Battleground is Sambisa, not Aso Rock — activist urges clarity on proposed US action
By Passman Akpos
A vocal critic of comparing foreign military interventions warned on Sunday that proposals to use U.S. force in Nigeria should not be equated with past campaigns in Libya and Iraq, arguing the objective and scope are fundamentally different.
Princewill Odidi said the aim of the proposed action is narrowly focused: dislodging Boko Haram from its stronghold in the Sambisa Forest — not a regime change or an invasion of Nigeria’s federal institutions.
“Do not equate Trump’s proposed invasion with what happened in Libya and Iraq. The goal is not change of government, the goal is dislodging Boko Haram in Sambisa. Know where to draw the line. Battleground is Sambisa NOT Aso Rock,” Odidi said in a statement.
Odidi’s comments come amid heated debate over international responses to the long-running insurgency in Nigeria’s northeast. Advocates for foreign assistance argue that targeted action against militant hideouts could weaken Boko Haram and protect civilians; opponents warn that foreign military involvement risks unintended consequences and could be framed as an infringement on national sovereignty.
Analysts say the distinction Odidi highlights — between operations aimed at eliminating terrorist sanctuaries versus campaigns that pursue political change — is central to how such proposals are perceived both inside Nigeria and internationally. Past interventions in Iraq and Libya, which involved prolonged campaigns and deep political consequences, have left lasting skepticism among many Nigerians.
Odidi’s statement called for careful delineation of objectives and firm assurances that any foreign involvement would be limited, transparent, and coordinated with Nigerian authorities. He emphasized that framing matters: “If the narrative shifts from a counterterrorism operation to a political intervention, it changes everything — legally, strategically and for public support.”
The Nigerian government has not issued an official response to Odidi’s remarks. Security experts say any foreign action on Nigerian soil would require clear legal mandates, strict rules of engagement, and comprehensive plans for post-operation stabilization to avoid repeating mistakes seen in earlier international campaigns.
As debate continues, Odidi urged both domestic and international actors to “know where to draw the line” — a reminder that the difference between targeted counterterrorism and broader military intervention can determine outcomes for communities caught in the crossfire.
