Somalia’s fight against Al-Shabaab at a crossroads as funding and politics bite
MOGADISHU — On a dusty frontline in Awdhegle district, where the landscape alternates between thorny scrub and rice paddies, Somalia’s military commanders are urging troops to press their advantage against Al-Shabaab even as the broader campaign faces growing uncertainty.
- Advertisement -
General Sahal Abdullahi Omar, who oversees the Somali National Army’s land forces, travelled to the region this week to rally soldiers and allied African Union troops, acknowledging hard-won gains while cautioning that “the fight is not yet over.” The visit underscores both the forward momentum of recent operations and the fragility of that progress.
Gains on the ground
Over months of offensives, Somali forces have pushed into several strategic corridors in the central and southern states, reclaiming towns and recovering weaponry hidden by militants who for years have used the vast countryside to sustain an insurgency that continues to threaten daily life in much of rural Somalia. The third phase of a campaign dubbed Operation Silent Storm is intended to deny Al-Shabaab sanctuary and dismantle their remaining hideouts.
Yet Al-Shabaab, despite sustained pressure, has not been driven to extinction. In recent weeks the group seized towns including Adan Yabaal, Mahas and Moqokori before being pressed on other fronts — a reminder that territorial control in Somalia remains highly fluid.
Morale, momentum and the politics of distraction
On the ground, soldiers say momentum matters. Small victories — clearing a village, capturing a weapons cache, restoring a market — can reverberate through local communities and blunt the militants’ narrative of inevitability. For commanders, the calculus is straightforward: keep the pressure on.
But the fight is not merely kinetic. Somalia’s politics cast a long shadow over military operations. Opposition politicians accuse President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of shifting attention to the 2026 election cycle rather than focusing on security, a charge the president denies. In a country where security lapses can rapidly translate into political instability, such accusations can sap public confidence and complicate planning.
International lifelines fray
Perhaps the most perilous variable to the campaign’s future is funding. The African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), which provides critical support alongside Somali forces, now faces a financial crunch that Kenyan officials warn could reverse years of gains. Compounding the anxiety, the United States — long a major backer of Somalia’s stabilization efforts — has signalled an intention to withdraw funding, urging partners to shoulder a greater share.
For Somali commanders and their international partners, the timing could not be worse. Military operations require steady logistics, ammunition, fuel and pay. Even a temporary pause in funding can ripple across the frontline, slowing patrols, grounding vehicles and eroding the fragile alliances that sustain joint operations.
The US calculus appears to fit a broader pattern: a tendency among several powerful states to reassess overseas military commitments and press for burden sharing. For capitals in Africa and beyond, the question is how to replace those resources if they disappear.
What’s at stake
There is more than a tactical risk. If international support wanes and domestic politics distract from a unified strategy, Al-Shabaab could regain space in the countryside, resume taxation and recruitment, and threaten the tenuous security inside urban centres. That would have immediate humanitarian consequences for civilians — increased displacement, disrupted markets, reduced access to services — and regional implications, including for trade and refugee flows across the Horn of Africa.
Kenya, which hosts a sizeable forward element and bears the burden of spillover violence, has been vocal about the need for urgent backing. Its warnings reflect a wider regional anxiety: the insurgency is not contained by Somalia’s borders and a weakened stabilization mission could catalyse instability across East Africa.
Broader questions — and choices
Somalia’s predicament raises larger questions about how the international community responds to protracted conflicts in an era of growing fiscal restraint and domestic political pressures. Do partners scale up local capacity-building — training, intelligence sharing, and institutional reform — so Somalia can eventually take the lead? Or does a shortfall in finance force a retreat that empowers militias and external spoilers?
There are also difficult domestic trade-offs. President Mohamud and his government must balance electoral politics with security operations, while trying to maintain cohesion among federal and regional authorities who sometimes compete for influence. How leaders prioritize these tasks will largely determine whether recent battlefield gains are consolidated or squandered.
For Somalis living near the frontlines, questions are more immediate: Will the security that allowed farmers to return to their fields and merchants to reopen markets endure? Can young people be offered alternatives to joining armed groups? Those concerns are redolent of a familiar lesson in counterinsurgency: military force can open space, but governance and services are needed to keep it open.
Looking ahead
As Somali commanders call for renewed offensives, international partners face a test of resolve. The next moves — whether donor pledges, renewed political unity at home, or changes in strategy — will shape not only the arc of the Somali conflict but also how the world manages similar struggles where fragile states confront determined non-state actors.
In Awdhegle, where rice paddies meet the horizon, soldiers and civilians watch closely. The gains are real; the risks are too. The question now is whether Somalia and its partners have the patience, resources and political will to turn temporary successes into lasting security.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
