Anthony Obi Ogbo
Historic HISD’s $4.4 billion bond – what is County Judge Hidalgo up to?
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo has sparked controversy within her Democratic Party circle by publicly endorsing the contentious $4.4 billion Houston ISD bond less than two weeks before the upcoming election. In a recent social media post, Hidalgo revealed that a recent tour of an HISD school facility had shed light on the urgent need for additional funding, despite the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) recent takeover of the district.
The bond, which is divided into two separate propositions, has faced significant backlash in recent months. Surprisingly, both Harris County Republicans and Democrats have united in opposition to the bond, citing concerns about potential mismanagement by the current leadership.
However, Hidalgo’s stance is rooted in her firsthand observations during the school tour. She raised the alarm at the inadequate conditions she witnessed, such as a mere fence separating the exterior from six classrooms, a musty smell emanating from the library due to a damaged HVAC system, and using mobile units from 1990 that were only designed to last 10 years. Additionally, she noted that the narrow walkways and lack of proper canopies made it difficult for students and staff during inclement weather, and classrooms’ heating and cooling systems were insufficient. Indeed, Hidalgo’s decision to support the bond is based on her commitment to addressing the pressing needs of HISD students and staff, as highlighted by her eye-opening visit to the school facility.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the Bond Proposal, let’s break it down: The proposal consists of two parts – Proposition A and Proposition B. Proposition A aims to enhance the district’s buildings and facilities. If approved, HISD will have the opportunity to borrow $3.96 billion for crucial repairs and upgrades. On the other hand, Proposition B focuses on enhancing technology in HISD schools, with a proposed borrowing of $440 million to modernize technology across all schools.
The Bond Proposal currently under consideration is undeniably significant, representing the first time in 12 years that HISD has sought funding for improvements. If approved, it would also become the largest bond in the history of the state of Texas. Major supporters of the bond, such as the Houston Food Bank, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Houston, Mental Health America of Greater Houston, and Children at Risk, have valid concerns. They are particularly focused on the challenges faced by students in deteriorating school facilities.
However, there might be a glaring oversight in their assessment – the ability of HISD’s current leadership to effectively manage this initiative. Since assuming the role of Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District in June of 2023, Mike Miles has consistently been making headlines, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Despite his responsibilities in organizing, leading, directing, policy-making, and execution, Miles has failed to pass every test required to excel in his position. He has consistently struggled to lead this school district. Teachers are feeling distressed and uncertain about their roles, parents are worried about their children’s future, and students are losing interest in their education. The situation at HISD is dire, and it is clear that a change in leadership may be necessary to restore trust and stability within the district.
It is not surprising that former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and other local leaders who oppose the bond have expressed concerns regarding this proposal. They criticized Miles and his administration for not seeking sufficient input in developing the bond proposal. Bishop James Dixon, who heads the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter, also criticized the lack of transparency in the bond proposal process. The Harris County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to oppose it. Their party Chair Mike Doyle suggested that the funds should be in the hands of an elected representative, not Miles.
These criticisms underscore the critical need for transparency and community involvement in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to allocating public funds. Superintendent Miles failed to actively engage all stakeholders, including community members and organizations, to ensure that the needs and priorities of the people were adequately addressed. The opposition ultimately stems from a lack of trust. Many believe that Miles cannot be trusted to responsibly manage billions in taxpayer money.
In less than two weeks, voters will see HISD’s bond divided into two items on their ballots, one totaling approximately $4 billion and the other around $400 million. Voters must carefully consider the implications of passing such a large bond, especially when there are concerns about the leadership within HISD. Judge Hidalgo and other supporters of this bond must move beyond their emotions. It is widely recognized that HISD is facing challenges and requires assistance. Ultimately, the success of this bond will depend on not just the amount of funding allocated, but also on the ability of HISD’s leadership to effectively implement and oversee its use.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
“Nigeria reframed terrorism, corrected Washington’s lens, and secured cooperation —a pure anatomy of diplomatic turnaround“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
Nigeria’s recent engagement of a United States–based lobbying firm under a reported $9 million contract was widely scrutinized, predictably misunderstood by some, and quietly effective. The objective was clear: to shape Washington’s understanding of Nigeria’s complex security challenges—particularly violence affecting Christian communities—within an accurate geopolitical, intelligence, and regional framework. Such engagements are not unusual. In fact, they are a routine and essential feature of modern international diplomacy, allowing governments to clarify policy positions, counter distorted narratives, and ensure that domestic security crises are not flattened into simplistic talking points for foreign consumption.
