By Ephraim Agbo
When President Donald Trump announced a U.S. airstrike in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the factual outline was straightforward: U.S. forces struck Islamist militants in Sokoto State, and AFRICOM said the action was “at the direction of the President” and conducted “in coordination with Nigerian authorities.”
But the operational facts only begin the story. The more consequential question is why the strike was announced in the form and at the moment it was — why Nigeria, why Christmas, and why such a deliberately moralized public framing? The answers lie at the intersection of domestic politics, narrative framing, and the modern mechanics of using force as political theater.
The strategic choice of Nigeria: policy meets audience
Nigeria is not a random theatre. It is Africa’s most populous state, religiously mixed and deeply porous to multiple forms of violence—insurgency, banditry, communal disputes—that are easily reframed as sectarian persecution for political effect. For an administration that had already re-labelled Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” on religious-freedom grounds, the country offered an opportunity to tie counterterrorism to a domestic constituency that cares about alleged Christian persecution.
Choosing Nigeria therefore served two audiences at once: international partners and domestic political bases. Internationally, an operation against an ISIS-affiliated group can be justified as counterterrorism cooperation. Domestically, the same action can be sold as moral leadership defending co-religionists — a rhetorical package that simplifies messy local realities into a clear, emotionally resonant story.
Timing as symbolism: Christmas as communication device
Military operations are scheduled around intelligence, logistics and opportunity — not holidays. So when a strike occurs on Christmas and is immediately celebrated in explicitly religious language, the timing is communication, not coincidence. By announcing the strike on December 25 and using language that cast the action as protection of persecuted Christians, the administration converted a tactical military event into a broader cultural message: America as protector of Christians abroad.
That message is surgical: it reassures voters who see geopolitics in existential or spiritual terms, collapsing policy into a moral story where ambiguity is not persuasive. In short, Christmas transfigured counterterrorism into a political parable.
Narrative control: branding the enemy and erasing complexity
Calling the target “ISIS” or linking it to well-known jihadist brands is the messaging equivalent of a logo: it instantly communicates threat and evil without inviting messy debate about local drivers — land disputes, state weakness, criminal economies, or ethnic tensions. Analysts note the group targeted in the strike is part of the wider Sahel/West Africa jihadist milieu (and local actors such as “Lakurwa/Lakurawa” have complex local histories), yet the administration’s shorthand placed the attack squarely inside the post-9/11 moral architecture that makes public approval easier.
That branding has operational utility. “ISIS” is a trigger word for audiences primed by two decades of American counterterrorism: it reduces cognitive friction, pre-approves force in the court of public opinion, and short-circuits the kinds of policy questions that might hold up or complicate executive action.
The rhetoric of unilateralism: starring the President, sidelining partners
Although AFRICOM’s statement and Nigerian confirmations stressed coordination with Abuja, the President’s initial posts emphasized unilateral direction and decisive personal action. That rhetorical choice does political work: it presents the leader as bold and independent, elevating executive action above multilateral nuance.
Erasing the partner from the public script also serves another purpose: it preserves a narrative of rescue. If Nigeria were front-and-center as an equal partner, the story would become one of shared responsibility and complex state-building. By contrast, a hero/helpless-victim storyline is much simpler to sell to domestic audiences.
Abuja’s careful pushback — why nuance still matters there
Nigerian officials were cautious: they confirmed cooperation but pushed back on a purely sectarian framing. That response isn’t mere image management. Nigeria understands that turning localized violence into a religious persecution narrative risks deepening internal divisions and fueling the very recruitment narratives militants exploit. In short, Abuja’s insistence on complexity is an act of damage control aimed at national cohesion and counterinsurgency effectiveness.
The danger of spectacle: tactical gains, strategic questions
Militarily, a single strike can disrupt a specific cell, degrade capacity temporarily, and score short-term political points. Strategically, however, the deeper problems that drive violence — governance gaps, economic marginalization, porous borders, and local grievances — remain unaddressed. When force is primarily used to signal virtue to a domestic audience, it risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic. Critics warn that such moves can bolster militants’ recruitment narratives and complicate long-term stability.
What this precedent teaches us
This episode matters less for its immediate kinetic effect than for what it reveals about how modern power is performed. Leaders now regularly translate foreign policy into domestic theater: selective facts are amplified, timing becomes symbolic, branding substitutes for analysis, and executive decisiveness is staged for political and cultural consumption.
For journalists, the obligation is to pry open the seam between spectacle and strategy. Was the strike justified? The documents from AFRICOM and Abuja offer one set of facts. Was it strategic in the sense of addressing root causes? That requires a broader policy footprint — governance, finance, and diplomacy — which was not evident in the Christmas announcement.
If foreign policy becomes primarily a tool of domestic narrative management, then the real cost may not be measured in ordinance and casualties alone but in the long-term erosion of analytical clarity needed to solve the problems those strikes purport to fix.
No comments:
Post a Comment