A Necessary Strike, A Divisive Narrative: Reflections on the US Airstrike in Nigeria
By Babaita Idris Olalekan, EgbemaVoice
The recent news of a successful US airstrike in Nigeria, conducted in collaboration with the Nigerian government, marks a significant moment in the long and brutal struggle against terrorist insurgencies in the region. On the surface, this operation represents a tactical victory worth acknowledging. The precision and intelligence required for such actions underscore the importance of international cooperation in confronting threats that transcend borders. The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) should be commended for its role in this collaboration. Leveraging external expertise and resources is a pragmatic step for any nation facing an internal security crisis of this magnitude, and it signals a willingness to use every tool available to protect its citizens.
However, this necessary military action has been tragically undermined by the framing offered by US President Donald Trump. In his announcement, he stated that the strike targeted terrorists “who prioritize killing Christians in Nigeria.” This characterization, while perhaps intended to resonate with a specific domestic audience, is a dangerous and factually narrow portrayal of a complex conflict. It does a disservice to the reality on the ground and to the thousands of Nigerian victims of all faiths.
The insurgency in Nigeria, particularly the threat posed by groups like Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), is not a sectarian war between religions. It is a campaign of terror waged against the very idea of a peaceful, pluralistic society. To suggest these groups “prioritize” killing Christians is to ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary. These terrorists have slaughtered Muslims in equal measure, often targeting them precisely for being Muslims they deem insufficiently radical. They have bombed mosques in Maiduguri, executed Imams who spoke against them, and murdered Muslim villagers for cooperating with the state. Their primary ideology is not anti-Christianity; it is anti-humanity, anti-education, anti-progress, and anti-any interpretation of faith that differs from their own twisted dogma.
By injecting this reductive “Christians vs. Muslims” narrative, President Trump’s words risk achieving what the terrorists themselves have failed to do completely: to harden communal divisions within Nigeria. Such rhetoric fuels the perception that international interest is selective, contingent on the religious identity of the victims. It can foster resentment among Nigerian Muslims who have borne immense suffering, making them feel their losses are invisible on the world stage. It also, perversely, aids terrorist recruitment by validating their false claim of fighting a religious war, allowing them to frame their nihilism as a defense of Islam against a supposed Western-Christian alliance.
The collaboration between the US and Nigeria is most effective when it is built on a shared commitment to stability and the protection of all civilians. The airstrike itself is a tool for that end. But the language used to describe it matters immensely. What was needed was a clear, unifying message: that the world stands with the Nigerian people—all of them—against the scourge of terrorism. That the victims, whether kneeling in a church pew or praying in a mosque, are equally valued and their deaths equally mourned.
We can, and should, applaud the tactical cooperation that led to a successful military operation. The FGN’s engagement in this is a positive step. But we must unequivocally criticize a narrative that simplifies a complex tragedy into a binary conflict. True solidarity requires acknowledging the full scope of suffering. To do otherwise is not just a failure of diplomacy; it is a betrayal of the very principle that human life, irrespective of faith, has equal worth. The fight is against terror, not for the dominance of one religious narrative over another. Our words, especially from leaders of influential nations, must make that distinction abundantly clear, lest we hand the terrorists a propaganda victory even as we strike their bases.
Comments