US military presents plan for potential action in Nigeria

The US military has submitted contingency plans for potential strikes on Nigeria, following a directive from President Donald Trump to prepare for possible action over a false claim of Christian genocide.

The New York Times reports that the US Africa Command has drawn up and sent its options to the Department of War this week upon the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth.

According to the report, published on Wednesday, the contingency plan from the African Command included three options: heavy, medium, and light. Each was designed to allow for a controlled escalation.

The New York Times reported that the military officials disclosed that the “heavy option” presented by the command is the most forceful military response the US could take against Nigeria.

It involves sending an aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Guinea, off the Nigerian coast, and using fighter jets or long-range bombers to strike targets deep inside northern Nigeria.

For the medium option, the command suggested using drone strikes against militant camps, bases, convoys and vehicles in northern Nigeria.

US Predator and Reaper drones have a capacity to loiter for hours before striking; meanwhile, other US intelligence assets would build up targets’ patterns of life to enable precise, timely strikes, the New York Times reports.

Military officials told The New York Times that the light option would centre on partner-enabled operations, with the US military and State Department supporting Nigerian government forces to target Boko Haram and other Islamist insurgents responsible for attacks, kidnappings and killings of civilians.

The official said the primary goal of the plan is to strike Islamist militants in northern Nigeria, protect Christians from armed violence and to end the decades-long insurgency in the country.

However, there are some concerns about these plans.

Genocide allegations

PREMIUM TIMES reports that, last week, US President Donald Trump threatened military action against Nigeria and accused the President Bola Tinubu administration of allowing the mass slaughter of Christians.

Mr Trump designated Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) and suspended arms sales and technical support for the country.

This announcements followed months of campaigns and demands by right wing US lawmakers for the country to sanction Nigeria for allowing the “persecution of Christians.”

Although the Nigerian government has denied the claims, Mr Trump insisted that US military action against Nigeria would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening there, and in numerous other Countries. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian Population around the World,” he said.

While the US Department of War is contemplating the options presented by the Africa Command, concerns are being raised about the issues associated with implementing any of these options.

A primary concern, according to the NY Times, is that the complexity of the violence in the Sahel region is rooted in linguistic, cultural and religious divisions.

In parts of the country, such as the middle belt, the conflict stems from disputes over land use and ownership.

Meanwhile, attacks by ideologically driven Jihadist groups have targeted both Muslims and Christians.

Boko Haram, ISWAP and other groups have carried out abductions, and raided communities irrespective of religious faith.

In 2017, for instance, at least 50 people were killed when a bomb was detonated in a mosque in the Unguwar Shuwa area of Mubi, Adamawa State.

Also in 2018, a double suicide bombing in another mosque in Adamawa led to the death of 86 people.

However, officials told the New York Times that the American military cannot do much to quell the violence unless it is willing to start an Iraq- or Afghanistan-style campaign.

“It would be a fiasco,” Paul Eaton, a retired Army veteran of the war in Iraq, told the paper.

Noting that these actions would rather cause shock and confusion rather than quell the conflict, the retired general likened the effort to, “pounding a pillow.”

Challenges with the options

For the “heavy option” in the US contingency plan, the main hitch lies in the use of long-range bombers. It would require the deployment of air carrier groups to the Gulf of Guinea.

However, officials stated that the US has limited carrier capacity.

The NY Times noted that the US is already in the process of moving one of its aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford, from its deployment in Europe to the southern Caribbean, where President Trump has declared war on drug cartels.

Other carriers are currently deployed in the Pacific and the Middle East or undergoing maintenance.

It stated that several military officials stressed that deploying an American aircraft carrier to the Gulf of Guinea to confront radical Islamist groups in Nigeria was not considered a national security priority.

The second option, which involves drone strikes on militant camps is also affected by the absence of US military bases with close range.

The US exited the two nearest drone bases located in Agadez and Niamey, both in neighbouring Niger, in August.

READ ALSO: UN agencies launch catch-up immunisation campaign in Gaza

Russian forces now occupy these bases.

Currently, the closest known locations from where the US could launch drones are in southern Europe and Djibouti in East Africa, where the US military maintains a large base.

For the light option, which involves partnership with the forces in Nigeria, the US must operate without the expertise of its key implementing partner, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The administration had suspended and then dissolved the agency earlier in the year, and in July, shut down the office in Abuja.