By Michael Phillips | Republic Dispatch

The U.S. airstrikes carried out late Christmas night in Sokoto State, Nigeria, mark a serious escalation in Washington’s counterterrorism posture in West Africa. Announced by Donald Trump as “powerful and deadly,” the strikes targeted camps linked to the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP), locally known as Lakurawa—an emerging jihadist threat operating in northwestern Nigeria and across the porous Niger border.

From a center-right perspective, the operation underscores both American resolve against global jihadist expansion and the limits of military force when regional governance collapses.

Why the Strikes Matter

According to U.S. Africa Command—U.S. Africa Command—the precision strikes were conducted at Nigeria’s request, using MQ-9 Reaper drones and possibly cruise missiles. Nigerian officials confirmed intelligence-sharing and coordination, describing the targets as “major ISIS terrorist enclaves” in the Bauni forest near Tangaza.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amplified the message with a terse “More to come,” signaling that Washington is prepared to re-engage kinetically in a region where jihadist groups have surged amid coups, sanctions, and collapsing border security.

For the U.S., this matters because the Sahel has become one of the fastest-growing theaters for Islamic State operations worldwide. Left unchecked, groups like ISSP threaten not only local populations but also long-term American interests—regional stability, trade routes, and the prevention of another transnational terror hub.

Understanding Lakurawa and ISSP

Lakurawa did not begin as a classic jihadist movement. Around 2017, armed fighters—some with roots in Mali and Niger—were invited by local communities in Sokoto to protect against bandits and cattle rustlers. Over time, they overstayed their welcome, imposed harsh Sharia rules, taxed villages, and turned violently predatory.

Their growing alignment with Islamic State Sahel Province coincided with the 2023 military coup in Niger, which shattered regional cooperation. Nigeria’s leadership role in ECOWAS sanctions and threats of intervention froze joint patrols, creating a vacuum jihadists quickly exploited. The result: ISSP fighters and resources flowing more freely into northwestern Nigeria in 2024–2025.

The Religious Framing Problem

President Trump framed the strikes as defending “innocent Christians,” language that resonates with many American voters concerned about global religious persecution. But on the ground in Sokoto—an overwhelmingly Muslim region—violence has largely victimized Muslims as well. Nigerian officials were quick to stress that the terrorists kill indiscriminately: Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.

This distinction matters. Overstating sectarian motives risks inflaming religious tensions and obscuring the real drivers of instability: weak governance, poverty, unemployment, and an absent state. Counterterrorism policy grounded in facts, not rhetoric, is essential if U.S. involvement is to help rather than harden divisions.

A Tactical Win, Not a Strategic Solution

The strikes likely disrupted ISSP operations in the short term. Reports of militants fleeing into Niger suggest real pressure. But airpower alone cannot substitute for functional governance, secure borders, and regional cooperation—none of which currently exist at scale in the Sahel.

For conservatives who favor strength abroad but realism at home, the lesson is clear: decisive action against terrorists is necessary, but it must be paired with diplomacy that restores cross-border security and pressures regional governments to address corruption and state failure. Otherwise, today’s “powerful and deadly” strike risks becoming tomorrow’s temporary fix.

The U.S. has re-entered Nigeria’s fight against jihadism. Whether this marks the beginning of a coherent strategy—or just another isolated show of force—will depend on what comes next.