By LADI SOYODE

Nigeria’s ongoing struggle against terrorism—particularly violence affecting Christian communities in parts of the country—has renewed calls for deeper military cooperation with the United States. While the protection of civilians is a moral and constitutional obligation of the Nigerian state, history cautions that foreign military involvement by global powers often carries strategic costs that far outweigh its immediate benefits. 

For Nigeria, a country of immense demographic, cultural and geopolitical significance, the stakes are especially high. For me, expanded U.S. military cooperation is neither historically prudent nor strategically aligned with Nigeria’s longterm national interest. Instead, Nigeria must pursue military self-reliance and, where external cooperation is unavoidable, engage partners without colonial or neo-colonial legacies on the African continent. 

The Record of U.S. Military Interventions The modern history of U.S. military intervention presents a troubling pattern. Iraq was invaded in 2003 under the justification of eliminating weapons of mass destruction—claims later proven unfounded—resulting in prolonged instability and sectarian violence. Libya’s 2011 NATO-led intervention dismantled state authority, transforming the country into a fragmented arena for militias and transnational terrorism. 

Afghanistan, after 20 years of American military presence, reverted to Taliban control shortly after U.S. withdrawal in 2021. Syria remains devastated following years of proxy warfare involving U.S. strategic interests. These cases illustrate a recurring outcome: interventions framed in moral or humanitarian language often culminate in institutional collapse and enduring instability. It would be historically naïve to presume Nigeria—Africa’s most populous nation and one of its most resourcerich—would be an exception. 

Nigeria’s Early Resistance to Military Dependency Nigeria’s post-independence leaders understood the dangers of foreign military entanglements. The Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact of 1961 proposed continued British military access and influence over Nigeria’s defence infrastructure. The pact was met with widespread opposition from Nigerian students, intellectuals and political leaders, who viewed it as a continuation of colonial subordination. The agreement was ultimately abrogated, affirming Nigeria’s commitment to sovereign control over its security. That instinct remains relevant. 

Military dependence is the most dangerous form of dependence, as it compromises a nation’s ultimate authority over life, territory and destiny. Wealth Without Power: A His torical Lesson There is an enduring truth in political history: a rich man who cannot protect his wealth will inevitably be robbed. Africa is immensely rich in resources, culture and human capital, yet historically unable to defend that wealth. This imbalance has repeatedly invited exploitation. The destruction of the Songhai Empire at the Battle of Tondibi in 1591 stands as a seminal example. Despite its advanced educational institutions in Timbuktu and sophisticated governance, Songhai fell to Moroccan forces armed with muskets. 

The lesson was clear: superior civilisation without superior military capability is vulnerable. This vulnerability paved the way for the transatlantic slave trade, during which millions of Africans were forcibly removed and entire societies destabilised. Moral legitimacy did not protect Africa; power determined outcomes. Contemporary Constraints and Strategic Contradictions Nigeria’s counter-terrorism capacity has faced persistent external constraints. The United States has, at various times, restricted arms sales to Nigeria, citing human rights concerns, even as terrorist groups acquired increasingly sophisticated weaponry through illicit channels. Critics argue that these restrictions delayed Nigeria’s ability to decisively suppress insurgent groups. Additionally, allegations—reported in Nigerian and international media—have linked Western aid frameworks, including USAID-funded networks, to indirect channels that allegedly benefitted insurgent logistics. 

While such claims require careful investigation, they underscore the strategic incoherence of relying on partners whose policies may weaken Nigeria’s security posture. The so-called Kissinger Report and subsequent U.S. strategic assessments have long treated Nigeria as a demographic and geopolitical variable rather than a sovereign equal. As the world’s most populous Black nation, Nigeria’s strength—or weakness— has global implications for Black peoples in a world shaped by racism, exploitation and historical injustice.

•Soyode is a Partner in the firm of Obafemi Awolowo & Co. Legal practitioners