Matters Arising: Why is Insecurity Rising in Nigeria Despite US Air Strikes?

When United States airstrikes pounded ISIS-linked targets in Sokoto state on Christmas Day in 2025, they were hailed as a sign that Nigeria’s fight against terrorism had gained a powerful international ally. In reality, though the US has always supported Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts, December’s strikes were rather dramatic. They were the first among later fusillades of strikes launched to avenge the “mass slaughter of Christians” by Islamist terrorists — the main driver of violence in Nigeria, according to US lawmakers.

However, months into the strengthened partnership between both countries, security remains elusive.

Just seven months into 2026, Nigeria recorded 5,918 violent incidents — nearly four-fifths of the 7,539 incidents documented throughout 2025 — according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a US-based conflict monitor. Of the incidents recorded this year, 10,904 have been fatal — representing 73.2 percent of the total deaths documented in 2025 in just over half a year.

The increase is part of a years-long pattern, with insecurity continuing to worsen.

Violence rose from 2,970 incidents in 2015 to 7,539, an increase of +153.8 percent, meaning the country recorded about two and a half times as much political violence in 2025 as it did a decade earlier.

With this year’s figures already surpassing half of last year’s total, analysts project that the levels of violence could spike at an alarming rate if the current trajectory continues.

The numbers present an uncomfortable paradox. The US, which is the world’s strongest military, has played a more visible international role in Nigeria’s counterterrorism campaign by sharing intelligence, carrying out joint airstrikes, and intensifying political pressure. The heightened involvement raised expectations that it would help weaken terrorist groups and improve security. Why, then, has the tide yet to turn on Nigeria’s insecurity crisis despite increased foreign intervention?

THE LIMIT OF AIRSTRIKES

Nigeria has long argued that its insecurity crisis is complex and transcends the religious violence position consistently upheld by international figures. That argument may be correct.

Security threats in the country comprise a terrorism spillover from neighbouring Sahelian states; banditry in the north-west; Islamist militants such as ISWAP, ISIS, and Boko Haram; pastoralist and farmer clashes; and cult groups and militia.

Ladd Serwat, Africa senior analyst at ACLED, called the mix “a very complicated security situation”.

Serwat told TheCable that though the US has increased its pressure on Nigeria and become more involved, it has yet to commit to handling the country’s nuanced security threats and has, instead, restricted itself to providing support for tackling Boko Haram and ISWAP militants.

“To some extent, airstrikes can only go so far,” the security analyst said. “Much of the insecurity in the north-west by bandits won’t be solved through air strikes.”

“The ability to conduct an air strike against a particular leader or even carry out ground operations against a particular bandit leader has only fragmented the number of groups that operate in Nigeria’s north-west primarily, but increasingly in other areas of the country.

“So, with this fragmentation, we’ve seen new leaders develop smaller groups and begin competing against one another as well as carrying out very high levels of violence against civilians.

“And so if the US chooses to focus its efforts solely on air strikes, we can’t expect this to resolve.”

Since the US intensified its military campaigns in Nigeria, there have been some notable successes.

In May, the presidents of both countries said Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, the second-in-command of ISIS, had been killed in a joint operation in Nigeria.

According to US officials, the electronic equipment recovered in the operation was the largest haul since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Since then, the US and Nigeria have carried out several more joint operations, killing multiple ISWAP fighters.

Serwat acknowledged that both countries have significantly increased the pace of airstrikes compared with previous years, alongside intensified operations by the Nigerian military. However, he noted that the activities of Islamist militant groups “constitute only a small proportion of the overall violence” in Nigeria.

If Nigeria wants to effectively tackle insecurity, he said, it would have to explore other means outside of airstrike campaigns.

BANDITRY: THE BIGGER THREAT

In modern usage, the word “bandit” has become a synonym for “thief”, but in security lingo, the term is more ominous.

Banditry, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), is described as a multifaceted crime encompassing acts such as armed robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping, cattle rustling, armed attacks, and raids targeting local communities.

This crime is often perpetrated by groups defined as “highly fragmented” and diverse in terms of their capabilities and degree of organisation. Violence of this kind is what has come to increasingly rattle Nigeria’s security architecture.

The full extent of these groups’ entrenchment remains difficult to determine. Serwat said more than 100 bandit groups are believed to be operating across parts of northwestern Nigeria. Collectively, they are estimated to have more than 30,000 members, according to Malik Samuel, senior researcher at Good Governance Africa.

Their growing footprint has been matched by an increase in kidnappings, which have become one of the defining features of the country’s insecurity.

A report by SBM Intelligence, a geopolitical research firm, found that 2,938 people were kidnapped in the north-west region between July 2024 and June 2025 — over 60 percent of reported incidents nationwide. Kidnappers demanded roughly ₦48 billion and secured ₦2.57 billion, according to the report. Official tallies have yet to emerge for this year, but the number of kidnapped citizens is believed to exceed 1,000, including schoolchildren.

