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.
Reports have revealed 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.
It was 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.
Military officials revealed 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
