J. Caudle is a Major in the U.S. Army Reserve, currently serving as a Command Historian.  He has 20+ years of experience in the Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve.  He has served in Iraq, Germany, Egypt, and Kuwait. As a civilian, he works on Redstone Arsenal as a defense contractor for a Department of War agency.  He holds a Master’s degree in National Security with a concentration in Homeland Security. He can be found on LinkedIn at J. Caudle. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature, nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

National Security Situation: Ineffective efforts from state security services and sparse international support have created a security vacuum in Nigeria allowing criminals, violent extremist organizations (VEOs), and corrupt officials to persecute religious minorities, attack aid workers, and withhold humanitarian assistance.

Date Originally Written: January 10, 2026.

Date Originally Published: March 20, 2026.

Author Point of View: The author believes that the Catholic Church could address the security situation in Nigeria. Even though the Church hasn’t conducted military operations in approximately 200 years, its reach and resources within Nigeria exceed those of other non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Background: The sub-Saharan African security crisis in countries like Nigeria presents a worldwide problem. Islamist VEOs such as Boko Haram, also known as Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (JAS) [People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad] and the Islamic State, West African Province (ISWAP) pose an acute threat to Nigerians, other regional states, NGOs, and displaced populations. There are roughly 30 million Catholics in Nigeria with nine ecclesiastical provinces and 60 dioceses. The Church operates hundreds of educational institutions, seminaries, and over 400 healthcare facilities. Previously, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria provided an effective voice for conflict mediation and advocacy [1] [2].

Since the rise of Boko Haram in 2009, minority religious communities along with NGOs have been targeted. Humanitarian aid workers have been murdered, tortured, and kidnapped along with the commandeering of aid supplies. Worse still, countless civilians have been denied access to basic humanitarian services [3]. Notably, Christian communities across Nigeria have been displaced—losing both their land and livelihoods. While the Nigerian government has taken steps to address these issues, the Nigerian army’s effectiveness has been hampered by a lack of training, ineffective doctrine, and poor equipment. This, in turn, has resulted in low troop morale and reports of corruption within military ranks. Furthermore, several allegations of humanitarian abuse have been levied against the military, seriously undermining public trust.

While the United States has assisted Nigeria, it has so far been limited to training, advising, equipping Nigerian forces or executing limited air attacks. These attacks have weakened the VEOs but ultimately did little to protect civilians or aid workers on the ground [4] [5]. The U.S. recently announced that it planned to deploy 200 troops to Nigeria to train its army, help in identifying VEO targets for strikes, and provide technical expertise without directly becoming involved in combat or protection roles [6].

Significance: The conflict in Nigeria has resulted in over 16 million people displaced, created food scarcity for 35 million people, and destabilized the global food market along with the security of neighboring Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso [7].

Option #1: Resurrected Catholic Military Orders provide armed escorts for aid convoys into high-risk zones such as the Nigerian Middle Belt. These convoys would focus on delivering critical aid such as food to address pediatric malnutrition, crop seed for food production, supplies to ensure access to safe drinking water, medical and hygiene supplies, along with educational materials aimed at improving public health. To combat aid supplies being seized by VEOs, criminals, or corrupt government officials, Orders would secure routes by coordinating with trusted state security forces and leveraging intelligence from the Church’s established network. Orders would also train local interfaith or Christian parishes in self-defense, de-escalation, and facilitate dialogue with their Muslim counterparts. Members of the Orders would work alongside local parishes to increase security, gather intelligence, coordinate community action, and counter extremist recruitment.

Risk: This option risks creating a perception of intervention by a foreign militia for non-Christians and has the potential to further exacerbate conflict. The option may face legal complications since armed communities have the potential to fuel vigilante violence. Furthermore, these Orders could blur the lines between defending their communities and carrying out retaliatory attacks if not closely monitored.

Gain: This option could provide aid to the areas in most need, build local trust in the Nigerian government’s commitment to protect religious minorities, and reduce burdens on government services. Over time, a reduction in conflict could spur follow-on positive effects on food production and reduce global food prices. This option could provide a relatively inexpensive way to augment state security services when compared to large military interventions.  Additionally, it could strengthen community cohesion by fostering interfaith dialogue and forums for non-violent conflict resolution.

Option #2: The United Nations (UN) passes a resolution to establish a volunteer security force, like the concept of the French Foreign Legion, but under the command of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This force would be distinct from traditional UN peacekeeping missions—which include a patchwork of national military contingents each with unique caveats. Operating under the authority of the UNHCR, this volunteer security force would focus solely on civilian protection and infrastructure security.

Risk: The legal framework for such a volunteer security force to operate in Nigeria could be untenable under UN rules and regulations. Furthermore, an interface between the UNHCR and local leaders would need to be defined for day-to-day control of forces. Recruiting the personnel needed for these operations could also prove challenging and necessitate extensive vetting. Standardized training would be required with emphasis on education in UN rules of engagement (ROE). As a collection of foreign volunteers, the effectiveness of the security forces would likely be hampered by their lack of cultural connections.

Gain: This option removes the influence of individual states and their security interests along with the potential predicament of increased sectarian violence. Also, placing the volunteer security forces under the control of a supra-national entity like the UNHCR establishes political and religious neutrality. A volunteer force should possess high motivation and effectiveness when compared with forces pressed into service.

Other comments: None.

Recommendation: None.

Endnotes:

[1] Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved January 09, 2026, from https://cbcn-ng.org/

[2] Libreria Editrice Vaticana. (2025). Annuario Pontificio [The Pontifical Yearbook]. Vatican City

[3] United Nations Office at Geneva. (2024, May 9). Security Council denounces attacks against aid workers, UN personnel. United Nations Geneva. https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2024/05/93770/security-council-denounces-attacks-against-aid-workers-un-personnel

[4] United Nations. (n.d.). Nigeria. UN News. Retrieved January 11, 2026, from https://news.un.org/en/tags/nigeria

[5] Al Jazeera. (n.d.). Boko Haram. Retrieved January 10, 2026, from https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/boko-haram/

[6] Schmitt, E. (2026, February 10). Pentagon to Send 200 Troops to Nigeria. The New York Times., from https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/us-troops-nigeria.html

[7] Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2025, November 14). Nigeria. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/nigeria/