admin
The Trump administration’s recent strikes against Islamic State-affiliated militants in northwest Nigeria mark a decisive moment in confronting a spreading threat that has terrorized communities and targeted Christians in the region. President Trump announced the operation and framed it as a response to militants who have been attacking religious minorities, signaling a willingness to use American power to protect vulnerable populations abroad.
According to reporting, the strikes hit sites in Sokoto State and were coordinated with Nigerian authorities, employing precision munitions and drone assets to neutralize key militant positions. The operation reportedly involved strikes from maritime platforms and MQ-9 Reaper strikes on identified camps, underscoring improved intelligence-sharing and a more assertive posture against transnational jihadists.
Former U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback warned on national radio that Nigeria has become the deadliest place on Earth to be a Christian, a blunt assessment that should shame complacent policymakers. Brownback’s warning isn’t alarmism; it’s a call to recognize that religious persecution overseas has real human consequences and demands an unapologetic defense of faith and life.
Conservative foreign policy must be about protecting the powerless, and inaction in the face of massacres and church burnings would be a moral abdication. For years elites and diplomats have downplayed the scale of Islamist violence in Nigeria; it took clear, forceful action to remind the world that the United States will act when lives and religious liberty are at stake.
Critics will scramble to denounce the operation’s timing or the way it was announced, but the primary test is whether American power is used to disrupt terror networks and save lives. Even some opponents of the president acknowledged the strategic rationale, while others raised procedural questions about authorization that deserve sober debate but should not paralyze action against an active ISIS threat.
This action also exposes a larger truth: the fight against Islamist terrorism in Africa is no longer peripheral. If the United States hopes to prevent safe havens from spreading and to protect religious minorities, Washington must pair surgical military options with sustained diplomatic pressure and support for reliable partners. The alternative is to watch radical groups metastasize while doing nothing but issuing statements.
Americans who believe in religious freedom and the dignity of human life should welcome a government ready to confront evil abroad rather than retreat behind platitudes. This strike is a reminder that American strength, when rightly applied, can be a force for good and a shield for the persecuted; policymakers must build on it with clear strategy, congressional buy-in, and humanitarian support for victims.
