US Air Strikes in Northern Nigeria: Possible Windfalls, as Well as Dangers

A month before the US carried out its Christmas day attack on militants linked to the Islamic State group (IS) in north-western Nigeria, president Donald Trump had declared Nigeria a “country of particular concern”. This was due to the alleged killing of Christians by terrorist groups in the country. Trump threatened military intervention if the attacks against Christians continued.

The threat became a reality on Christmas day when the US military’s Africa Command – in coordination with the Nigerian authorities – carried out strikes on terrorist locations in Sokoto state, North-West Nigeria.

There were mixed reactions to the attacks. Some citizens hailed the attacks, saying they hoped they would send a message to the terrorists to desist from their activities. Others condemned the strikes, citing concerns about sovereignty.

I have been researching conflicts, terrorism and the formation of insurgent groups in Nigeria and the Sahel for over a decade. After the US intervention, a key question that arises is: does the attack strengthen Nigeria’s counter-terrorism mechanisms. Or will it weaken them, and threaten national security and sovereignty?

I argue that the US military intervention will indeed strengthen the hand of the Nigerian government in fighting insurgency in the short term in four ways, including enhanced intelligence gathering. Nevertheless, there’s also a risk that it will trigger unintended consequences if Nigeria doesn’t fully take charge of its counter-terrorism initiatives. These include loss of sovereignty and internal political division.

Immediate gains

First, the recent cooperation between the US and Nigerian military would help Nigeria with enhanced surveillance and intelligence gathering. Prior to the Christmas day bombing, the US has been conducting reconnaissance flights in Nigeria. The data gathered from these flights helped identify terrorist gatherings and movements.

The US and its allies have struggled to gather intelligence in the region since closing down a US drone base in Niger following a coup in the country. The loss and subsequent withdrawal from the US drone base in Agadez has significantly degraded US and Western intelligence-gathering capabilities. This is why the US flew reconnaissance flights from Ghana for this attack.

Read more:
US military is leaving Niger even less secure: why it didn’t succeed in combating terrorism

Second, the reported military collaboration will give the Nigerian government access to state of the art military hardware and resources. The US and Nigeria’s relationship has been fractured since 2015 following the release of an Amnesty International report in which the Nigerian military was accused of gross human rights abuses.

The US government immediately suspended sales of key military hardware to Abuja. It also banned Nigeria from using some US equipment already purchased.

Six years later Nigeria signed a military agreement with Russia.

The Christmas Day strike ordered by Trump suggests that the US might once again be willing to help Nigeria in its counter-terrorism initiatives.

Third, the intervention could help Nigeria fight terrorism along its borders. The Christmas day attack is based on intelligence that terrorist cells from Niger and Burkina Faso had entered Nigeria to carry out coordinated attacks. I have previously written about how terrorism is spreading in West Africa and how international cooperation is needed to fight the surge. Such coordinated attacks could help Nigeria’s cross-border counter-terrorism initiatives.

Finally, the coordinated attacks send a message to terrorist groups that there is a renewed effort to turn the heat on them.

Unintended consequences

There is nevertheless a risk of the US action having unintended consequences if Nigeria does not fully take charge of its counter-terrorism initiatives.

Since 2009 when Boko Haram surfaced in Nigeria, the country has been battling terrorism within and around its borders. Despite counter-terrorism initiatives such as military response, intelligence coordination, community resilience, international partnerships, and rehabilitation efforts to dismantle extremist networks and address root causes, Nigeria has not been able to stop terrorism in the country.

While renewed collaborations with the US is a step in the right direction, the possible dangers for Nigeria include:

• A loss of access and control of intelligence data. Nigeria needs to take charge of its surveillance architecture and intelligence gathering or risk a weakening of its sovereignty. Large quantities of data is collected during reconnaissance flights. But the country running the flights owns the data. It has the prerogative of what it wants to share, and when.

Nigeria has been here before: when the US drone base in Agadez was operational, all the data gathered across the Sahel was analysed by the Pentagon which decided what information to relay to its partners.

Nigeria should guard against this by taking charge of the reconnaissance and surveillance activities relevant to protect its national interest.

• Swift follow-up action. The Nigerian military needs to take advantage of the impact of the strikes. It needs to capitalise on the disarray in terrorist camps. By acting in a coordinated way after 2015, the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) was very successful in dismantling Boko Haram as an organisation and weakening its bases.

But the Nigerian military needs to keep a close eye on the terror group splintering as a result of success against its military bases. The Multinational Joint Task Force’s successes was partly responsible for Boko Haram breaking into three factions in 2016.

The initial strikes conducted by the US military will only be significant if the Nigerian army prevents smaller terror groups from being formed.

• Nigerians need to be assured the government will act in their interests. The US attack risks worsening political divisions in Nigeria if not properly managed. While Trump framed the attack as an action against the murder of Christians in the country, the Nigerian government has insisted it was part of a renewed campaign against terrorists destabilising the country.

Trump’s explanation of the attack has angered some political groups in Nigeria. For instance, Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmed Gumi vehemently condemned the US airstrikes calling Nigerians who supported the strikes ‘stupid’ and ‘misguided’.

The Nigerian government must control the narrative and clearly explain how the renewed military collaboration with the US is in Nigeria’s national interest, and not targeted at particular ethnic or religious groups.

Olayinka Ajala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More at the Source