From the Ground Up: The Story of Casualties — and of the “Terrorists Killed” — in the U.S.–Nigeria Christmas Strikes

By Ephraim Agbo 

U.S. and Nigerian officials say their joint Christmas-Day strikes in Sokoto State killed “multiple” Islamic State-linked fighters and hit two camps in the Bauni Forest. At the same time, villagers in Jabo and residents of Offa found missile fragments, heard explosions and reported panic — and local authorities and independent checks show no clear, publicly verified accounting of who actually died where.

---

What the militaries say: “Multiple terrorists were killed”

Both U.S. Africa Command and Nigerian officials described the operation as intelligence-driven, conducted from maritime platforms and involving Tomahawk cruise missiles and MQ-9 Reaper strikes, and concluded it hit ISIS-linked camps. The official language used by U.S. and Nigerian spokespeople is categorical: the strikes degraded enemy formations and killed multiple fighters. This is the factual claim that anchors all other assessments.

Why that claim matters: in conflict reporting the difference between “enemy fighters” and “civilians” is the single most consequential categorisation — it determines whether an action is treated as legitimate use of force or a potential violation demanding investigation.

---

What the ground says: panic, fragments, and an unclear death toll

In Jabo (Tambuwal LGA) villagers described a red glow in the sky, a falling “reddish item” and an explosion that shook fields; they said they found no bodies in the impacted farmland. In Offa (Kwara State), nearly 300 km south of the target area, buildings were damaged and an undetonated explosive device was recovered; officials later acknowledged debris from the strikes fell there. Locals’ testimony so far points to fear, damaged property and disrupted lives — not an immediate, verified list of enemy dead.

What this mismatch produces: an apparent gap between the military’s casualty claim about militants killed and the lived evidence of communities that saw only debris, damage and frightened civilians — a gap that calls for verification, not only assertion.

---

The verification problem: why “multiple terrorists killed” is not the final word

“Multiple” is a qualitative claim, not a numeric, independently verifiable count. Open questions that determine whether the strike reduced a militant capability or produced civilian harm include:

• Who exactly was at the struck coordinates at the time? (local populations, fighters, or both)
• Are there physical remains or forensic evidence that confirm the identity of the dead?
• Do hospital records, morgues or burial reports show casualties consistent with the military timeline?
• Can independent satellite imagery, ground photos and witness interviews corroborate strike locations and after-effects?

Until these lines of evidence are compiled, the official claim remains a testable hypothesis — one that requires data beyond the initial military press release.

---

Precedent: why scepticism is not paranoia

There is recent, painful precedent in Sokoto: a December 25, 2024 Nigerian Air Force strike that targeted suspected militants later produced a confirmed toll of civilian deaths (investigations found 13 civilians killed and 8 injured) and drew official compensation to victims’ families. That episode shows how initial military claims about “suspected terrorists” have in the past been revised after investigations and how civilian harm sometimes emerges only later. That history must inform how we treat today’s claims of militants killed.

---

Two possible readings — and the consequences of each

1. If the military count is accurate (multiple militants killed, no civilian deaths): the operation dealt a blow to an IS-linked cell and may disrupt planned attacks — an arguable tactical success. But without transparent, independent casualty verification, the claim fuels suspicion among civilians and critics who see foreign force involvement as politically charged.

2. If the claim overstates militant casualties or masks civilian harm: history suggests compensation, investigations and political fallout will follow — as occurred after the 2024 incident — and the strategic consequences include loss of local trust, radicalisation risk, and pressure on Abuja to explain cooperating with a high-profile foreign strike.

---

What to look for next — the evidence that will settle the ledger

The casualty story will only be resolved when these elements are assembled and cross-checked:

• Satellite imagery showing strike impacts and subsequent movement.
• Hospital and morgue records for the hours and days immediately after the strike.
• Independent on-the-ground witness interviews (names, times, locations) and photo/video chains of custody.
• Forensic evidence (fragments matched to munitions, DNA or visual ID of remains).
• Transparent military after-action and battle-damage assessments shared with neutral monitors.

The military claim of “multiple terrorists killed” demands these corroborating datasets if it is to be accepted without caveat.

---

Closing: casualties first — the human ledger before the political narrative

The operational narrative — a swift, high-visibility strike against ISIS-linked camps — is politically useful for both capitals. But the immediate human ledger is what matters for victims and for the rules that govern the use of force: who died, who was injured, whose livelihoods were shattered, and whether the people classified as “terrorists” were actually combatants at the time.

At present, the military’s claim that multiple militants were killed stands as an assertion supported by statements from AFRICOM and Abuja. On the other side are frightened villagers, damaged homes, and debris found hundreds of kilometres away. That contrast is the core story: until hard, independent evidence fills the ledger, the true balance of terrorists killed vs. casualties (civilian or combatant) remains unresolved — and that unresolved ledger is exactly where accountability, grievance and future violence will take root.