Military engagements with militant groups in Africa have been viewed through the conventional war approach, in terms of the number of troops used, the territories gained back, weapons confiscated, and the number of militants killed.
Nevertheless, over time, a new theater of war has emerged, which involves information. In both the Lake Chad Basin and the Horn of Africa, countries and militant organizations have engaged in fighting not only over territory, but also over influence over the population. Militant groups seek to shape public perception to recruit new members and discourage collaboration with security agencies.
It is in this difficult information environment that the US Army has deployed its Psychological Operations Unit in Africa.
The Delta Company of the 7th Psychological Operations Battalion of the U.S. Army’s 1st Special Forces Command was set up in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on July 15, 2026. This group, nicknamed the Drongo Company, comes under the Army Special Operations Forces category.
The 7th Psychological Operations Battalion primarily concentrates on psychological operations carried out within the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).
The unit’s name has been borrowed from the African drongo bird that, according to the description provided by the Army, is a fearless hunter that can imitate sounds of other animals. The US Army representatives argue that the name symbolizes the very essence of psychological operations that are based on the manipulation of reasoning, motivation, and behavior of chosen audiences.
The creation of the Drongo Company does not mean the emergence of psychological operations in Africa since these operations have already been performed and backed up by the US forces for many years.
What changes now is the scale of effort spent on the development of this capacity in the face of the rising influence of social media, extremist propaganda, political narratives, and foreign interference in the security environment of Africa.
A Unique Form of Military Capacity
Psychological operations or PSYOP are performed to alter people’s attitudes and behavior to achieve military and national security objectives. The difference between psychological operations and military operations lies in the fact that the primary means used in the former is information rather than weaponry.
According to AFRICOM, its PSYOP operations seek to help achieve U.S. security objectives by targeting terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, ISIS, Boko Haram, JNIM, al-Shabaab. These psychological operations may involve traditional and digital means of communications including print media, radio transmissions, SMSs, TV broadcasting, direct communication, social networks, and other online resources.
Objectives of such operations include discouraging recruitment and support of terrorists, countering messages of extremists, spreading alternative messages against terrorism, promoting disarmament and reintegration programs, and reducing the influx of foreign fighters.
AFRICOM says its current initiatives in the field of PSYOPs are coordinated with other branches of the U.S. government and partner countries, as well as adapted to the specific conditions of a particular country or region.
In the case of Nigeria, AFRICOM views the Lake Chad Basin, including Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, Chad and Mali, to be among its priority regions in terms of PSYOP.
According to security analysts, psychological operations in the Lake Chad Basin can supplement counter-insurgency military efforts, provided strict precautionary measures are taken when foreign military personnel conduct information campaigns targeting local populations.
When Does Persuasion Turn into Propaganda?
The terminology used in the field of psychological operations contributes to the controversial nature of the topic.
The term “propaganda” has a totally different connotation than the military term “PSYOP.” Psychological operations, as defined in the U.S. military doctrine, refer to information activities aimed at influencing the behavior of foreign audiences in a certain way.
A message urging fighters to surrender, for example, could have accurate information about an amnesty program. An appeal to civilians not to become recruits of terrorists would be based on accurate information. The essence of PSYOP lies in the desire to affect people’s behavior, rather than in the use of deception.
However, the problems of ethics do not vanish due to the fact that information is truthful.
The key issue is who it is going to affect, to what end, under whose authority, and under whose control?
Issues Of Legality and Sovereignty
Psychological operations during war situations are not beyond the reach of international law.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, information operations are not forbidden simply because they belong to the information domain. Nonetheless, there are certain limitations on actions that include, inter alia, the threat of violence to spread fear among civilians or incitement to violate humanitarian laws.
The legal situation gets even more complicated if the operation is directed at civilians.
In today’s information operations, the targeted individuals might be non-combatants, who are completely unaware of the ongoing influence campaign. In this scenario, a strategy designed to undermine the supporters of a certain extremist group may affect ordinary citizens, journalists, humanitarian personnel, or political activists.
