BOMBING FARMLANDS AND CALLING IT COUNTERTERRORISM

I was about to go to bed on the night of December 25 when a pop-up notification from Al Jazeera caught my attention. It reported breaking news that the United States had launched an attack on terrorists in northwestern Nigeria.

As an anti-imperialist and a proud, patriotic Nigerian, my immediate reaction was one of anger and resolve. I felt compelled to respond with a strong condemnation. However, on second thought, another idea emerged. If the strikes were genuinely aimed at terrorists who have made life unbearable for Nigerians, particularly in the North, then perhaps such intervention might be welcome.

By the early hours of 26 December, official statements had begun to pour in from the US government, including from Donald Trump, who framed the attack as targeting perpetrators of what he repeatedly calls a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, a narrative he has aggressively promoted in recent weeks.

The Nigerian government also released a statement, claiming it was aware of the operation and had, in fact, provided intelligence support.

That should have settled the matter, until reality intervened.

By mid-morning on 26 December, while checking social media, I encountered videos and photographs from the affected village in Sokoto State. Instantly, my position changed.

Why?

Because what the so-called “almighty” US military attacked was not a terrorist camp, but a farmland on the outskirts of a village with no known history of terrorist activity.

Even more absurd is the fact that the ISIS-affiliated group the US claimed to target does not operate in that part of northwestern Nigeria. To underscore the sheer emptiness of the strike, no casualties were recorded, human or otherwise, except for farmlands left smouldering.

The only tangible evidence of the attack was debris from explosives scattered across the fields.

Yet, before noon, the usual anti-Nigeria elements, those who habitually call for foreign invasion, began celebrating in their characteristic ignorance, without making the slightest effort at verification.

At the same time, some southern supporters of the government joined in the applause, hailing an attack that was little more than a theatrical display with no strategic impact.

Predictably, the Nigerian media, true to its tradition of bandwagon sensationalism, echoed these claims without attempting any serious investigation into what had actually occurred.

This entire episode perfectly illustrates the problem I discussed in my earlier article on the “Educated but Ignorant Generation.” Many of those celebrating the strike are entirely detached from reality, yet loudly opinionated.

Worse still, when presented with evidence contradicting the official narrative, they hastily label dissenters “terrorist sympathisers.”

A particularly ironic case is that of Bulama Bukarti, a well, known anti, Boko Haram journalist. This is a man so vocal against terrorism that Abubakar Shekau once placed a bounty on his head.

For over a decade, he has rigorously exposed Boko Haram’s ideology and crimes. Yet today, ignorant keyboard warriors, many barely informed, now brand him a terrorist sympathiser, simply because he challenged a false narrative.

Turning to the US and its celebratory posture over the bombing of farmland, this episode exposes not only the falsehood of its claim to be protecting Nigerian Christians but also its fundamental ignorance of Nigeria’s internal dynamics.

The strike occurred in Sokoto State, a predominantly Muslim state with virtually no Christian population and no history of religious persecution.

There is no record of terrorist activity in the area attacked. The target was farmland. There were no casualties.

These facts alone expose the emptiness of Trump’s genocide rhetoric and reveal how dangerously shallow US intelligence on Nigeria truly is.

Far from helping Nigeria fight terrorism, this incident proves that the United States cannot help us. Its claim to be a protector of Christians is as hollow as many of Donald Trump’s daily falsehoods.

In contrast, the Nigerian military, despite limited public support and recognition, has remained professional and increasingly effective. Its officers and soldiers have conducted numerous successful operations against terrorists, often at great personal cost.

They have shown courage, patriotism, and restraint, even while being criticised or ignored by those they risk their lives to protect.

Perhaps this embarrassing attack on a “terrorist farmland” by a foreign “messiah” will finally open some eyes and foster a deeper appreciation of the sacrifices made by Nigerian troops.

The truth remains clear: the United States is the last country Nigeria should look to in its fight against insurgency. We should recall that this same US refused to sell Nigeria weapons during the early, most critical stages of the insurgency — and when it eventually relented, it imposed suffocating restrictions.

More importantly, the US bears significant responsibility for the regional instability that fuels terrorism today. Its actions in destabilising Libya directly contributed to the proliferation of arms and extremist groups across the Sahel and West Africa.

Nigeria’s security challenges are real and complex. They demand serious solutions, grounded intelligence, and national ownership — not imperial grandstanding, propaganda narratives, or bombs dropped on farmlands.

Conclusion

We must end our dependence on foreign military intervention and begin investing seriously in indigenous military research, technology, and production. A country of Nigeria’s size, population, strategic importance, and regional influence cannot continue to outsource its security or remain at the mercy of external powers for basic military hardware.

True sovereignty is impossible without military self-reliance. Dependence breeds vulnerability, manipulation, and humiliation, as this episode clearly demonstrates. Nigeria is not merely a regional force in West Africa or Africa; it is a country with global relevance. It must begin to act like one.

The Nigerian military has proven itself professional, patriotic, and resilient. What it lacks is not discipline or commitment, but adequate equipment, sustained funding, and political will. These are not things we will obtain through dependency, especially not from countries whose foreign policies have helped incubate the very terrorism they now claim to fight.

Nigeria can and must be protected by Nigerians, using Nigerian military technology, built through deliberate national investment and long-term planning. The solution to our security challenges will not come from bombs dropped on farmlands or from imperial narratives crafted abroad.

It will come from within.

God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.