WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will remove all its forces and equipment from a small base in Niger this weekend and fewer than 500 remaining troops will leave a critical drone base in the West African country in August, ahead of a Sept. 15 deadline set in an agreement with the new ruling junta, the American commander there said Friday.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Kenneth Ekman said in an interview that a number of small teams of 10-20 U.S. troops, including special operations forces, have moved to other countries in West Africa. But the bulk of the forces will go to Europe, at least initially.
Ekman and other U.S. military leaders have said other West African nations want to work with the U.S. and may be open to an expanded American presence. He did not detail the locations, but other U.S. officials have pointed to the Ivory Coast and Ghana as examples.
I can’t help but feel very mixed about this. Yes, it’s good that America is getting the boot, but America wouldn’t leave like this unless they had something to gain. They’re not actually afraid of conflict with Niger, in fact I imagine they would welcome an excuse to get into a fight and increase their presence on the continent. What Niger needs is more African nations taking up anti-imperialism and instead it feels like Niger is going it alone. I seems like it will be trivially easy for the North Atlantic to carpet bomb Niger when it becomes convenient or strategic to do so, and to do it before anti-imperialist momentum builds so that they can send a signal like they did with Yugoslavia.
I hope I’m wrong, but I was excited about Niger’s actions when they first started. Now I’m worried about the lack of falling dominoes on the continent.
More states in West Africa going anti-imperialist would be great of course, but they are not alone: Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have decided to unite into a confederation.
Some more info on this:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/burkina-faso-mali-niger-sign-confederation-treaty-4462201
Thank you for this! Maybe post this link as its own story?
Done.
This could just be a retreat from the periphery to shore up the more important holdings in Ukraine and Israel, while also focusing on combating Russia and preparing to shift to China. Splitting attention into West Africa might be overextending the empire and they know they can’t open up yet another front. Same reason the coup in Bolivia failed.
I agree with the overextension argument. The US did try to negotiate keeping the base, or even relocating it. It seems that soft power failed and they were forced to withdraw or use military intervention. If they did invade/coup Niger, it would require arms transfers they already cannot meet in the other two fronts, and, probably worse, would unravel the US imperialist narratives even faster and weaken their strategic relationships which are already starting to crumble.
I’m 100% certain the US plans on coming back, but I don’t think the US will ever recover in a way that it would be possible if it stays on the current track.
I agree that it’s actually a strategic retreat so we can take that as a good sign of limits of the empire, but it also means that Niger is at risk of drawing fire because they are having larger PR wins than they can back up with force, making them a prime target for punitive measures.
In a way the retreat of European and US troops across the Sahel region are “falling dominos”. Just today we had news that German troops are being pulled out of Niger
And Chad could be the next domino to fall. They’ve had a lot of anti-French protests, they expelled the German ambassador, and the US is probably going to be forced to pull its troops out of there soon as well. Meanwhile they are building closer relations with Russia. I am hopeful that things are moving in the right direction.
I’m hopeful as well. I’m just worried for the people of Niger and the possibility of them being bombed to oblivion.
It’s a sign of the waning power of the west. We’re so bogged down in other wars and our diplomatic relations with the global south have weakened to such a great extent that there’s not much to be done about it.
While I agree, the West is still capable of punitive atrocities to reduce the rate at which other nations take similar actions. Unless we’re really low on bombs.
They are low on bombs, morale, and their military is stretched thin and already instigating a 3-front WW3 (with 2/3 fronts already active). And they’re also incredibly low on international support- the entire world is united in horror of their actions, whether it be due to morality (what’s going on in Palestine, or their support of Nazis and terrorist attacks against Russia), to self-preservation of their people (aforementioned WW3), or their finances (weaponization of SWIFT, ever-increasing debt, blatant thefts/seizures of Russian state and private assets, the west essentially trying to destroy the modern international economy to revert it back to their monopolies). And domestic support is also abysmal, material conditions are collapsing for the vast majority of the population, people are horrified at the genocide and threat of WW3, and the former POTUS who they have been waging unprecedented lawfare against is coming back with a vengeance.
All that, and it’s election season. Also, things are just as bad or worse across the rest of the Anglosphere and western Europe. And to top it all off, Russian troops are already receiving a warm welcome in Niger.
Can the US bomb Niger? Sure it can. But it’ll pull in the neighboring countries, enrage public sentiment across Africa and the entire global south, might even pull in Russia, and will only serve to make the US more of a pariah, make it clear it has nothing to offer the world but terrorism and slavery (more than it has already) thus pushing more nations firmly into the arms of BRICS (the vast majority of humanity is already either in BRICS, or trying to join it- and anyone with sense is bit by bit, divesting from the unreliable, unstable, and untrustworthy west). And it’ll be just another black mark against the US domestically as well.
What would be the end result? Even if they just used a few bombs as a symbolic, spiteful measure (so as not to divert from Operation Ukraine, the occupation of Palestine, and encirclement of China), they would only serve to further outrage an already hostile population- any return of the west to Niger will have to be through official or unofficial occupation, akin to Afghanistan and Iraq. And they can’t sic ECOWAS against Niger/Burkina Faso/Mali (France already tried), it would be deeply unpopular and serve to further destabilize those comprador countries which follow such commands- though there’s considerable reason to believe many at this point wouldn’t, as they’re wisely divesting from the west as-is. Will the US then spitefully try to bomb those countries too, when they reject being puppets and slaves of the west when push comes to shove?
Meanwhile, global sympathies- and even perhaps, arms or even troops (as in the case with Russia) or aid would come from the rest of the world. And the longer the west stays in Niger, the more it will become a drain- on their finances, on their international reputation, etc… during a time when these things are already shot to hell, and the entire world is moving past them.
The US can certainly bomb Niger. Just like they can certainly bomb most of the countries that are rising up or shuffling away from them. But the contradictions of the empire have already reached such a critical mass, that any action they take to attempt to do so will only ensure that the western demise accelerates and increases in severity, and will only serve to further empower the coalition rising up to defend themselves from western terrorism and exploitation. If they bomb Niger today, tomorrow they’ll have to bomb Burkina Faso, Mali, and perhaps even Senegal, Nigeria, etc. as well. But they’ll never be welcome back, in fact they’ll only serve to strengthen local resolve and solidarity against western occupation, meanwhile due to their actions BRICS will only continue to increase in popularity and strength.
As of now a lot of the world population still buys the idea that the US/west are good and things like that. Even with what is happening in Palestine that hasn’t drastically changed yet. But as you say, each country they bomb is a new country that gets to see the US for what they are, and the same would be somewhat true for the neighbours of these countries and the rest of the world, and who knows, they might be one country being bombed by them away from this mass reaching a critical mass.
For example, if Niger gets bombed by them then Niger’s neighbours at first and then the rest of Africa might come to better understand the situation and try to help Niger as they can and that would likely reverbarate globally, through images and impacts to the global economy, pushing more and more to the same anti-imperialist side.