimacy.
True security is when a young man in the northeast does not see an extremist group as his best chance at dignity. It is when communities trust the state enough to share intelligence. It is when soldiers are respected paid equipped and supported. It is when governance reaches the margins before ideology does.
Foreign strikes cannot build schools repair trust or create jobs. They cannot replace leadership. They cannot heal trauma. At best they buy time. What Nigeria does with that time is what matters.
If this moment becomes an excuse to further militarise without reform it will fail. If it becomes a catalyst to rethink security holistically it could mark a turning point. Nigeria must invest as much in intelligence gathering governance reform and community engagement as it does in hardware.
There is also a diplomatic responsibility. Nigeria must ensure that any partnership preserves its autonomy and priorities. Cooperation should strengthen Nigerian institutions not overshadow them. The fight against terrorism must remain Nigeria’s fight even when allies assist.
Ultimately this is not just about America or ISIS. It is about Nigeria confronting the uncomfortable reality that insecurity has outgrown our current systems. That the social contract is fragile. That force without trust cannot hold a nation together.
History will not judge Nigeria for accepting help. It will judge how that help was used. Whether it led to dependency or development. Whether it strengthened sovereignty or quietly eroded it.
The skies may be quieter after a strike. But peace is built on the ground. And Nigeria’s future security will not be decided in foreign command rooms but in the everyday lives of its citizens. Until the state can protect inspire and serve its people no missile however precise will deliver the peace Nigerians truly seek.
Stephanie Shaakaa
08034861434
