By Julian Pecquet
.jpeg)
As the top Pentagon civilian for Africa policy, Chidi Blyden was in the room when former president Joe Biden lifted Nigeria’s 'Country of Particular Concern' (CPC) designation in late 2021. Since leaving government after Donald Trump’s election, she has launched the strategic advisory firm Culturally Bound.
In an interview with The Africa Report, the former deputy assistant secretary of defence for African affairs defends Biden’s attempt to reengage Abuja, while acknowledging shortfalls. With reports that US Africa Command is scoping options – from air strikes on militant compounds to ground raids alongside Nigerian units – Blyden argues that pressure can spur cooperation, but warns against casting the crisis as Christians vs Muslims.
Do you have insights into these reported US war plans for Nigeria, and how serious they are?
Chidi Blyden: No – but this is normal. When a president asks the Pentagon for “options”, it means contingency planning, not an imminent strike. It is serious as a signal, not as a plan of execution.
That said, the rhetoric has escalated fast. Framing violence mainly as persecution of Christians gives the issue a moral charge in Washington. Regionally, consequences are visible. Chad’s decision to close its border with Nigeria shows how fragile the neighbourhood is.
Once borders close, intelligence sharing dries up, insurgents adapt and coordination falters. Politically, the talk is serious; operationally, unilateral US action without Abuja’s consent would be risky, counter-productive and unsustainable. Washington is using the threat of force to push Nigeria and neighbours towards firmer cooperation and accountability.
How did we get here? The Biden administration lifted the CPC designation as a goodwill gesture – did Abuja fail to engage? What can it do now?
Lifting CPC in 2021 was a reset – a diplomatic olive branch. The message was that Nigeria could improve human-rights and religious-freedom performance through partnership, not punishment. Since then, engagement has been uneven.
Abuja still lacks an ambassador in Washington – a serious gap when direct diplomacy is essential. From the US side, continued reports of sectarian violence, stalled reforms and limited cooperation on accountability have been read as inaction. That allowed political actors here to portray Nigeria as unwilling or unable to address faith-based violence – which is not the case.
To turn this around, Abuja should:
Re-engage diplomatically – appoint an ambassador, reactivate defence and security dialogues, and set out its counter-terrorism posture directly to Washington.
Reassert civilian protection and transparency – publish data on casualties, prosecutions, and humanitarian coordination to control the narrative.
Lead on interfaith messaging – show Nigeria is a shared society under one rule of law. That means visible, joint Christian-Muslim efforts against violence.
Are you concerned these statements could inflame tensions between faiths in Nigeria?
Yes. When US leaders describe Nigerian violence primarily through a religious lens, it validates extremist framings. Communities start to see themselves as targets rather than citizens on the same side.
Since recent remarks, anxiety has risen among Christian associations, with defensive reactions from Muslim organisations. That polarisation plays directly into the narratives of Boko Haram and others. US language should emphasise protection of all civilians, not one faith. Abuja must get ahead of the narrative – calm the rhetoric, promote inclusive messaging, and enforce justice equally.
What are the pros and cons of targeted strikes, especially without Nigeria on board?
Strikes can remove high-value targets and signal resolve. Here, the cons outweigh the pros. Without host-nation consent, you violate sovereignty, alienate a critical ally and inflame nationalism.
Intelligence is fragmented; without Nigerian and regional input, the risk of civilian harm is high. With Chad’s border closed, militants can exploit fractures to move, blend with displaced people, and regroup. You cannot defeat a network by hitting one node if the network can relocate. Unilateral strikes might scratch a political itch – they do not deliver sustainable security.
Can effective counter-terrorism be done without partners on the ground?
No. This fight requires coordination, civilian protection and local context. Nigeria and its neighbours hold the human intelligence, community networks, and legitimacy that outsiders lack.
Border closures show the cost of fragmentation – without synchronised command and intelligence, each state becomes a silo, and insurgents thrive. This is not only kinetic – it is a struggle for hearts, minds and legitimacy. You cannot deliver that from 30,000 feet.
You mentioned ideology and regional coordination – can you expand?
Ideology turns local violence into transnational terrorism. Boko Haram and ISWAP (Islamic State – West Africa Province) draw strength from a worldview that delegitimises the state and offers an alternative order with claims of justice and divine sanction.
The counter is not just firepower – it is governance, education and communication. Nigeria must lead the ideological contest: empower credible religious voices, reform civic education and deliver visible governance to peripheries where extremists recruit.
Regionally, these groups operate across Nigeria, Chad, Niger and Cameroon, often in the same communities. Chad’s closure underscores the need to revitalise the Multinational Joint Task Force. States acting alone create corridors; synchronised action closes them. Washington should reinforce regional actors – politically, financially, and technically – not replace them.
How will this all play out?
Talk of US military options is serious as pressure, not as policy. Today’s crisis reflects more than security failure – it reflects political drift, diplomatic absence and eroding regional coherence.
Chad’s closure, rising interfaith tension and Washington’s frustration are symptoms. Fixing this requires reengagement, transparency and leadership from Abuja first.
The lesson is clear: you can kill terrorists, but not an ideology – and you cannot build stability without partners. If Abuja steps up, owns the narrative and rebuilds trust with Washington and neighbours, this moment can become an opportunity for
Source: The Africa Report