Follow us on social

39770740870_bcafd9da86_o-scaled

What will happen to US troops stationed in Niger if the region explodes?

Washington’s military presence in the country — including a drone base — is increasingly under scrutiny following last month’s coup.

Reporting | Africa

Supporters of last month’s coup in Niger have started recruiting volunteers to fight a potential military intervention from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), according to AP News. The report comes just days after ECOWAS announced that it had activated a “standby force” that was prepared to invade Niger and reinstate democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum.

It’s hard to say whether ECOWAS will make good on its threats, especially given the domestic security challenges facing Nigeria, which would generally be expected to lead any military intervention. Further complicating the matter is the fact that Burkina Faso and Mali — both of which are currently ruled by military juntas — have threatened to fight alongside Niger’s putschists if the bloc moves to invade the country.

For now, all eyes are on the impromptu ECOWAS summit in Ghana this Thursday and Friday, which could give a clearer indication of whether a regional war is on the horizon. In the meantime, the episode has shone a bright light on the U.S. military presence in the country, raising questions about whether American forces will have to leave a large drone base that officials consider crucial to regional counter-terrorism operations.

The base, located near the small northern city of Agadez, is the primary launching point for nearly all of Washington’s intelligence and surveillance operations in West Africa. America’s drone fleet for the region, which previously operated from the base, has been grounded since the coup following the junta’s decision to close Nigerien airspace.

The U.S. presence in Niger dates back to 2002, when the George W. Bush administration was winding up its so-called “Global War on Terror.”

“The idea was that the U.S. was going to wage preemptive war, really getting to root out the source of potential terrorist attacks,” explained Stephanie Savell, the co-director of the Costs of War project at Brown University, in a recent Quincy Institute panel.

Washington spent $110 million building the base near Agadez and has poured at least $500 million of security aid into the country since 2012. The U.S. has also dedicated significant time to training Nigerien officers and assisting them in missions aimed at rooting out terror groups that have taken hold in the country in recent years. Today, there are roughly 1,100 American soldiers permanently stationed in the country.

As journalist Nick Turse has shown, there’s reason to believe that the U.S. presence in Niger has had a negative impact on the country’s security. Attacks have gone up dramatically since the U.S. began to operate in the region, and at least five of the junta leaders received training from the U.S. military, suggesting that American influence has done little to encourage respect for democracy in the Nigerien ranks.

Notably, many ongoing security problems in the region date back to the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, Niger’s northern neighbor. “Current instability is associated with the collapse of the Libyan state in 2011, which led to the proliferation of weapons and armed fighters in the region,” explained a recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations. With an abundance of black market weapons available, jihadist groups have created instability across the Sahel, opening the door for a series of military coups.

Now, the United States finds itself in a bind. American officials have taken some steps to reduce cooperation with Niger in the short term, according to the Department of Defense. “We have paused, on an interim basis, security cooperation efforts and are not conducting military training while we monitor this evolving situation,” a Pentagon spokesperson told RS. “We’re focused on a diplomatic solution to preserve Niger’s hard-earned democracy.”

At the same time, U.S. officials have made clear that the Pentagon will not leave Niger of its own volition. “The only way this mission ends is if the Nigerien government asks us to leave,” an anonymous U.S. official told Reuters. “It's too important for us to abandon.”

So far, the junta has opted not to pick a fight with Washington. Instead, coup leader Abdourahamane Tiani has set his sights on France, ripping up a series of military cooperation agreements and demanding that French forces leave the country. Paris, for its part, has declined to withdraw the 1,500 troops it currently has stationed in Niger, arguing that any decisions made by the junta are illegitimate.

Many analysts argue that the U.S. would likely have to leave if the military threats from ECOWAS turn into a reality. “I would imagine if an ECOWAS invasion happened, and there was a regional war, I think that would really put the Defense Department in a tricky position,” argued Sarah Harrison of the International Crisis Group in a recent panel sponsored by the Forum on the Arms Trade. 

In case of an invasion, Harrison said, the U.S. would likely have to withdraw “just for force protection issues.” (One need not have a vivid imagination to see how a decision to keep American troops in the country could lead to a “Black Hawk Down”-esque situation, with all its attendant moral and political costs.)

Another situation that could force U.S. soldiers to leave — or at least reduce their role in the country — is if the junta manages to hold onto power. “If [the coup] is not reversed, it's going to be hard as a policy matter to stay,” Harrison argued. “The U.S. is there training and equipping Nigerien forces, and a lot of that is going to be off limits.”

Given these challenges, some analysts see the coup as an opportunity for American policymakers to shift gears and try a new approach to improving security and building state capacity in West Africa.

“What this moment really calls us to do, in the United States, is to see this as a wake up call that a dramatically different kind of an approach is needed,” argued Savell. “Let’s be courageous enough to say what we’ve done so far hasn’t worked.”


Nigerien soldiers participate in a special forces training exercise during a U.S.-led exercise near Agadez, Niger, April 14, 2018. (U.S. Navy photo by MC3 (SW/AW) Evan Parker)
Reporting | Africa
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.