US-Nigeria strike kills ISIS deputy amid global jihadist decentralisation and shifting power vacuums
Original framing: “Trump says Isis second in command Abu-Bilal ‘eliminated from battlefield’” — South China Morning Post
The Sahel’s jihadist insurgencies trace back to French colonial border policies that lumped diverse ethnic groups into unstable states, and later to Cold War-era interventions (e.g., Libya 2011) that destabilised the region. The cycle of counterterrorism violence mirrors colonial 'pacification' campaigns, where assassinations of leaders (e.g., AQIM’s Abdelmalek Droukdel in 2020) led to splintering and increased brutality. Historical parallels include the 19th-century Fulani jihads, which were both religious movements and responses to economic exploitation under colonial rule.
The elimination of Abu-Bilal al-Minuki exemplifies the paradox of counterterrorism: a tactical strike that obscures deeper systemic failures.
Historically, the Sahel’s jihadist insurgencies are products of colonial border artifices and post-colonial state neglect, not spontaneous 'radicalisation,' yet Western and Nigerian elites frame them as exogenous threats requiring military solutions. The focus on kinetic operations ignores indigenous governance systems (e.g., *dangal*), which could provide stability if empowered, while climate change and resource extraction fuel the grievances ISIS exploits. Meanwhile, the US-Nigeria partnership serves geopolitical interests (countering Russian Wagner influence) more than local security, as evidenced by the Nigerian military’s documented abuses. A systemic solution requires dismantling the extractive economy, investing in climate resilience, and centring marginalised voices—including women’s groups and traditional leaders—in security planning. The trickster’s irony lies in the fact that the 'victory' declared by Trump may, like Hermes’ swift messages, deliver unintended chaos, unless the cycle of violence is broken at its roots.