US Strike on Terrorists In Nigeria: Cooperation Or Control?

The recent targeted strike by the United States against a terrorist group operating in Sokoto State has ignited intense debate across Nigeria. While some citizens view the action as a welcome boost to Nigeria’s fight against terrorism, others fear it signals the beginning of American dominance over Nigerian territory and security affairs.

These fears, though understandable given Africa’s long history with foreign interference, require clarity not panic.

This moment is not about control. It is about cooperation, capacity, and a shared global security interest.

Understanding What Really Happened

The strike in Sokoto State was not an occupation, a military takeover, or a unilateral invasion. It was a precision-based counterterrorism action aimed at neutralizing a threat that has destabilized communities, displaced civilians, and challenged Nigeria’s internal security apparatus.

Importantly, such actions typically occur within bilateral or multilateral security frameworks, where intelligence sharing, consent, and strategic alignment play a role. This is not new. Nigeria has long collaborated with international partners in intelligence, training, and counterterrorism especially as extremist networks increasingly operate across borders.

Dispelling the Myth: Help Does Not Equal Control

One of the loudest narratives circulating is that America’s involvement means Nigeria is “losing sovereignty.” This assumption ignores several critical realities:

• Nigeria remains a sovereign state with full control over its territory, military, and political decisions.

• Foreign military assistance does not automatically translate to governance, policy control, or resource seizure.

• If cooperation equaled control, dozens of countries receiving U.S., EU, or UN security assistance would no longer exist as independent nations—which is clearly not the case.

  
  

Security partnerships are transactional, not colonial. They are driven by mutual interest, not ownership.

The Benefits of the Strike for Nigeria

While no foreign military action should be celebrated blindly, it is equally important to recognize the strategic gains:

1. Disruption of Terrorist Networks

Precision strikes weaken command structures, logistics routes, and recruitment pipelines, buying critical time for Nigerian forces to regroup and consolidate control.

2. Intelligence Advancement

Such operations often involve shared intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—exposing Nigeria’s security agencies to advanced methods that can be adapted locally.

3. Global Deterrence

The strike sends a message that Nigerian soil is not a safe haven for international terror groups. This discourages external fighters and financiers.

4. Protection of Civilians

When carefully executed, targeted strikes can reduce the frequency of mass attacks on rural communities, markets, and transport routes.

The Bigger Question: What Comes Next?

Foreign assistance should never become a crutch. The real work must remain Nigeria’s responsibility.

The Way Forward:

• Strengthen local intelligence networks, especially community-based early warning systems.

• Invest in military modernization, not just manpower.

• Address root causes: poverty, unemployment, porous borders, and ideological radicalization.

• Improve civil-military trust, ensuring citizens see security forces as protectors, not threats.

• Set clear boundaries for foreign partnerships—defined objectives, timelines, and exit strategies.

Nigeria must always lead its own security narrative.

A Moment for Reflection, Not Fear

This strike should not provoke conspiracy, but conversation. Terrorism is no longer a purely national problem—it is transnational, adaptive, and technologically advanced. Facing it requires collaboration, intelligence sharing, and sometimes uncomfortable alliances.

The danger lies not in receiving help—but in failing to build capacity afterward.

Nigeria’s strength has always been its people, its resilience, and its ability to adapt. With the right leadership and accountability, this moment can become a turning point—not a takeover.

Assistance does not erase sovereignty. Weak institutions do.

And Nigeria still has the power to choose its path.