admin
On Christmas Day, the United States launched precision airstrikes against Islamic State-linked militants in northwest Nigeria, a move the White House said was ordered by President Donald Trump and carried out in coordination with regional partners. U.S. Africa Command reported that the strikes struck multiple ISIS targets in Sokoto state and that several militants were killed, marking a clear and public exercise of American military muscle abroad.
Nigerian authorities confirmed they had approved and cooperated with the operation, saying intelligence sharing and careful planning enabled the hits on terrorist camps and that the strikes were part of ongoing security collaboration. That official cooperation rebuts the familiar accusation that the United States acts unilaterally or recklessly; in this case, Washington worked with Abuja to get actual results against a real enemy.
President Trump framed the action as a direct response to brazen attacks on Christian communities, pledging retaliation and explicitly linking the military response to the protection of persecuted religious minorities. Conservatives who have long warned that moral clarity and resolve are necessary to deter modern jihadis will view this as the kind of decisive leadership Washington too rarely shows.
Prominent conservative voices on the airwaves, including retired military figures, applauded the strikes as the kind of precise, calibrated action the U.S. ought to take when innocent lives are threatened and other governments falter. News commentators argued that signaling strength is often more effective than endless hand-wringing, and that the American military remains uniquely capable of delivering targeted blows that save lives and punish terrorists.
Predictably, critics rushed to complain that the president’s rhetoric oversimplified Nigeria’s tangled security problems and risked inflaming sectarian tensions, warnings that deserve consideration but cannot be allowed to paralyze action. Abuja itself emphasized the anti-terrorism nature of the operation and pushed back against framing the violence as purely religious, underscoring the complicated mix of banditry, insurgency, and local conflict that plagues the region. Conservatives should acknowledge those nuances while insisting that complexity is not a license for inaction.
Strategically, the strikes serve both as punishment for perpetrators and as deterrence — a reminder that the United States will not stand idle while targeted communities are butchered and while jihadi franchises expand across borders. Skeptics who call this merely symbolic underestimate the value of demonstrating resolve; however, if the goal is lasting stability the military action must be paired with sustained diplomatic pressure and support for Nigerian security forces.
For conservatives who believe American strength and moral clarity are indispensable, this episode offers vindication: the country acted to protect the vulnerable and to remind hostile networks that attacks on innocents will meet consequences. The real test now is whether Washington converts a single, powerful strike into a consistent policy of defending persecuted people and backing partners who are willing to fight terrorism, rather than retreating into the same hand-wringing that has failed so many times before.
