The news that Nigerian forces, with British logistical and intelligence support, have liberated hundreds from Boko Haram’s grip should not pass without a moment of sober reflection. We cheer the freedom of these captives, as any civilised nation must. Yet let us not pretend this is a simple humanitarian gesture. Britain’s involvement in Africa’s counter-terror struggles is a thread in a much older tapestry: one woven with imperial duty, strategic self-interest, and the uncomfortable truth that order must be imposed where chaos reigns.
Nigerian troops, trained and advised by British personnel, stormed Boko Haram strongholds in the Sambisa Forest. They freed women and children who had been held for years, some forced into marriage or used as suicide bombers. The operation was precise, ruthless, and effective. It is the kind of success that Whitehall quietly files away as evidence of ‘soft power’ paying dividends. But soft power is a euphemism. What we are witnessing is the return of a civilising mission, albeit one dressed in the language of partnership and capacity building.
Compare this to the late Victorian era, when British officers led native levies against the Mahdi’s forces in Sudan or suppressed the slave trade in Zanzibar. The methods have changed. We now use drones and satellite imagery rather than Maxim guns and gunboats. But the underlying logic remains: failed states breed monsters, and monsters do not respect borders. Boko Haram’s ideology is a mutant offspring of local grievance and global jihadism. It threatens not only Nigeria but the Sahel, the Maghreb, and eventually Europe. To pretend this is solely Nigeria’s problem is to ignore the lessons of 9/11 and the Paris attacks.
Of course, the progressive left will cry neo-colonialism. They will point to British arms sales to Nigeria, the corruption of the Nigerian elite, and the historical injustices of the Berlin Conference. They have their points. But they miss the larger reality: the alternatives are worse. If Britain pulls out, if France withdraws from Mali, if the West retreats into its fortress, who fills the void? The Wagner Group. Chinese mercantile exploitation. A new dark age of endemic violence and refugee flows. The choice is not between perfect and imperfect action. It is between engagement and abdication.
Some will argue that our involvement is a waste of treasure and blood. That Boko Haram is a local insurgency that will burn out on its own. History disagrees. The Ghost of Rome haunts us here. The Roman Empire did not fall because it overextended; it fell because it stopped believing in its own mission. It ceded the periphery to barbarians, then found the barbarians at the gates of the Forum. Britain cannot afford such fatalism. Our counter-terror role in Africa is not charity. It is the price of maintaining a world order that allows democracy, trade, and the rule of law to survive.
So let the headlines cheer the freed hostages. They deserve their joy. But let the policymakers in London read the fine print. This operation is a reminder that the Pax Britannica, however faded, still has work to do. We must stay the course. The alternative is chaos.
Arthur Penhaligon
