US Airstrikes on ISIL in Nigeria: A Linguistic and Socio-political Exposition

By Prof. Funmilayo Adesanya-Davies
Professor of Applied Linguistics

On December 25–26, 2025, the United States carried out what its leaders described as “powerful and deadly strikes” against groups it claims are affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) in northwestern Nigeria. These strikes — reportedly the first direct U.S. military action on Nigerian soil — have generated diverse, and at times conflicting, narratives about what is happening, why it happened, and what it means for Nigeria’s sovereignty, security landscape, and international relations.

How the Action Was Framed:
Narratives and Counter-Narratives
From a linguistic perspective, the framing of military violence through language significantly shapes public perception. U.S. leadership rhetoric emphasized the strikes as a blow against “ISIS Terrorist Scum” and framed the action as a response to alleged severe violence against Christian communities. The U.S. President Donald Trump, posting on social media, invoked the imagery of saving Christians from what he and some of his allies called “genocide.”

In contrast, Nigerian authorities presented the operation as a joint precision operation against extremist elements — part of ongoing counterterrorism cooperation — and stressed that violence in Nigeria is complex and not reducible to attacks on any one group. They denied the characterization of the conflict as a religious genocide, underlining that both Christian and Muslim communities have suffered.

I. This divergence in descriptions reveals a broader discursive tension: The political utility of existential framing (e.g., “Christian genocide”) versus grounded declarations of partnership and collective security. The linguistic choices on both sides are not merely descriptive, but performative — they mediate power, justify action, and shape international opinions. President Trump limited it to genocide against the Christians, but the Nigeria government consented, it is even far more bigger and larger. It’s (Both Christians and Muslims); confirming and ascertaining the over the years sustained terrorism.

II. Who Was Targeted — And Why That Matters:
The precise identity and location of the targets struck remain subject to debate. According to reporting, U.S. strikes focused on ISIL-linked camps in Sokoto State’s Bauni forest — areas where foreign fighters reportedly infiltrate from the Sahel and collaborate with local affiliates. The official objective was to degrade extremist capacity and pre-empt planned large-scale violence.

However analysts quoted in media outlets have raised questions about whether the information available on the specific group or town targeted accurately reflects the U.S. claims, noting that the symbolic choice of dates (e.g., Christmas Day) or locations (predominantly Muslim areas like Sokoto) intersects uncomfortably with narratives of religious conflict. They wish US could do better.

Some local voices and observers argue that certain towns reportedly hit had no known ISIS presence, suggesting possible gaps between official narratives and on-the-ground realities. These discrepancies underscore the need to interrogate not just who is targeted, but why certain discourses are attached to those targets — a classic issue in discourse analysis where language and context inform power and policy.

III. Sovereignty, Cooperation, and the Politics of Consent:
An important dimension of this debate is sovereignty.
The Nigerian Foreign Ministry affirmed cooperation with the United States, indicating that the operation was conducted with intelligence sharing and mutual planning. Yet political opponents within Nigeria criticized this cooperation, arguing that even with consent, the strikes reflect an unequal partnership in which Nigeria’s agency is constrained by dependence on external military capacity.

From a linguistic and political lens, consent narratives are complex: positive diplomatic language (e.g., “joint operation”) coexists uneasily with domestic criticism about autonomy and national pride.

IV. Broader Sociopolitical Impacts:
It is critical to place these events within Nigeria’s multifaceted security crisis, which encompasses:
Long-running insurgencies such as Boko Haram and its ISIL affiliate, ISWAP, which have caused extensive loss of life and displacement over years.
Ethno-religious conflicts in central Nigeria unrelated to Sahel-linked extremism.
Regional banditry, kidnapping networks, and pastoralist–farmer conflicts that defy simple categorization as “terrorism.”

The danger of simplification — for example, reducing Nigeria’s security challenges to a single religious binary or ideological threat — can misdirect policy and fuel grievances.

V. Conclusion:
Nationhood, Narrative, and the Ethics of Explanation:
This event is not just a military action; it is also a moment of contested storytelling. The tension between competing narratives — U.S. strategic framing, Nigerian governmental positioning, and local community experiences — highlights how language operates as a battleground in entwined geopolitical and domestic struggles.

For scholars, journalists, and policymakers, the lesson is clear: Explanatory rigor matters. We must differentiate instrumental rhetoric from empirically grounded analysis and be cautious about importing external narratives that may oversimplify deeply rooted local complexities.
In navigating global media and geopolitical discourse, we must ask not only what is being said, but why it is said that way, and whose interests those narratives serve. Wishing US and Nigeria all the best as they tackle and see to the end of insecurity in Nigeria!

Prof Funmilayo Adesanya-Davies Professor of Applied Linguistics
Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Humanities
IAUE
Port Harcourt
Rivers State
Nigeria