Although the U.S. has significantly ramped up airstrikes in Somalia, it’s the operations conducted by regional allies that seem to bear the most devastating impact on civilians. Photograph: Alamy
- Advertisement -
Mogadishu (AX) — The escalated drone campaign initiated during the presidency of Donald Trump has become a focal point of sharp criticism, both domestically and internationally. Critics argue that, rather than fulfilling his commitment to end America’s “forever wars,” Trump has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the ground in Somalia. This raises the question: at what cost does military intervention come?
Since the dawn of 2025, the U.S. has executed a staggering 51 airstrikes across Somalia. This figure has already more than doubled last year’s tally, putting this year on track to shatter the Trump-era record of 63 strikes established in 2019. This data is compiled by the think tank New America and has been verified by U.S. Africa Command, commonly known as AFRICOM.
The Somali federal government has openly welcomed Washington’s military support in its enduring conflict against militant organizations such as al-Shabaab and the Islamic State’s Somali faction. However, human rights groups, analysts, and local communities contend that these airstrikes increasingly jeopardize civilian safety, breed resentment, and fail to hinder militant advancements. Consider the lived experiences of those caught in this conflict; how often do they find themselves grappling with the consequences of foreign military actions?
In the current phase of his presidency, Trump appears to have broadened the range of military operations across multiple conflict zones, including Somalia, Gaza, Yemen, and Iran. Just ten days into his second term, he authorized his inaugural airstrike in Somalia, claiming it specifically targeted ISIS leaders purportedly hiding in caves—a rather vivid image he conveyed in a post dated February 1.
According to AFRICOM, approximately 30 of the airstrikes this year concentrated on IS-Somalia positions in the hilly Cal Miskaad mountains of Northeastern State, as part of Operation Hilaac, a comprehensive counterterrorism initiative led by Northeastern State’s security forces. Additional strikes have focused on al-Shabaab positions in central and southern regions, notably Hiiraan and Jubaland. Yet, in the wake of this offensive, al-Shabaab has surprisingly reclaimed three towns: Moqokori, Gumare, and Tardo, in the Hirshabelle state in just the past month. Somali federal forces, along with allied Ma’awisleey militias, found themselves overwhelmed and lacking basic logistical support.
Even as U.S. airstrikes escalate, this resurgence of al-Shabaab complicates the narrative of military success. The group has now begun encircling strategically important towns like Bulobarde and Jalalaqsi, both of which are under the protective watch of African Union peacekeepers. Yet, local officials note that supply routes to these towns have become perilous, heightening the urgency of a dire humanitarian situation.
AFRICOM’s credibility is currently under significant scrutiny due to its decision to halt the publication of casualty figures related to airstrikes. Although the command has promised continued quarterly civilian harm reports, the lack of transparency has led watchdog organizations and Somali civil society leaders to question accountability. This absence of clarity echoes an unsettling trend; how can one trust a narrative constructed on half-measures and obfuscation?
Back in 2019, Amnesty International accused the U.S. of potentially committing war crimes in Somalia due to the civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes during Trump’s first term. While AFRICOM later acknowledged some instances of civilian harm, it appears no victims have been compensated—a reality highlighted by Victims Advocacy International, an organization advocating for victims of human rights abuses globally. “The persistent lack of accountability for civilian victims of U.S. air strikes, particularly under the previous administration, underscores a troubling absence of transparency,” remarked Eva Buzo, the group’s executive director.
Echoing Buzo’s concern, it has been estimated by New America and conflict monitors like Airwars that between 33 and 167 Somali civilians have lost their lives due to U.S. strikes since 2007. The exact number remains elusive, muddled by limited on-the-ground verification and the complicated, clan-divided nature of the affected areas. This lack of clear data raises an uncomfortable query: when will the lives of civilians be prioritized over military objectives?
Experts warn that the reliance on sporadic human intelligence in an arena shaped by volatile clan dynamics, paired with the U.S.’s remote targeting tactics, significantly heightens the likelihood of misidentifying combatants. Both al-Shabaab and IS-Somalia frequently embed themselves within civilian populations, further complicating the clarity of the battlefield. “These incidents don’t just kindle resentment; they provide a bonanza of propaganda for the militants,” observed Jethro Norman of the Danish Institute for International Studies. When innocent lives are lost, al-Shabaab is quick to portray themselves as defenders of Somali sovereignty against foreign aggression.
The U.S. has also expanded its air campaign’s scope, including a rare maritime strike in April targeting a stateless vessel believed to be transporting advanced weaponry to al-Shabaab off the Somali coast. According to U.S. officials, this operation was likely part of a smuggling network affiliated with Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Such operations, initiated under revised engagement protocols, signal a strategic pivot towards longer-range airstrikes, reflecting both resource constraints and operational risk aversion, particularly following the tragic deaths of two Navy SEALs during a failed operation in similar waters in 2024.
It’s essential to acknowledge the broader military theater. The loosening of restrictions set during the Obama administration has allowed AFRICOM to execute preemptive strikes with less oversight. David Sterman from New America notes that this policy shift is increasing strike frequencies while diminishing accountability measures. “There’s no corresponding investment in peacebuilding or governance support,” said Norman. “Airpower can suppress, but it doesn’t transform.”
Amid this tumult, the Somali forces remain beleaguered, both overstretched and under-resourced. Finance Minister Bihi Imaan Egeh disclosed in March that funding from the U.S. to Danab, Somalia’s elite special forces unit trained by U.S. military personnel, has been curtailed. This decision exacerbates the existing fiscal strains on a government already grappling with dwindling foreign aid, humanitarian crises, and political fragmentation.
Despite the tactical advantages that Trump’s drone campaign has delivered, analysts assert that Somalia’s long-term stability requires more than mere firepower. The pressing concern looms large: without meaningful shifts toward political inclusion, grassroots reconciliation, and robust institutional frameworks, these airstrikes may inadvertently nurture the very insurgencies they intend to quell.
As Jethro Norman poignantly noted, “The gap between U.S. rhetoric and Somali reality is where al-Shabaab thrives.” If the Trump administration clings to its drone diplomacy devoid of local legitimacy, the crisis may only deepen, complicating the already intricate fabric of conflict in Somalia.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring
