By Ọmọsọla Olumide
The United States military has reportedly drawn up contingency plans for potential strikes on Nigeria after President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare for possible action over what many experts have dismissed as an unfounded claim of “Christian genocide.”
According to a New York Times report published Wednesday, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has submitted a set of operational options to the Department of War at the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth. The proposals outline three possible levels of response—heavy, medium, and light—each designed to allow for gradual escalation depending on how events unfold.
Sources cited by the Times said the “heavy option” represents the most aggressive military approach, potentially involving large-scale air and ground operations. This scenario could see an aircraft carrier group deployed to the Gulf of Guinea, with fighter jets or long-range bombers striking deep inside northern Nigeria.
The “medium option” focuses on drone warfare, proposing precision strikes against militant camps, convoys, and vehicles in northern Nigeria. U.S. Predator and Reaper drones—capable of extended surveillance and high-accuracy attacks—would identify and track targets over time before executing strikes, supported by U.S. intelligence assets.
The “light option” emphasizes cooperation with Nigerian forces, with U.S. military and State Department support aimed at enhancing Nigeria’s capacity to combat Boko Haram and other insurgent groups responsible for kidnappings and attacks on civilians.
According to the Times, the stated goal of the plan is to eliminate Islamist militants in northern Nigeria, protect Christian communities, and end the protracted insurgency. However, the proposal has sparked serious concerns regarding Nigeria’s sovereignty, the risk of civilian casualties, and the potential diplomatic fallout if the U.S. proceeds without coordination with Abuja.
Analysts warn that the situation in northern and central Nigeria is complex, driven as much by ethnic, cultural, and economic tensions as by religious extremism. In regions such as the Middle Belt, violence often stems from disputes over land, grazing rights, and resource access—issues that may not be resolved through military means.
Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton told the Times that a large-scale intervention could backfire. “It would be a fiasco,” he said, describing the idea as “pounding a pillow”—likely to cause chaos rather than calm.
The feasibility of the “heavy option” also faces practical challenges. The U.S. Navy’s carrier fleet is currently overstretched, with the Gerald R. Ford being redeployed to the southern Caribbean for operations against drug cartels, while other carriers are stationed in the Pacific and the Middle East or undergoing maintenance.
Similarly, drone operations would be hampered by the recent U.S. withdrawal from bases in Agadez and Niamey, Niger, reducing its reach across West Africa.
This development follows President Trump’s accusation that Nigeria is carrying out a genocide against Christians—an allegation strongly denied by the Nigerian government.
If President Trump approves the military plan, what do you think its consequences would be for Nigeria? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment