IN spite of President Donald Trump’s public order for U.S. forces to prepare for possible military intervention in Nigeria, senior defense officials have warned that any strike would likely be ineffective and potentially disastrous.
According to U.S. military sources, internal assessments suggest that America lacks the operational capacity to quell Nigeria’s complex and decades-long insurgency without embarking on a full-scale campaign similar to Iraq or Afghanistan—something “no one appears to be seriously contemplating.”
The directive, which Trump issued via social media, instructed the Department of War to prepare for “possible action” in response to what he described as attacks on “cherished Christians” in Nigeria.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth immediately acknowledged the order, directing Africa Command (AFRICOM) to generate strike options. These ranged from “light” to “heavy” military responses.
Under the light plan, the U.S. would provide intelligence and logistical support to Nigeria’s forces to combat Boko Haram and ISWAP militants.
However, officials noted that deep-rooted corruption, land disputes, and sectarian complexities would undermine such operations.
The medium plan, involving drone strikes on militant bases, was deemed logistically unfeasible following the U.S. withdrawal from drone bases in Niger—now occupied by Russian forces.
The heavy option, which proposed deploying an aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Guinea, was dismissed outright as impractical and unnecessary.
“It would be a fiasco,” warned retired Major General Paul Eaton, a veteran of the Iraq War. He likened the President’s proposed airstrikes to “pounding a pillow,” arguing that while such actions might create temporary shock, they would have little lasting effect.
Military analysts emphasized that Nigeria’s violence extends beyond religion, involving land disputes and governance failures that have claimed thousands of lives among both Christians and Muslims.
While militant groups such as Boko Haram and ISWAP have targeted Christian communities, they have also attacked Muslims considered noncompliant with their ideology.
The Nigerian government, in its response, said it welcomes U.S. support against Islamist insurgents but stressed that any intervention must respect Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Trump’s aggressive stance follows growing U.S. congressional pressure to sanction groups accused of religious persecution in Nigeria, including Miyetti Allah and Fulani militias.
However, within the Pentagon, consensus appears clear: a large-scale American military campaign in Nigeria would yield symbolic victories at best—and catastrophic consequences at worst.