Follow us on social

US troops heading back to Chad?

US troops heading back to Chad?

After less than four months, the troubled African country wants us back. Washington should think twice.

Analysis | QiOSK

In an interview with Voice of America on Thursday, United States Major General for Africa Command Kenneth Ekman said that the United States and Chad have agreed on the return of a “limited number” of U.S. Special Forces personnel. Details of the agreement have not yet been made public.

The incumbent leader of Chad, Mahamat Deby, who led the country first as president of the Transitional Military Council from 2021 to 2022 and then as Transitional President from 2022 until he won the presidential election earlier this year, has decided to allow the reentrance of U.S. troops into Chad. Mahamat Deby serves as the country’s first elected president since his father, Idriss Deby, was killed in a military offensive by a rebel group in northwest Chad in 2021.

What changed his mind is so far unclear. It wasn’t so long ago, in the lead-up to the Chadian presidential election on May 6, that Deby asked the United States to remove all military personnel from the country. The United States complied with his request, withdrawing 75 U.S. Special Forces personne, many of whom had been stationed at a French military base in the capital of N’Djamena. At the time, there was no indication that the U.S. military would be given the green light to come back.

Their reported return runs counter to the recent trend across the Sahel in which national governments have asked Western forces to leave after years of failed counterinsurgency efforts. At the end of 2023, France withdrew its forces from Niger at the demand of the country’s junta government, which took power in a military coup in July 2023. The military junta in Niger similarly asked the U.S. to leave. Washington just recently completed its full military withdrawal from the country.

Tensions in the region are high, with national governments increasingly wary of institutions traditionally backed by Western countries. The recent formation of the Alliance of Sahel States between Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso is seen as a move to form a partnership in direct opposition to regional, continental, and global diplomatic and economic communities, such as the regional economic body ECOWAS and the African Union, as well as Western-backed institutions that many in these countries see as the offspring of colonialism.

Bringing troops back to Chad risks further entangling the United States in a web of expanding insurgent activity that neither Washington nor local military forces have been able to repel. Despite a decade of counterinsurgency operations by Western states — most notably France and the United States — in conjunction with local and regional military bodies across the Sahel, militant groups are only growing in strength and expanding further across the region.

Armed groups originally based in North Africa and the Sahel are now moving further south, where they are threatening the security of the coastal states of Benin, Togo, Ghana, and Cote d’Ivoire, among others. Security challenges are also partially responsible for the dramatic rise in coup attempts in countries across the region in recent years, including Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Guinea. All of this has occurred despite years of American and French military presence in the region.

Rather than commit more troops to a failed counterinsurgency fight, the U.S. would do better to focus on diplomatic engagement and coordinated intelligence sharing with the countries of the region. Restationing troops in Chad risks U.S. military personnel suffering an attack at the hands of armed groups, which would further drag Washington into this unshakable conflict.


Chadians and Americans participate in the Closing Ceremony of Medical Readiness Training Exercise held at the Military Teaching Hospital in N'Djamena, Chad, May 18, 2017. (U.S. Army Africa photo by Staff Sgt. Shejal Pulivarti)

Analysis | QiOSK
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.