Why the US can destroy terrorist camps in Nigeria, but not terrorism – security scholar

US military airstrikes on Islamic State-linked militants in northwestern Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025 attracted global attention. The focus was on the international legal implications and whether the Nigerian government had consented to the strikes.

I am a peace and security scholar and have researched Boko Haram’s long campaign of violence. The investigation shows that the group’s activities have resulted in extensive loss of life and material destruction, as well as large-scale internal displacement. This requires integrated security, humanitarian and governance responses.

In my opinion, the focus on the airstrikes risks obscuring the real question: why does terrorism continue in Nigeria?

My argument is that it is not the absence of military force. My research shows that the problem of persistent violence is rooted in failures of governance at every level of society. Airstrikes do not address the political, economic and social conditions that enable armed groups to survive, adapt and recruit.

Armed violence has proliferated wherever state authority is exercised in a predatory, selective or irresponsible manner. Terrorism in Nigeria has thrived because the state has too often failed to govern justly, consistently and credibly.

In northeastern Nigeria, for example, counter-terrorism efforts have been undermined, where displaced civilians remain unable to return safely and land conflicts remain unresolved. What is needed are investments in civil protection and local reconciliation processes that restore trust between communities and the state.

Similar lessons can be seen in parts of Lake Chad, where humanitarian support and local governance reforms have proven more effective in stabilizing communities than military operations alone.

Military force can play a role in containing armed groups. But it must be embedded in a broader project of political reconstruction, institutional accountability and building social trust. This means restoring the state’s presence, not only through soldiers, but also through reliable public services in communities most affected by violence and displacement.

Stories, legitimacy and uncertainty

After the strike, President Donald Trump announced the operation in a social media post in moral and religious terms. He described the attack as retaliation against militants who had killed Christians. He portrayed the strike as both morally necessary and strategically decisive.

This framing, widely reported by Reuters and reinforced through the American media and social platforms, resonated strongly in the political discourse in Washington. Major US media outlets, including CNN, noted that the reality of violence in Nigeria is more complex than a simple religious binary.

For their part, Nigerian officials emphasized the sovereignty, coordination and non-sectarian nature of insecurity in the country. In a statement carried by Reuters, the Foreign Ministry stressed that terrorism in Nigeria affected citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity. It warned against stories that could fuel sectarian divisions. This was reported by the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Terrorist violence in any form, whether against Christians, Muslims or other communities, remains an affront to Nigeria’s values ​​and to international peace and security.

Where governance is fragile, an externally imposed moral framework can increase distrust, exacerbate social divisions, and provide armed groups with new narratives to exploit.

Framing insecurity as a religious war is analytically incorrect. It is also strategically dangerous. Armed groups often rely on these types of ideas to recruit, radicalize and justify violence.

External validation of these ideas can, even unintentionally, become a propaganda tool for militants operating in a context of weak state legitimacy such as Nigeria.

Military success is not security success

US military statements described the attack as having destroyed militant infrastructure and disrupted operations. Reports from Premium Times and Reuters indicated that camps and facilities were affected. Yet public information about leadership casualties, disruptions of command and control, and financial networks remains limited.

Without clarity on what happened, claims of success offer little to Nigerians who still live in uncertainty.

Tactical disruption may interrupt planning and movement, but it does not dismantle the networks embedded in local economies of coercion, taxation and protection.

Getting to the heart of the problem

Nigeria’s militant violence is embedded in a broader landscape of state disengagement, informal authority, and subsistence economies. Large parts of the northeast’s countryside remain effectively ungoverned.

Security and justice are provided by armed actors and criminal networks, not by the state. In such environments, terrorism is less an invasion from outside and more a symptom of systemic institutional collapse.

Military interventions can temporarily disrupt these systems. But without restoring governance, they leave intact the structures that reproduce violence.

The government can restore governance by doing the following.

Political reconstruction: Rebuilding local institutions in ways that involve displaced populations, traditional leaders, women and youth, rather than relying solely on centralized state authority. Unemployment, land conflicts and political exclusion have created conditions in which violence thrives. What is needed is reinvestment in livelihoods, education and fair land management.

Institutional responsibility: This means restoring confidence in the Nigerian state, especially in conflict-affected communities where security forces are perceived as abusive or corrupt. Accountability mechanisms are needed to investigate abuse and compensate victims. This requires transparent systems for managing humanitarian activities and reconstruction funds. Citizens can have more confidence in state authority when they see how corruption is tackled and justice is applied.

Building social trust: Community-based peacebuilding and inclusive reconstruction processes are essential for repairing social rifts. When people experience safety and dignity in their daily lives, trust in safety institutions can return.

The success of counter-terrorism in Nigeria should not only be measured by the number of neutralized insurgents, but also by whether state authority becomes more legitimate than before. Lasting peace will depend less on tactical military gains than on restoring public trust. This will be done through responsible governance, civil protection and inclusive economic recovery.