The lawmaker most keen on intervention has been none other than Ted Cruz, the Texas senator eager to present himself as a throwback Republican and alternative to the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA. Cruz is almost certainly positioning himself in preparation for another presidential run.
Trump became convinced of the need to get involved in Nigeria thanks to a Fox News segment. It testifies to the power the online sphere has over the current administration. A talking point becomes popular among conservative influencers on X and then translated into Fox News coverage. That coverage influences the president and then becomes policy. This process has led to many positive things in the administration, such as granting refugee status to Afrikaners and drawing attention to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska. But a possible Nigerian intervention is one of the negative results.
Experts, such as retired Maj. General Paul D. Eaton, warn that an intervention would be a “fiasco.” Hudson Institute fellow James Barnett, who lived and studied in Nigeria for several years, argues that it’s wrong to frame the nation’s conflict as explicitly anti-Christian as it “badly distorts the complicated and tragic reality on the ground.” “Shaping U.S. policy around such distortions, especially when U.S. troops may be put in harm’s way, will not yield good outcomes,” he argues in a Washington Post op-ed. Barnett also notes that many countries, including U.S. allies, discriminate against Christians, yet it’s broadly understood the national interest would be ill-served by invading them.
“A military intervention premised on the wrong diagnosis would not save Nigerian Christians. It would only deepen Nigeria’s troubles while drawing the U.S. into a set of conflicts it is not equipped to solve,” Barnett concludes.
A Nigerian adventure would undermine the administration’s realist approach to foreign policy in favor of discredited humanitarian interventionism. Realism, as espoused by Trump, puts the national interest first. It looks at the world with clear eyes and doesn’t succumb to moral blackmail. It understands that the world is a nasty place and America can’t solve every problem. Humanitarian interventionism, on the other hand, demands America get involved in every single problem based on emotion rather than facts.
We intervened in Somalia, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere based in large part on humanitarian arguments. America was supposed to make these countries safer and protect minorities from oppression. Instead, our interventions turned local crises into humanitarian nightmares and demonstrated we can’t solve these issues. We, in fact, made them worse. Take for instance what happened to Iraqi Christians following Operation Shock and Awe in 2003: Thousands of them were murdered and over a million fled the country. One of the oldest Christian populations in the world now stands close to extinction.
It’s unlikely intervention in Nigeria will be any different from these past failures.
It’s legitimate for Trump to use diplomacy to persuade Nigeria to protect its Christian population. The admin could argue the military threats are simply a way to pressure the African state to do more. But the issue is that conservative influencers seem fully on board with a military strike. They love that rapper Nicki Minaj endorsed Trump’s proposal for intervention and eagerly share the admin’s threatening videos aimed at Nigeria. Trump may not be as serious as he seems about going in “guns-a-blazing,” but too many conservatives are thrilled with the idea regardless of the president’s intent.