On December 1, 2025, Nigeria’s security discourse took a dramatic turn as former Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Yusuf Buratai (Retired), sounded a clarion call at the 18th Annual International Security Conference of the Institute of Security, Nigeria, held at the University of Lagos. Buratai, a figure synonymous with Nigeria’s fight against Boko Haram, didn’t mince words: “What most people fail to understand is that insurgency is the people’s war. It’s not only the military’s war.” His warning was pointed—insurgents may be lurking within everyday communities, hidden in plain sight.
Buratai’s remarks, as reported by Premium Times, reframed the ongoing national security challenge. He insisted that the fight against insurgency cannot be completed without active citizen participation, emphasizing that military might alone will not suffice. “You’d be surprised that amongst us here, there may be one or two bandits, terrorists or Boko Haram members,” he said, underscoring the insidious nature of the threat.
Reflecting on his years at the helm of Nigeria’s military, Buratai acknowledged that between 2015 and 2021, significant progress was made. Territories once overrun by insurgents were reclaimed, and Boko Haram’s capabilities were “substantially degraded.” Still, he cautioned against complacency, stressing that lasting security demands a holistic, sustained approach. “The military is still what it used to be, ‘professional’,” Buratai asserted, defending the institution’s abilities. “The government has all the documentation… the defence policy, the Anti-Terrorism Prevention Act. They are all there to deal with this situation. But it must be comprehensive, consistent, and sustained.”
Delivering his keynote address, “Leadership, Strategy, and National Security Management,” Buratai leaned on his published works to hammer home a critical point: even the best strategies are useless without competent leaders to execute them. “A well-developed strategy is essential, but it is nothing without leaders who can implement it,” he said. According to him, transparency, citizen engagement, and foresight are vital qualities for leaders at every level.
Buratai’s prescription for Nigeria’s security woes is a multi-layered approach. He advocated for strengthening local government administrations, building community resilience, and fostering cooperation between the public and security agencies. He also called for ongoing training, retraining, and recruitment across the military, police, and intelligence services. The conference, which also saw the induction of new fellows and members into the Institute of Security Nigeria, reflected a growing professionalization in the country’s security sector.
Yet, as Nigeria grapples with these internal reforms, the international spotlight has swung sharply onto its security crisis. On December 2, 2025, TheCable reported a seismic development in Washington, D.C.: the American Congress, in a rare bipartisan move, passed the “Nigeria Religious Freedom Protection and Counter-Terrorism Act of 2025” by a vote of 285. This resolution grants President Donald Trump sweeping powers, including sanctions, visa denials against selected Nigerian officials, and, most notably, authorization for targeted military action against terrorist groups operating in Nigeria.
US intelligence and military analysts, cited by TheCable, believe that while President Trump now holds Congressional approval, a full-scale invasion is unlikely. Instead, the expectation is for targeted drone strikes on terrorist camps and infrastructure. Steve McDale, a Washington-based analyst, explained, “The US is not at war with the Nigerian government and people. The US government is going after the terrorists who have for quite some time now wreaked havoc on innocent Nigerian people.” He referenced the immense humanitarian toll, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and drew parallels to Nigeria’s own interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone during their crises.
Standard US military protocol suggests that advance operatives may have already entered Nigeria to gather on-the-ground intelligence. Their mission? To “case the joint” and enable precision drone strikes, coordinated via satellite and supported by technical intelligence from agents embedded in the country. These operatives would also assess the impact of any strikes, both on terrorist targets and the civilian population, to inform subsequent US actions.
Officially, the US intervention is framed as a humanitarian effort, aiming to safeguard religious freedom for Christians allegedly targeted by Islamist jihadists. However, TheCable notes that the move may also serve broader strategic interests. Analysts speculate that the US could leverage the threat of military action to extract economic concessions from the Nigerian government, such as mineral extraction rights or even the establishment of a military base—moves intended to counter China’s growing influence in Africa’s most populous nation and largest economy.
But the path ahead is fraught with legal, ethical, and geopolitical complications. Critics argue that Congressional approval in Washington does not equate to international legitimacy. Without a global consensus or the explicit cooperation of the Nigerian government, such unilateral action risks being perceived as an illegal act of war against a sovereign nation. Furthermore, there’s no concrete evidence that Nigeria’s insurgency poses a direct threat to US interests or its allies—a key justification typically required for military intervention.
Domestically, the US administration faces potential backlash. While Congress may have greenlit intervention, public opinion could swiftly sour if American involvement leads to unintended consequences. There’s also the risk of collateral damage—how can drone strikes reliably distinguish between terrorist camps and civilian dwellings? The specter of widespread panic, escalation of violence both within Nigeria and across West Africa, and the possibility of retaliatory actions looms large.
On the global stage, the ramifications could be even more profound. Some analysts warn that such a move could embolden other powers—China, for instance, might view it as a precedent for military action elsewhere, such as Taiwan. The lessons of history are sobering: Germany’s invasions in the early 20th century and the US-led war in Iraq both began with actions that their architects believed would be swift and contained, only to spiral into disaster.
Given these risks, the recommendation from many quarters—including TheCable’s contributors—is clear: the US should prioritize diplomatic engagement with the Nigerian government, seeking collaborative solutions to the security crisis rather than unilateral military action. “If the price Nigerian people have to pay is some economic concessions to the Americans in the bargain, so be it. But the long suffering Nigerian people must be spared a tragedy of monumental proportions on top of the trauma of insecurity they are now facing,” the report concludes.
As Nigeria stands at the crossroads of internal reform and external pressure, the coming months will test not only the resilience of its institutions but the boundaries of international law and diplomacy. For now, the world watches, hoping that measured leadership and international cooperation will prevail over the perils of hasty intervention.