Foreign Boots and Lessons Nigeria must not forget

By Adamu S Ladan

History often whispers before it screams. Unfortunately, nations sometimes ignore the whisper until the scream becomes unavoidable.

Late Alhaji Usman Faruq was a respected Nigerian statesman and former Governor of the defunct North-Western State. He was known for his deep commitment to national unity, prudence in leadership, and principled counsel during critical moments in Nigeria’s political history. A close associate of General Yakubu Gowon, Faruq was widely regarded as a voice of restraint and foresight.

In an interview, the late Faruq recounted a quiet yet profound episode from Nigeria’s history, one that offers urgent lessons for the present moment.

In July 1975, Faruq was with General Yakubu Gowon in Addis Ababa attending an OAU meeting when news broke that Gowon’s government had been overthrown in Lagos. Amid the uncertainty, Gowon reportedly disclosed that Britain and other Western allies had assured him of support should he decide to confront the new military leadership headed by General Murtala Mohammed.
Faruq’s response was immediate and resolute: do not take that path.

His reasoning was not sentimental. It was strategic. Any foreign-backed attempt to reclaim power, he argued, would not be fought in Lagos where authority had already shifted. The battle would almost certainly be fought in Northern Nigeria.

Foreign support, Faruq reasoned, would likely come through the northeastern corridor, via Chad, possibly involving mercenaries and proxy forces. The North, not the seat of power, would become the battlefield.

As Northerners, Faruq reminded Gowon, neither of them could justify plunging their own region into devastation in a bid to cling to power. That counsel prevailed. Nigeria was spared a potentially catastrophic conflict whose consequences remain unknowable. The country survived because restraint triumphed over ambition.

A Disturbing Parallel
Fifty years later, Nigeria appears to be standing at the edge of a similarly dangerous slope.

Recent public discourse and reports suggesting foreign, particularly American—kinetic involvement in Nigeria’s internal security operations, especially in the North-West, have triggered widespread concern.

Regardless of how such actions are framed, counter-terrorism cooperation, technical assistance, or joint operations, the broader implications deserve sober national reflection.

Inviting or permitting direct foreign military action on Nigerian soil to address domestic security challenges is not a technical decision; it is a strategic turning point with long-term consequences.

The Risks We Must Confront
First, the internationalisation of Nigeria’s internal conflicts would fundamentally alter their character. Local security challenges, once global powers become involved, rarely remain local.
They attract attention, interests, and counter-interests far beyond the original problem.

Second, where one major power operates, its adversaries inevitably follow, directly or indirectly. Nigeria risks becoming a new arena for proxy contests between global rivals, a fate that has befallen many states with weaker institutions and protracted internal conflicts.

Third, national sovereignty suffers erosion, not always dramatically, but incrementally. Strategic decisions begin to reflect external calculations rather than purely national priorities.

Fourth, as Faruq warned half a century ago, geography matters. The North, by virtue of its borders, terrain, and existing vulnerabilities, would likely absorb the shock of any escalation. Communities already under strain would bear an even heavier burden.

History offers ample cautionary tales. From Libya to Iraq, from Afghanistan to parts of the Sahel, foreign military involvement has often complicated internal crises rather than resolved them. Security threats may be suppressed temporarily, but instability frequently lingers long after foreign forces disengage.

This argument is not a call for isolationism or the rejection of international cooperation. Intelligence sharing, training, logistics, and equipment support are legitimate and often necessary. However, there is a clear and consequential distinction between cooperation and direct foreign military action on sovereign soil.

The wisdom displayed by Usman Faruq in 1975 lay in his understanding that power preserved at the expense of national cohesion is hollow. His restraint saved the North and, by extension, the Nigerian state.

It is therefore instructive that today’s leaders rediscover that same virtue of caution.

Nigeria’s security challenges indeed demand urgency, resolve, and competence. But they must be addressed through Nigerian-led, Nigerian-controlled, and Nigerian-accountable frameworks. Anything less risks trading today’s insecurity for tomorrow’s uncontrollable crisis.

History has already warned us once. It would be tragic, and unforgivable to ignore it now.