Follow us on social

Air-force-f-15e-strike-eagles-drop-2000-pound-joi

US bombs Somalia for the third time this summer

These operations have been going on for 15 years straight — so long that mainstream media barely finds the energy to report on it.

Analysis | Africa

The United States conducted another round of airstrikes in Somalia — the third this summer. If you were unaware that we were bombing Somalia, don’t feel bad, this is a completely under-the-radar news story, one that was curiously absent from the headlines in all of the major newspapers this morning.

Thanks to Dave DeCamp at Antiwar.com, however, we know that over a dozen of al-Shabab fighters were killed in an Aug. 14 operation by (US Africa Command) AFRICOM, as described in an official statement Wednesday. He writes:

US Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced the airstrike on Wednesday and claimed it killed 13 al-Shabaab fighters. The command said the strike was launched against al-Shabaab members that were attacking Somali government forces in a remote location near Teedaan, Somalia.

AFRICOM said its “initial assessment” found that “no civilians were injured or killed,” but the Pentagon is known for severely undercounting civilian casualties in Somalia.

The last US airstrike AFRICOM announced in Somalia took place on August 9, and before that was July 17. The escalation comes after President Biden ordered up to 500 troops to be sent to the East African nation, reversing a Trump-era drawdown.

The AFRICOM statement goes on to say that “US forces are authorized to conduct strikes in defense of designated partner forces.” There is no clarity on what that means, so we can only guess it is referring to the agreements the United States has with the fragile central government there, which is never not under siege by one militant opposition or another.

When pressed, the military would no doubt say that it is authorized to strike whenever it wants under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force because al-Shabaab is considered an al-Qaida offshoot. We know that justification is a stretch. Other justifications in the past have included "tactical defense" of U.S. forces and partners, which was used after questions were raised about a 2016 airstrike. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has given so little energy to sussing out authorizations anymore that it's practically a moot point.

Al-Shabab, by the way, was created when the United States helped to overthrow the Islamic Courts Union after 9/11, which left a convenient vacuum for a new form of violent repressive rule to take hold in the embattled country. There was no serious al-Qaida presence in Somalia, but the U.S. military and CIA have been able to keep a foothold here, conducting over “several hundred declared and alleged US actions…involving drones, AC-130 gunships, attack helicopters, naval bombardments and cruise missile strikes – which between them according to local communities have killed scores of civilians” since 2007, according to Airwars

There were 52 airstrikes in 2020 and nine since Biden took office, according to DeCamp. 

Bottom line, it’s been a long time since the United States was not bombing Somalia. This comes after a particularly bloody period during the GWOT in which the CIA was using the country to detain and torture terror suspects from across North Africa. Whether this has ultimately been a good thing for the country or for the broader security of the region, one need only to look at the continued instability and impoverishment of the people, and of course, the persistent presence of al-Shabab itself.


Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles drop 2,000-pound joint direct attack munitions. (Michael B. Keller/U.S. Air Force)
Analysis | Africa
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

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.