I was looking today at the New York Times’ report on the memo drawn up by US military’s Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany, which has [imperialist] responsibility for Africa. The plan that it sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC was in compliance with President Donald Trump’s demand, via social media, for a military plan to attack Nigeria, ostensibly to end “massacre of our cherished Christians” by Islamist insurgent groups.
The plan’s three options, — light, medium and heavy — reminded me of what I read many years ago about the bureaucratic trick of sending memos to US Presidents. American bureaucrats, including security agencies and the military, usually provide three options in a memo to the President. The first and third options are visibly not to the President’s liking; it is always clear that the recommended option is the one in the middle.
Africa Command’s “light option” is “partner-enabled operations” in which the “U.S. military and State Department would support government forces in Nigeria to target Boko Haram and other Islamic insurgents.” This option, it said, is complicated because “violence in the northern Nigerian Sahel falls along linguistic, cultural and religious lines. Much of it is based on land use and tenure and is fomented in some cases by corruption in the Nigerian government. Farmers and herders in the region have battled one another over land use for decades, and militant Islamic groups have taken advantage of the distrust to push their own agenda.” Sounds like a quagmire for Trump.
Africa Command’s “medium option” is for drone strikes on militant camps, bases, convoys and vehicles in northern Nigeria, using Predator and Reaper drones. The problem, it said, is US recently lost its military bases in Agadez and Niamey, in neighboring Niger Republic. Those bases are now in Russian hands, so it must instead launch drones from southern Europe or from the US military base in Djibouti, in East Africa. Or else, it must get other West African countries to provide bases, which it said will bring such countries on collision course with Nigeria. Quite a politico-logistical problem there.
The “heavy option” is to move an aircraft carrier group into the Gulf of Guinea and to deploy fighters and long-range bombers to conduct strikes deep in northern Nigeria. The snag here is that US military is in the process of moving its top aircraft carrier, Gerald R. Ford, from Europe to the southern Caribbean, for Mr. Trump’s war on drug cartels, “while its other aircraft carriers are currently deployed in the Pacific or in the Middle East or are undergoing maintenance.” So, no available carrier groups for war in Nigeria.
New York Times, America’s most prominent newspaper, said “the American military cannot do much to quell the violence [in Nigeria] unless it is willing to start an Iraq- or Afghanistan-style campaign… something that no one appears to be seriously contemplating.” All three options tabled before Mr. Trump are either unviable or unpalatable. No wonder that retired US Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a veteran of the war in Iraq, said a war in Nigeria “would be a fiasco. It is like pounding a pillow.” The Times quoted “current and former military and national security officials, including those with experience fighting Islamist militant groups in West and Central Africa, as saying Mr. Trump’s latest directive “left them stumped.”
No wonder. No evidence that Mr. Trump is a good Christian. Meta AI says, “Donald Trump doesn’t attend regular church services. Although he has been spotted at various churches, including St John’s Episcopal Church and Bethesda-by-the-sea Episcopal Church, his attendance is often tied to specific events, holidays or photo opportunities.” So much for a man who wants to save world Christianity. All he wants are the votes of America’s Christian evangelists, after hearing their rant in early morning Fox news.
Quick comment in 21stcenturychronicle.com. Thursday, November 6, 2025.
