Mogadishu, Somalia – Ending the United States’ “forever wars” emerged as a significant slogan during Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign. His advocacy resonated with many who felt that American lives and resources were being squandered in distant conflicts. However, shortly after his inauguration for a second term on February 1, Trump announced the US had conducted air strikes targeting senior ISIL (ISIS) leadership in Somalia. “These killers, who we found hiding in caves, threatened the United States,” he stated on X (formerly Twitter). This marked the beginning of a renewed military engagement abroad, contradicting his promises of military withdrawal.
Since that initial strike, the US has drastically ramped up its military activities across various hotspots, including conflicts in Gaza, Yemen, and Iran, while air strikes in the Horn of Africa, particularly Somalia, surged. According to the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), the number of air strikes in Somalia has more than doubled since the previous year, with at least 43 recorded in 2025 alone. These operations primarily targeted the ISIL affiliate in the Puntland region, known as IS-Somalia, as well as the well-established militant group al-Shabab.
American Intervention in Somalia: A Long History of Controversy
The U.S. involvement in Somalia is fraught with complications, dating back to the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident in 1993, which turned public perception sour regarding military actions in the region. Abukar Arman, a Somali analyst and former special envoy to the US, pointed out that following the 9/11 attacks, Somalia was positioned as a key battleground in the global war on terror. This shift allowed the US to justify continuous drone strikes that secured its geopolitical interests while enabling certain economic exploitations in the region.
By 2007, Somalia became the first African nation to experience a US air strike in this new era of counter-terrorism. During the subsequent years, American aerial bombardments became increasingly frequent. Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, there were over 50 strikes on Somali territory, while Trump’s first term alone saw a staggering 219 strikes. Observers speculate that if the current rate continues, Trump could surpass the Biden administration’s total of 51 strikes in just a few months.
Setting the Stage for Kinetic Engagement
Trump’s administration appears to have found an effective venue for projecting US power, leveraging drone strikes as a means of showcasing military might without engaging in on-the-ground combat. The administration loosened restrictions placed by Obama, facilitating an increase in preemptive attacks with little reassurance regarding vetting and accountability. Jethro Norman, a senior researcher, posits that this strategy serves not merely a tactical purpose, but also as a performance of strength, significantly diverging from previous policy orientations.
The internal debate within Trump’s administration resulted in increased military engagement in Somalia and Yemen, despite discussions about shifting focus towards great-power rivalry with countries like China. This complexity engendered a paradox where the rhetoric of ending “forever wars” coexists with policies that markedly intensify military operations.
Al-Shabab: Resilience Amidst Growing Threats
Compounding this situation is the significant counteroffensive undertaken by al-Shabab, the armed group operating in Somalia. The group has regained territory lost to government forces, demonstrating both operational resilience and a potential resurgence as it threatens the Somali capital, Mogadishu. Such developments have contributed to the growing reliance on US aerial support, which is perceived to be a necessary measure against the alarming advances of al-Shabab.
As air strikes continue, some experts warn that these actions have the potential to empower the same entities they aim to combat. Civilian casualties resulting from air strikes undermine the very credibility the US seeks to maintain in the region, while simultaneously feeding propaganda narratives employed by groups like al-Shabab. The discontent generated among local populations is exploited by these organizations, further working against US objectives.
Civilian Casualties and Accountability Challenges
The issue of civilian casualties from US air strikes has gained significant attention. Rights organizations and media investigations have revealed troubling patterns, including reports of civilian deaths that AFRICOM has publicly admitted. The lack of accountability for these casualties has led to accusations of potential war crimes, as no victims have received compensation to date.
Eva Buzo of Victims Advocacy International has emphasized the imperative for transparency and communication with affected communities to better understand the ramifications of drone warfare. As armed groups like al-Shabab often operate within civilian populations, US targeting becomes complicated, making it challenging to differentiate between fighters and non-combatants.
Escalating Military Engagement: A Downward Spiral?
As the US continues its drone campaigns in Somalia, many analysts argue against the efficacy of air strikes as a standalone solution. Decades of aerial bombardments have not successfully dismantled the deeply entrenched social networks that support groups like al-Shabab. Experts draw parallels to similar Afghan conflicts, suggesting that air power can only suppress but not transform the socio-political landscape.
Drone strikes devoid of efforts towards building local legitimacy or fostering grassroots reconciliation may very well exacerbate the plight they purportedly seek to mitigate. Analysts stress that the long-term trajectory remains bleak if US military actions remain focused solely on combatting armed groups without a comprehensive strategy addressing local grievances and structural weaknesses.
As engagement in Somalia continues, the overarching theme remains that mere aerial bombardments may inadvertently reinforce the very insurgencies that threaten stability while draining precious resources and capabilities.