The scale of the violence raises an obvious question: what has enabled these groups to expand and operate with such persistence?

“One of the reasons for this is because, unlike the jihadist or violent extremist groups that usually have structured organisation, the bandits are loose. 
 They don’t have a command and control structure, sort of. You have several bandit leaders scattered here and there,” Samuel said.

“And then, of course, if you look at the motivation for these bandits, it’s purely criminal, which means they are able to terrorise communities regularly. And because it is driven by the need to make money by crime, the payment of ransom continues the cycle.”

The security researcher also pointed to the country’s geographical features as enabling factors for the bandits.

“But again, the north-west and the north-central, the forests in these areas are a big part of it. Yes, the violence takes place in remote communities, but these guys are coming from forests, and when they finish attacking, they retreat back to these forests,” he said, adding that some forests provide routes that enable undetected mining and arms smuggling.

“You can take a bike from Zamfara state, for instance, and head all the way to Mali,” Samuel said.

He also pointed to the fleeting presence of security forces in many of the Northern communities as an enabling factor for bandit groups to perpetuate violence.

LONG-TERM GRIEVANCES AND GOVERNANCE FAILURES

A common theme that echoed in the positions by Serwat and Samuel pointed to governance failures.

Samuel said long-standing grievances against the government within local communities have fuelled the rise of armed groups.

In many communities across northern Nigeria, longstanding tensions exist between Hausa and Fulani populations over land ownership and claims of indigeneity, he explained. In some areas, Fulani communities are regarded by others as settlers rather than indigenous inhabitants, a perception that has fuelled local disputes.

“I’ve attended a peace deal between bandits and communities. 
When the bandits made their demands, for a neutral person sitting there, you just feel these are not illegitimate grievances. These are legitimate demands. They want their children to be able to go to school in the communities; they want to be able to access markets; they want to be able to access healthcare — all these amenities are in communities that are seen as Hausa communities, and because the Fulanis are usually not in these towns, they’re usually on the outskirts; they are considered as outsiders,” Samuel said.

“If you look at communities where this violence takes place, these are communities where the state is largely absent. You talk about communities without potable water, without electricity.”

In one such community under Batsari LGA in Katsina, Samuel said residents complained about living without electricity for a decade.

“When these governance issues are very present, it is easy for not just bandits now, but also jihadists or violent extremist groups to take advantage of these grievances, because what we’ve seen are situations where violent extremist groups are presenting themselves as the best alternative government to people by having some sort of governance in place, by having conflict resolution, and by economic empowerment,” he said.

“These are functions that the state should provide. 
So if the state does not provide this, it is difficult to talk about security.”

WHOSE FIGHT IS IT?

The organs of state charged with internal security are the police and other agencies. In Nigeria, it appears to be the military. The situation has led analysts to strongly criticise what they say is an “over-militarisation” of the Nigeria Police Force.

Explanations for this shift vary. Some trace it to Nigeria’s long history of military rule, which entrenched the armed forces as the state’s dominant security institution. Others point to the shortage of police personnel and resources, leaving the military to fill gaps in internal security operations.

Part of a solution to reverse this trend is calls for state policing.

On July 23, the house of representatives passed the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish state police.

The development has been met with mixed feelings.

Supporters of the state police argue that the federal structure has become increasingly inadequate for a federation of more than 230 million people. Opponents express concern about political abuse.

Serwat said Nigeria has to move forward on the matter “in a careful way”.

“This often has the negative effect when bandit groups or even Islamist groups move into an area with some sort of self-formed vigilante group or armed defence group. They suspect all civilians to be militants, and we tend to see very high levels of targeting of civilians when they’re retaking over this area. So, this is sort of the negative side of local policing or vigilantism,” the ACLED senior Africa security analyst told TheCable.

“And this is where potentially a state police force could support these communities and deploy additional security support for protecting these communities from the various armed groups that continue to often loot and abduct for ransom.”

Samuel held a more positive outlook.

He said Nigeria’s centralised policing system causes citizens to place an unfair responsibility for security on the federal government.

According to the researcher, decentralising policing would improve accountability by giving governors greater responsibility for security outcomes in their states.

He also argued that recruiting more officers from the communities they serve could strengthen state policing efforts, as local personnel are often better placed to understand the terrain, build trust, and gather intelligence.

“If we learn from our current mistakes, I think it should work. There is a positive line in state policing,” he said.

As Nigeria’s insecurity grows more fragmented and complex, the question is no longer whether military force or foreign interventions have a role to play, but whether they can succeed without stronger institutions and accountable governance. The answer, for now, remains uncertain.

Source: TheCable