In a significant shift in military strategy, the United States is urging its African allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security. This change comes amid a broader Pentagon initiative to streamline U.S. forces while rivals like China and Russia expand their influence across the continent.
During the African Lion exercise, the largest joint training operation on the continent involving over 40 nations, U.S. Africa Command leader Gen. Michael Langley emphasized the need for partner nations to operate independently and share more security responsibilities. This marks a departure from the previous “whole of government” approach that integrated defense, development, and diplomacy into a single strategy.
The shift in U.S. strategy is influenced by a classified Pentagon directive outlining a pivot toward more pressing priorities—namely, deterring a potential Chinese move on Taiwan and enhancing defense closer to home. In this new doctrine, Africa finds itself somewhere down the list, receiving attention only when its issues pose broader threats to U.S. interests.
Yet the new approach raises tough questions. Many African nations—particularly in regions like the Sahel and Horn of Africa—are struggling to contain insurgencies with limited resources, weak governance, and undertrained forces. The expectation that these countries can simply “step up” feels like a gamble at best and wishful thinking at worst.
It’s not just a matter of political will. African forces often lack the equipment, intelligence capabilities, and logistical support needed to confront threats ranging from ISIS affiliates in West Africa to al-Shabaab militants in Somalia. The U.S. has long provided critical airpower, surveillance, and training support, and without these, the gap may be too wide to close quickly.
Africa is also emerging as a battleground for global competition. Russia, through mercenary outfits like Wagner, and China, through infrastructure and investment programs, are deepening their ties with African regimes. As the U.S. pulls back or shifts its focus, others are more than willing to fill the vacuum, no questions asked.
Gen. Langley and other senior officials insist the U.S. isn’t abandoning Africa. They frame the new model as a partnership of equals—one where African nations are empowered to lead and the U.S. plays a supportive but less central role. That sounds good on paper. But on the ground, with terrorism expanding and coups unsettling already fragile democracies, the reality looks less inspiring.
Last year, over half of the world’s terrorism victims were killed in West Africa’s Sahel region, according to multiple global indices. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—once key Western allies—have all experienced military takeovers, pushing out French and other European forces while welcoming new partners, including Russia. These nations argue that Western support has failed to deliver real security. The jury’s still out on whether their new friends will do any better.
Meanwhile, in Somalia, despite years of U.S. drone strikes and training missions, al-Shabaab remains a potent force, able to carry out large-scale attacks even in the capital. American officials have repeatedly warned that without local governance reforms and sustained military pressure, the group could regain significant ground.
The shift away from a boots-on-the-ground approach is partly a reflection of domestic U.S. concerns. American voters, still weary from years of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, have little appetite for long-term deployments in far-off regions. The Pentagon’s new strategy aims to minimize risk and maximize efficiency—but whether that approach will deliver lasting security in Africa is uncertain.
There’s also a communication problem. The new U.S. message to Africa sounds a lot like “you’re on your own,” even when officials insist that’s not the case. African leaders are skeptical, and rightly so. Many feel they are being asked to take on more responsibility without the resources or support needed to succeed.
At the same time, African militaries are not monolithic. Some, like those in Kenya, Morocco, and Ghana, have made progress in professionalizing their forces and engaging in joint exercises like African Lion. These states could potentially become hubs for regional security coordination. But others remain heavily politicized, poorly funded, and structurally weak, unable to effectively coordinate even within their own borders.
If the U.S. truly wants to empower Africa, it must do more than shift strategy—it must listen. Local leaders and civil society groups often have a better understanding of what drives conflict in their regions. Real empowerment means amplifying their voices, not just handing them a heavier load.
Ultimately, the Pentagon’s new posture in Africa is a bet: that African nations will rise to the challenge, that local partnerships will compensate for fewer U.S. resources, and that rivals like China and Russia won’t outmaneuver American influence. It’s a bet with high stakes—and one that will be tested not in briefing rooms, but in the deserts, forests, and cities of Africa’s most unstable regions.
