The takeover of military operations by Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Déby, following the Boko Haram attack on the Chadian army on October 27, has sparked various reactions. As head of state, he decided to put himself at the head of Operation Haskanite in order to lead the counter-offensive against the jihadists responsible for the tragedy that cost the lives of some forty Chadian soldiers.
This initiative was justified by the president himself in an interview with the Chadian press. Mahamat Idriss Déby stressed the importance for a leader to be present on the ground in order to make informed decisions regarding security. He also spoke of his duty to his people and his personal faith in the face of the dangers he exposes himself to by going to the front. This demonstration of courage and solidarity with the troops was seen as a strong gesture by many observers.
Vincent Foucher, a CNRS researcher and Boko Haram specialist, stressed the need for the Chadian president to react vigorously to an attack of such magnitude. Following in the footsteps of his father, Idriss Déby Itno, also a career soldier who became head of state, Mahamat Idriss Déby had to show his determination and strengthen his legitimacy by reacting firmly.
However, the question of the objective stated by the Chadian president, namely to “annihilate” the jihadist group, raises questions. The unilateral implementation of the military operation by Chad, without the coordination of neighboring countries, could complicate the achievement of this objective. Some local sources suggest that the jihadists could withdraw to other territories, leading to a dispersion of security forces.
Ultimately, President Mahamat Idriss Déby’s decision to personally lead military operations demonstrates his commitment to national security and his desire to protect his country against external threats. This posture as commander-in-chief reinforces his legitimacy and demonstrates his determination to address the security challenges facing Chad. Subsequent events will allow us to measure the effectiveness of this strategy and the impact of this direct intervention by the head of state in the military domain.