In an era where global perception can influence aid, sanctions, military cooperation, and diplomatic goodwill, strategic communication has become inseparable from national security. Nigeria’s decision to professionally engage Washington signaled an understanding that security today is fought not only on the battlefield but also in briefing rooms, policy memos, and diplomatic corridors.
Evidence suggests that this recalibration has begun to yield results. Just days ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged—belatedly—that Muslims are equally among the primary victims of ISIS terrorism. It was a striking rhetorical shift for a political figure who had long leaned on broad, inflammatory framing that blurred the distinction between extremist violence and religious identity. That admission did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed sustained pressure from global security analysts, regional experts, and Muslim leaders who have repeatedly challenged the false narrative that terrorism is rooted in faith rather than criminal ideology, geopolitical instability, and organized violence.
More importantly, the acknowledgment coincided with tangible policy movement. Trump-aligned U.S. security networks have quietly expanded counterterrorism cooperation with Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. This development underscores a pragmatic recognition that effective counterterrorism is not achieved through threats, isolation, or performative rhetoric, but through partnership, intelligence sharing, and regional capacity building.
This week, the United States delivered fresh military supplies to Nigeria to support ongoing security operations. The delivery followed recent U.S. air strikes against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) targets, carried out at Nigeria’s formal request. While air strikes often attract public attention, the more consequential story lies beneath the surface: a shift toward coordinated intelligence operations, logistical support, and sustained military collaboration. This is not symbolic diplomacy. It is functional, operational alignment.
Contrast this moment with an earlier chapter in Nigeria–U.S. relations. During the Jonathan administration, Nigeria experienced significant difficulties in its diplomatic engagement with Washington. Rather than relying on seasoned foreign policy professionals, security strategists, and international communications experts, the government leaned heavily on local intermediaries and political loyalists to interpret and convey Nigeria’s position abroad. The result was a weakened diplomatic posture, fragmented messaging, and persistent misinterpretation of Nigeria’s internal security realities. Critical issues—ranging from Boko Haram’s evolution to regional insurgency dynamics—were often viewed through incomplete or distorted lenses.
That experience offered a lasting lesson: goodwill alone does not translate into influence. In global politics, perception must be managed as deliberately as policy. Strategic silence, amateur diplomacy, or reactive communication leaves a vacuum—one that is quickly filled by external narratives, advocacy groups, or political opportunists with their own agendas.
What has changed now is not merely tone, but method. Nigeria’s current approach reflects an understanding that diplomacy is not capitulation, and lobbying is not a sign of weakness. It is leverage. It is preparation. It is the disciplined articulation of national interest in a language that global power centers understand. By engaging professionally, Nigeria reframed its security narrative—not as a sectarian failure, but as a shared counterterrorism challenge that requires international coordination.
Even Donald Trump’s posture illustrates this transformation. A leader who once relied on threats, ultimatums, and rhetorical spectacle has now, through institutional channels, become part of a support framework working with regional actors to strengthen security and civilian protection. The shift is not ideological; it is a strategic move. And it reflects the enduring truth that diplomacy often succeeds where bluster fails.
In international politics, power is not only measured by firepower or economic weight, but by the ability to persuade, align, and sustain cooperation. Nigeria’s recent experience is a reminder that nations are not judged solely by their crises, but by how effectively they explain, manage, and confront them on the global stage. Diplomacy, when practiced with clarity and professionalism, does not dilute sovereignty—it reinforces it.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
Anthony Obi Ogbo
When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike
“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.
But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.
This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.
No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated
The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.
What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.
Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.
Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.
A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.
Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.
This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.
In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.
If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.
Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.
But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.
Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.
History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.
Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:
- First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
- Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
- Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
- Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
- Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.
These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.
Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.
It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.
Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.
Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?
First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.
Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.
Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.
Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.
Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.
Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.
If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.
Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo3 weeks agoFrom Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 month agoWhen Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 month agoTrump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory
-
Lifestyle1 month agoBurbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband
-
Africa1 month ago
U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign