*A BALANCED VIEW ON U.S. INTEREST IN NIGERIA'S SECURITY CRISIS*


I have been following many opinions about the recent statement credited to the U.S. President Donald Trump, who has reportedly indicated a willingness to consider military action in Nigeria over the continued killings and massacres of Christians by Fulani jihadists. This has stirred strong debate among Nigerians and the international community, with different individuals expressing sharply divergent opinions about whether such an action would help or harm Nigeria.


Some people believe that the United States is only using this as an opportunity to interfere in Nigeria’s internal affairs, as it has allegedly done in other parts of the world. They argue that the U.S. often acts under the guise of fighting terrorism or promoting democracy, while pursuing hidden economic or geopolitical interests, particularly in countries rich in mineral resources. 


They cite examples such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where U.S.-led interventions were initially justified as humanitarian or anti-terrorism missions but ended up creating more instability, destruction, and loss of lives. In Afghanistan, for instance, after more than two decades of war, the Taliban eventually returned to power following the withdrawal of American troops, leaving behind a fragile state and humanitarian crisis. 


In Iraq, the 2003 invasion led to years of insurgency and sectarian violence, while Libya remains politically fragmented and insecure years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. Syria also descended into a protracted civil war worsened by foreign interventions. These experiences have made many wary of allowing any direct foreign military action in Nigeria, fearing it might lead to more chaos instead of peace.


On the other hand, there are those who believe that if the Nigerian government can not effectively stop the continuous attacks on innocent citizens, especially Christians in the northern part of the country, then foreign assistance may be necessary. They argue that since countless lives have already been lost and local security efforts have repeatedly failed, the intervention of a powerful country like the United States could help bring the violence to an end. 


Supporters of this view insist that foreign aid does not necessarily mean a complete takeover of Nigerian affairs; rather, it can mean intelligence sharing, training, equipment support, and logistical assistance to strengthen Nigeria’s own security forces.


Having carefully studied these divergent views, I am of the opinion that if the United States must be involved, it should be on the basis of partnership and technical assistance, not direct military occupation or unilateral action. History has shown that foreign military interventions, when not carefully planned and coordinated with the host nation, often bring unintended consequences. 


Nevertheless, when managed properly and transparently, international cooperation has produced positive outcomes in some countries. For instance, the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo helped stop ethnic cleansing and later transitioned to a peacekeeping mission that stabilised the region. Similarly, the British intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 (Operation Palliser) successfully helped the government defeat rebels, restore peace, and rebuild national institutions, all without undermining Sierra Leone’s sovereignty.


 These examples show that international support can work when it respects local leadership, human rights, and clear objectives.


For Nigeria, the best approach would be to welcome foreign help strictly on our own terms. Any support should be limited to capacity building such as training, intelligence, and equipment under the full control of the Nigerian military and government. It must include strict human-rights oversight, transparency, and cooperation with regional organizations like ECOWAS, the African Union, and the United Nations. 


We must also confront the underlying causes of the violence: land and resource disputes, youth unemployment, religious intolerance, and poor governance. Military action alone can not end terrorism or religious killings unless these social and economic roots are also addressed.


It is true that many Nigerians, both Christian and Muslim, are deeply concerned about allowing foreign powers into the country. Their fears are legitimate given the painful experiences of other nations. Yet, the reality remains that our government has not been proactive enough to stop these attacks or protect its citizens. 


If outside assistance is the only remaining way to end the slaughter of innocent people, then such help should be accepted under a Nigerian-led arrangement, guided by accountability, human rights, and a clear timeline for results.


Whether one is Christian, Muslim, or of any other belief, every Nigerian should desire peace, justice, and security. We can not continue to watch while our fellow citizens are murdered without consequence. 


If the United States and other allies can help Nigeria stop the bloodshed through limited, cooperative, and transparent military and humanitarian support, while fully respecting our sovereignty, then it is an opportunity we must consider carefully but boldly.


To cap it all, history teaches that foreign military interventions can either heal or harm a nation depending on how they are conducted. To ensure Nigeria does not repeat the mistakes seen in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan, any form of assistance must strengthen our national security institutions, not replace them.


 Only through such balanced cooperation, guided by truth, accountability, and genuine national interest can we bring an end to the arbitrary killings and massacres of innocent citizens, especially the Christian communities across Nigeria.



*APOSTLE TEMITOPE DADEOWO OLOWOFOYEKUN WRITES FROM AKURE, ONDO STATE, NIGERIA*