Nigeria’s military says it is monitoring the movement of Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) fighters who are believed to be fleeing their hideouts after recent United States airstrikes in the country’s north-west.
The strikes were announced on Christmas Day by the US president, Donald Trump, who said American forces had carried out “lethal” attacks on Islamic State targets. Nigeria’s federal government later confirmed the operation, describing it as part of ongoing counterterrorism cooperation between the two countries.
In the days that followed, reports emerged of armed groups dispersing from their traditional bases. In Benue state, the chairman of the traditional council in Gwer West local government area, Daniel Abomtse, raised concerns over what he described as an influx of armed herders into some communities after the strikes. Community leaders in Tangaza, Gudu and parts of Illela in Sokoto state also reported unusual movements by armed groups.
Some residents, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suspected bandits were travelling in smaller units through remote forest corridors, while others were believed to be attempting to cross into neighbouring border communities.
Senior military officials, however, said the situation was being closely watched. “We know they are fleeing. We have information on that and we are working on it,” one official said. “They are being monitored and their movements are being tracked.”
Another officer said intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations were under way to follow the militants’ movements. “Is it possible for us not to know they are fleeing?” the official said. “We have the information and we are conducting ISR to track them.”
The strikes and their aftermath have reignited debate over whether Nigeria should allow US troops to be deployed on its soil. The foreign affairs minister, Yusuf Tuggar, recently said the ministry of defence would advise the government on next steps when asked on CNN whether Nigeria might consider such a move.
Retired senior officers have expressed sharply differing views. Brigadier General Peter Aro (retd.) said he did not support the deployment of US soldiers, warning of serious legal, diplomatic and social consequences. Foreign troops, he argued, could only be deployed under a formal defence pact approved at the highest levels of government.
“At a time when our country is already grappling with fragile national cohesion, the presence of foreign troops could deepen internal mistrust, fuel insurgent propaganda, and exacerbate existing regional and religious sensitivities,” Aro said, noting that even some northern elites appeared uneasy with the idea.
He added that Nigeria already had sufficient ground forces, including the armed forces, police mobile units and civil defence personnel, and that US support would be more useful in areas such as air power, surveillance and precision strikes. Maintaining Nigerian control of land operations, he said, was critical for legitimacy and long-term stability.
Others disagree. Brigadier General Bashir Adewinbi (retd.) said closer security cooperation with the US was normal international practice and linked the Christmas Day strikes to joint efforts between Abuja and Washington. He said the national security adviser’s recent visit to the US was part of that collaboration.
“If the deployment of US soldiers is considered necessary to improve security, and it follows due diplomatic processes with clear terms of engagement, I would support it,” Adewinbi said. “Collaboration is the answer to the problem of the world today.”
Major General Dayo Olukoju (retd.) urged caution, saying strategic mistakes could not be afforded at a critical moment. Meanwhile, a former Nigerian air force spokesperson, Group Captain Sadique Shehu (retd.), criticised suggestions that US soldiers should be deployed to fight on Nigerian soil.
“It is very disappointing that some are even thinking of that,” Shehu said. “We agree we don’t have their technology, but if you are talking about their soldiers coming to fight for us, the country is finished then.”
Shehu said the more likely scenario was the continued presence of small US advisory teams, rather than large-scale deployments of the kind seen in Iraq or Afghanistan. He also questioned claims about the effectiveness of the reported strikes, saying there was no confirmed information yet on whether any militants had been killed.
He argued that Nigeria must clearly define the terms of any foreign security assistance and communicate directly with its citizens. “When an attack happens, it shouldn’t be Trump talking to Nigerians,” he said. “It should be Nigerians talking to Nigerians.”
In Washington, the Republican congressman Riley Moore defended the airstrikes, saying they were intended to bring peace and security rather than war. In a post on X, Moore said the Christmas Day operation against Islamic State, carried out in coordination with the Nigerian government, was meant to protect thousands of Christians facing violence.
“President Trump is not trying to bring war to Nigeria; he’s bringing peace and security,” Moore said, adding that the strikes had given hope to Christians in the country.
