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
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.