Follow us on social

Washington is not telling the truth about US troops in Somalia

Washington is not telling the truth about US troops in Somalia

The White House is being cagey, but despite 'withdrawal' the military has been operating non-stop on the ground there for 20 years.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

“There are other parts of the world — Somalia, Libya, Yemen — where we don’t have a presence on the ground,” said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki late this summer. 

That was patently false. But it fits a pattern. 

The U.S. first dispatched commandos to Somalia shortly after 9/11 and has been conducting air strikes in the country since 2007. Journalists and human rights organizations have documented scores of civilian victims of these attacks. In 254 declared U.S. actions in Somalia, the UK-based air strike monitoring group Airwars, for example, estimates that as many as 143 civilians have been killed. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) puts the number at five.       

Over the years, America has regularly stationed hundreds of troops in Somalia, including commandos involved in so-called 127e programs — named for a budgetary authority that allows U.S. Special Operations forces to use local military units as surrogates in counterterrorism missions. These efforts have been conducted under the code names Exile Hunter, Kodiak Hunter, Mongoose Hunter, Paladin Hunter and Ultimate Hunter, and involved U.S. commandos training and equipping troops from Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda as part of the fight against the Islamist militant group al-Shabab. The U.S. also maintained no fewer than five bases in Somalia as recently as last year. 

An eleventh hour withdrawal of U.S. forces by the Trump administration was officially completed in mid-January. Under the Biden administration, however, troops soon began “commuting” to Somalia and an American “footprint” was reestablished, according to AFRICOM spokesperson John Manley.

When asked to explain why Psaki claimed there was no U.S. presence in Somalia, Biden administration officials would only speak off the record. “You are welcome to say that the White House declined to give further comment and pointed you to previous interviews where senior officials explained that we do not currently have a large permanent presence on the ground in places like Libya and Somalia,” a spokesperson, who refused to be named, wrote in an email.

What constitutes a “large permanent presence” is unclear, but U.S. troops do, indeed, have a presence on the ground in Somalia. “Our footprint in Somalia is under 100 personnel, though as you know, that number can fluctuate with periodic engagements,” Manley told Responsible Statecraft.

Despite this, Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA), a theater special operations command (TSOC) which oversees commandos on the continent and is under operational control of AFRICOM, recently seemed to echo Psaki. When asked for a list of countries where U.S. commandos were deployed in 2021, U.S. Special Operations Command Africa failed to mention Somalia. 

Asked why Somalia was absent from SOCAFRICA’s inventory of countries, Special Operations Command spokesperson Ken McGraw explained: “The TSOCs and the geographic combatant commands they support decide what countries will be on the list they send me.”

Despite Psaki’s assertions, SOCAFRICA’s creative accounting, and the supposed withdrawal from Somalia in January, U.S. troops have been operating in Somalia, without pause, for years on end. Even after the withdrawal, earlier this year, AFRICOM spokesperson Colonel Christopher Karns admitted that U.S. troops, albeit a “very limited” number, remained. His commander-in-chief, Joe Biden, said the same in a June letter to Congressional leaders, writing that only the “majority of United States forces in Somalia redeployed or repositioned to neighboring countries prior to my inauguration as President.”


|U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the 186th Infantry Battalion, Site Security Team, Task Force Guardian, Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), prepare to provide security for a C-130J Super Hercules from the 75th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron (EAS) in Somalia, June 16, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Shawn White)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.