The issue arises in cases where there is no straightforward solution purely from the military standpoint. Here, questions arise about how the trust of people affected by foreign military influence operations will impact their attitude towards the armed forces.
There is another factor for African nations, namely the matter of sovereignty.
While some governments may appreciate the help from the U.S. military in fighting terrorist groups such as Boko Haram or al-Shabaab, at the same time, they will feel quite concerned about attempts at foreign military influence operations targeting their citizens.
About the above, experts suggest that there should be a boundary between legitimate counterterrorism and foreign influence over African civilian populations.
An Adaptive Capability Suited to an Evolving Africa
As explained by the Army, the establishment of Drongo Company cannot be seen as the beginning of a new American war in Africa.
Instead, it is more accurate to say that it is a response to the increasing need for specialized psychological operations capabilities among U.S. Special Operations Forces. As the Army puts it, the establishment of the company is meant to increase commanders’ operational flexibility and ensure readiness for SOF operations globally.
It makes all the difference.
The mere establishment of the company is not enough to prove that it will operate in any specific African country. Neither does the current available information suggest that the company has been assigned any specific mission for the future in relation to a particular African population.
One thing that is known is that the unit’s parent battalion is responsible for PSYOP in AFRICOM’s area of responsibility and the fact that AFRICOM has announced plans to adapt and increase such operations through 2026 via existing and new communication technologies.
Thus, the possible environment for its operation is vast. Among the places where PSYOP operations can take place according to AFRICOM are the Lake Chad Basin, the Horn of Africa, the Maghreb, and the Gulf of Guinea.
These include messaging against terrorism, support to maritime security operations, personnel recovery, humanitarian assistance, as well as disarmament and reintegration programs.
What remains to be seen is how African partners and people will understand this new capacity.
For states facing violent extremist organizations, the lure is clear. Force alone can rarely dissuade someone from joining such organizations, compel a community to provide information to security authorities, or make a member of a militia leave the organization.
African Reaction Could Shape the Consequences
For African governments, the presence of superior PSYOP capacity on the part of the US represents a complex dilemma.
There are definite gains for security when one develops better methods of dealing with extremist propaganda. It should be noted that African militaries have themselves come to understand the significance of comprehending the information environment in which they operate. The Ugandan example proves that U.S. sponsored training will ultimately be able to be handed over to African forces instead of being exclusively conducted by Americans.
However, governments have an obligation to ensure that partnerships for security purposes do not undermine the confidence of their people nor blur the lines between security communications and manipulation. This problem is relevant for states where trust in government institutions is already low.
Citizens, on the other hand, confront even greater dilemmas. People caught up in insurgency and insecurity require reliable communication. They require knowledge about safe roads, humanitarian aid, the presence of clearance and assurances of security. Credible communications can potentially save lives. However, credibility is hard to earn but easily lost.
A New Battlefield, but an Old Problem
The presence of Drongo Company is part of a wider truth about modern security: wars are becoming fought not only on the level of territory and physical infrastructure, but also on that of narrative, perception, and behavior.
For the USA, psychological operations are an effective means of dealing with threats before a more serious military response is needed. AFRICOM explicitly connects its PSYOP function to reducing recruitment by terrorists, countering extremist narratives and solving problems at their source.
For the governments of Africa, these tools could be yet another weapon against armed groups which have become more sophisticated in their usage of information.
However, the broadening of information-based security operations also poses certain questions which cannot be answered solely through military doctrine.
Who controls the message?
Who ensures that the information is accurate? Who shields the civilians against manipulation? And what level of transparency is required by foreign military influence among populations outside the battlefield?
These questions might come to the fore as Africa’s conflicts become increasingly digitalized.
Although the Drongo Company itself is new, the underlying trend it exemplifies is certainly not. The U.S. has already been carrying out psychological operations and training African security forces in the technique. The significance of its establishment is an institutional commitment to a form of warfare in which the purpose is not the destruction of the enemy but rather altering perceptions, beliefs, or actions.
