By Sar Terver
When the night sky over Sokoto State lit up on Christmas Day with explosions from a U.S-led airstrike on alleged ISIS-linked targets mottled with burns, Nigerians across the Country were drawn into an intense national conversation touching on security, sovereignty, fear and the limits of foreign intervention.
The operation, confirmed by authorities in both Washington and Abuja, was described as a precision strike on terrorist camps located in the Bauni forest area of northwest Nigeria.
Officials insisted that the mission was carefully executed and that no civilians were killed. Yet, beyond official assurances, the strikes triggered mixed emotions, with reactions quickly spreading from Sokoto to Lagos, Abuja and social media platforms including X and Facebook.
For some Nigerians, the development was welcomed as a rare show of decisive action against armed groups that have terrorised communities for years.
Emmanuel Udoh, a Lagos -based cleric, said he supported the strike, arguing that if another country was willing to assist Nigeria in restoring peace, such help should not be rejected.
Another Lagos resident, Dominic Dioju, also described the action as a relief, noting that many citizens had grown weary of repeated attacks and slow responses.
However, support was far from unanimous. Almost immediately, questions emerged about the identity of those targeted and whether ISIS truly operates in the affected parts of Sokoto.
Several commentators pointed out that the northwest has long been plagued by banditry and criminal gangs rather than clearly structured ISIS cells, raising doubts about the intelligence behind the operation.
The scepticism was amplified by the absence of publicly verifiable evidence showing that any terrorists were killed. While U.S. and Nigerian officials maintained that the strike hit militant camps, local accounts from affected areas suggested that explosions occurred around farmlands and open fields.
Community leaders and residents reported craters and shockwaves but said they could not confirm the presence or deaths of armed fighters. Even some local government officials acknowledged that casualty verification was still ongoing, leaving room for speculation and distrust.
Former presidential candidate and activist Omoyele Sowore emerged as one of the most vocal critics, describing the strike as reckless and dangerous. He warned that allowing foreign military action on Nigerian soil undermines national sovereignty and could set a troubling precedent. According to him, Nigerians should not celebrate an intervention that raises more questions than answers.
In a similar but more combative tone, former Niger Delta militant leader Asari Dokubo dismissed the operation entirely. In viral videos on social media, Dokubo accused former U.S. President Donald Trump of avoiding direct military engagement and instead ordering airstrikes that, in his view, hit empty spaces.
Asari claimed the United States bombed open fields without killing bandits, describing the action as shameful and criminal. He demanded proof of terrorist casualties and warned that Nigeria risks losing control of its security narrative if it allows foreign powers to dictate military actions within its borders. His remarks resonated with Nigerians who believe the strike was more symbolic than effective.
Amid the criticism, other voices struck a more measured tone. Former senator representing Kaduna Central senatorial district, Shehu Sani, said the action could be justified if it was carried out with the full consent and cooperation of Nigerian authorities. Nevertheless, he stressed that lasting peace cannot be outsourced, insisting that the ultimate responsibility for Nigeria’s security rests with Nigerians themselves.
Islamic scholar Dr. Ahmad Abubakar Gumi also weighed in, condemning the airstrike and calling for Nigeria to reconsider military cooperation with the United States. He warned that foreign involvement could turn Nigeria into a theatre of proxy conflict and further complicate already fragile security dynamics.
Gumi’s reaction gained additional attention because it came against the backdrop of recent revelations involving internal security lapses, including the suicide of two police armorers, among them a deputy superintendent in Niger State, who were indicted in investigations into arms supply to bandits.
For many observers, these incidents indicate the argument that Nigeria’s security crisis is as much an internal problem of corruption, arms leakage and weak oversight as it is a battlefield issue.
Analysts have also cautioned against overreliance on airpower. Rear Admiral (rtd) Dickson Olisemelogor previously noted that while airstrikes can disrupt militant camps, they rarely eliminate threats completely. According to him, once bombed, surviving elements often scatter quietly into surrounding communities, blending in with civilians and becoming even harder to detect.
Olisemelogor’s assessment highlights a critical weakness in purely aerial approaches, especially in regions where armed groups are deeply embedded within local populations. This reality has renewed calls for a more comprehensive strategy that prioritises intelligence-driven ground operations, strong community engagement and credible law enforcement.
Security experts argue that eliminating bandits and terrorists hiding among civilians requires trust between residents and security agencies, improved intelligence gathering, and sustained presence rather than episodic strikes. Without these, airstrikes may offer dramatic headlines but little long-term relief.
As debates continued online and offline, humour also crept into the discourse, with some Nigerians joking darkly about whether Christmas had turned into “Bombing Day.” Beneath the sarcasm, however, lay deep frustration and fatigue over years of insecurity and unfulfilled promises.
Government officials have continued to reassure Nigerians that the operation was coordinated, lawful and aimed strictly at terrorists. Abuja has insisted that the strike was part of structured security cooperation with the United States, even as critics demand greater transparency and clearer evidence of success.
Whether the Christmas night airstrike marks a turning point or merely another controversial episode in Nigeria’s long struggle with insecurity remains uncertain. What is clear is that Nigerians are demanding more than dramatic military actions. They want proof, protection and policies that address the roots of violence.
For now, voices across Nigeria; from Sokoto villages to Lagos streets, from clerics and politicians to activists and security experts, reflect a nation caught between desperation for peace and caution over foreign power, which remains the big elephant in the room.
The consensus, fragile as it may be, is that lasting security will not come from bombs alone, but from deliberate, accountable and Nigerian-led efforts to reclaim Communities and restore trust on Nigerian soil by standing together to-be more aligned with US?
