Follow us on social

2020-01-09t185754z_51902925_rc2ice9hzeh9_rtrmadp_3_kenya-security-usa-military-scaled

Biden is prolonging US war in Somalia — he should end it instead

The American interests at stake are unclear and Congress hasn’t provided authorization.

Analysis | Global Crises

Six months to the day after President Biden took office, his administration conducted its first airstrike in Somalia. Three days later, a second strike was carried out.

Before these attacks on al-Shabaab militants who were fighting U.S.-trained Somali forces, the Biden team was in something of a holding pattern on U.S. military intervention in Somalia, which the outgoing Trump administration at first escalated and then scaled down at the last minute. “We’re committed to Somalia,” an unnamed senior U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal for a report earlier this month. “What exactly that will look like is still under discussion.”

Last week’s airstrikes may signal that a decision has been made — but unfortunately, not the right one. Instead of prolonging the covert U.S. war in Somalia, Biden should end it.

Because U.S. involvement in Somalia is all but never discussed in Washington, a brief history is in order. The U.S. government has intermittently intervened in Somalia for the better part of three decades. The East African nation has a strategically valuable coastline near Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, possible untapped oil reserves, and a long record of internal conflict and terrorism after a postcolonial dictatorship that was armed to the teeth by Western and Soviet gifts successively and that collapsed at the Cold War’s end. In 1993, Washington intervened in the subsequent civil war as part of a United Nations coalition. After the tragic Battle of Mogadishu — the “Black Hawk Down” incident — U.S. intervention in Somalia paused until 2007.

Since then, Washington has bombed Somalia almost every year, making it a permanent fixture among the dozens of unpublicized military missions our government maintains in about 20 African countries. U.S. troop levels on the ground in Somalia have varied, but by the time of Trump’s December order for nearly all to withdraw, there were around 700 American service members stationed there. That withdrawal was less significant than it may sound, however: Most of the 650 troops who left moved just across the border to sites in Djibouti or Kenya that the Journal describes as “within commuting distance of Somali government training camps.” Though scaled down from its 2017-2020 peak, the intervention continues apace under its fourth consecutive president.

Perhaps by now you’ve noticed something missing in this narrative: legal authorization for the intervention. Neither the George W. Bush administration in 2007 nor any subsequent president who prosecuted this quiet little war ever sought or obtained authorization from Congress, as the Constitution requires. This is an executive branch project initiated without public debate and sustained almost entirely out of the public eye.

Another thing missing: a justification. None of the four presidents who have bombed Somalia since 2007 made a case for this intervention as vital to U.S. national security. Although al-Shabaab has declared allegiance to al-Qaida, its focus is provincial. It is relatively small, thought to number around 6,000 fighters, with as few as 500 “hard-core ideologues.” Its militants can execute obscene suicide attacks on innocents in Mogadishu, but there is no reason to think U.S. airstrikes and occupation are what stands between us and an al-Shabaab attack on U.S. soil.

Indeed, “there's a thousand places we could go to deal with injustice,” as Biden himself has argued. “But the idea of us going to be able to use our armed forces to solve every single internal problem that exists throughout the world is not within our capacity. The question is: Is America's vital self-interest at stake or the vital self-interest of one of our allies at stake?”

In Somalia, the answer is clearly no. No Somali-born person has ever committed a lethal terrorist attack in the United States. Moreover, the last six months — following Trump’s semi-withdrawal and without a single U.S. airstrike in Somalia — are evidence of the irrelevance of this military meddling to U.S. security. We haven’t bombed there, and nothing happened here.

Insofar as there are any alleged U.S. interests in Somalia, they are interests created by our intervention, which is, in this sense, self-perpetuating. That quality does not make it legal, necessary, or prudent. Biden was right to curtail U.S. drone strikes in Somalia and other places outside active war zones and to scale down other U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Yemen. Now it’s time to stop fighting in Somalia, too.

Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation. 

 

We hope you will consider a tax-exempt donation to RS for your end-of-the-year giving, as we plan for new ways to expand our coverage and reach in 2025. Please enjoy your holidays, and here is to a dynamic year ahead!

U.S. Army soldiers, assigned to the East Africa Response Force (EARF), 101st Airborne Division on a mission to bolster the security of Manda Bay Airfield, Kenya after an attack by Somalia's al Shabaab militants that killed three Americans in anuary 5, 2020. Picture taken January 5, 2020. U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Daniel Hernandez/Handout via REUTERS.
Analysis | Global Crises
ukraine war

Diplomacy Watch: Will Assad’s fall prolong conflict in Ukraine?

QiOSK

Vladimir Putin has been humiliated in Syria and now he has to make up for it in Ukraine.

That’s what pro-war Russian commentators are advising the president to do in response to the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, according to the New York Times this week. That sentiment has potential to derail any momentum toward negotiating an end to the war that had been gaining at least some semblance of steam over the past weeks and months.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine Russian Assets money
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/Corlaffra

West confirms Ukraine billions funded by Russian assets

Europe

On Tuesday December 10, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced the disbursement of a $20 billion loan to Ukraine. This represents the final chapter in the long-negotiated G7 $50 billion Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) loan agreed at the G7 Summit in Puglia, in June.

Biden had already confirmed America’s intention to provide this loan in October, so the payment this week represents the dotting of the “I” of that process. The G7 loans are now made up of $20 billion each from the U.S. and the EU, with the remaining $10 billion met by the UK, Canada, and Japan.

keep readingShow less
Shavkat Mirziyoyev Donald Trump
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump greets Uzbekistan's President Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the White House in Washington, U.S. May 16, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Central Asia: The blind spot Trump can't afford to ignore

Asia-Pacific

When President-elect Donald Trump starts his second term January 20, he will face a full foreign policy agenda, with wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, Taiwan tensions, and looming trade disputes with China, Mexico, and Canada.

At some point, he will hit the road on his “I’m back!” tour. Hopefully, he will consider stops in Central Asia in the not-too-distant future.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.