By Vincent Egunyanga and Ben Adoga
Civil society organisations (CSOs) say the United States’ airstrikes on ISIS enclaves in North-West Nigeria expose years of state failure in tackling terrorism, even as the operation has reignited debate over sovereignty, consent and the long-term consequences of foreign military intervention.
Reacting to the Christmas-night strikes, former President of the Civil Liberties Organisation, Abdul Oroh, said foreign assistance had become unavoidable after more than a decade of insurgency, banditry and mass killings across the country.
He argued that Nigeria’s inability to neutralise terror networks decisively created the vacuum that external forces eventually filled.
Oroh, who disclosed that members of his family had been victims of terrorist violence in Zamfara and Imo states, said the security of lives and property outweighed concerns about foreign involvement.
He faulted previous administrations for what he described as weak and inconsistent responses to terrorism, insisting that decisive action had been delayed for too long.
Similarly, civil society advocate Auwal Musa Rafsanjani said the strikes reflected deep governance and security lapses but raised doubts about whether Nigeria had formally consented to the operation.
According to him, the Federal Government’s endorsement may have been an attempt to avoid diplomatic embarrassment after the fact.
He warned that reliance on foreign firepower without transparency could undermine public trust.
The US airstrikes, ordered by President Donald Trump, targeted ISIS enclaves in the Bauni forest axis of Tangaza Local Government Area of Sokoto State.
The operation was confirmed by the United States Africa Command, which said it was conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities and killed multiple ISIS fighters.
Nigeria’s Federal Government later confirmed the strikes, with Information Minister Mohammed Idris stating that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu approved the operation following intelligence that foreign ISIS elements were infiltrating Nigeria from the Sahel to plan large-scale attacks.
According to the government, 16 GPS-guided munitions were deployed using MQ-9 Reaper drones, with no civilian casualties recorded.
While some CSOs and commentators welcomed the development as overdue help, others urged caution.
Northern intellectual Mahmud Jega said the elimination of terrorists was desirable. Still, he warned that Nigeria could become a new theatre for global jihad, potentially attracting fighters seeking to confront US forces.
Security analyst Sam Uwaifor also cautioned against trading sovereignty and constitutional order for short-term tactical gains, stressing that terrorism must be defeated without compromising national control.
Islamic scholar Sheikh Abubakar Gumi criticised the strikes and called on the Nigerian government to halt cooperation with the United States on air operations, arguing that such actions could worsen instability.
Concerns were also raised about the credibility of intelligence. Commentator Chucks Obasi questioned claims of zero casualties, linking them to past incidents of leaked intelligence that resulted in ambushes on Nigerian troops and military losses.
Despite the divergent views, CSOs and analysts agree on one point: the US intervention has forced Nigeria to confront uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of its counter-terrorism strategy and the cost of prolonged indecision.
