America’s Shadow War in Somalia: As Troops Draw Down, Attacks Ramp Up
The latest mortar attacks on U.S. forces in Somalia expose a troubling paradox: even as America reduces its military footprint in Africa, the threats to remaining personnel are intensifying.
The Persistent Threat in the Horn of Africa
The indirect fire attack near Kismayo represents the second such incident in less than a week, following Al-Shabaab’s claimed mortar strike on Camp Kismayo last Thursday. These coordinated assaults underscore the militant group’s continued capability to target international forces despite nearly two decades of counterterrorism operations in Somalia. While AFRICOM reports no U.S. casualties in the latest incident, the frequency of attacks suggests an emboldened insurgency testing American resolve.
The timing is particularly significant. These attacks come as the Biden administration has signaled a strategic pivot away from “forever wars” and toward great power competition with China and Russia. In Somalia, this has translated into a reduced U.S. presence from a peak of about 700 troops to approximately 450 today, with most serving in advisory and training roles rather than direct combat operations.
The Strategic Dilemma of Partial Withdrawal
The Kismayo incidents highlight a fundamental challenge in U.S. counterterrorism policy: the difficulty of maintaining security gains with a lighter footprint. Al-Shabaab, estimated to have between 5,000 and 10,000 fighters, has proven remarkably resilient despite losing territory and facing sustained pressure from African Union forces and U.S. drone strikes. The group’s ability to launch indirect fire attacks on fortified positions demonstrates not just operational capability but also intelligence gathering and local support networks that remain intact.
For U.S. policymakers, this presents an uncomfortable reality. Complete withdrawal risks creating a security vacuum that Al-Shabaab could exploit, potentially destabilizing the Horn of Africa and creating new terrorist safe havens. Yet maintaining even a modest presence exposes American forces to ongoing risk without clear metrics for success or an achievable end state. The “African partner forces” mentioned in AFRICOM’s statement – likely Somali government troops and African Union peacekeepers – remain heavily dependent on U.S. support for training, intelligence, and logistics.
The Broader Implications for U.S. Africa Policy
These attacks also reflect broader tensions in America’s approach to Africa, where counterterrorism concerns compete with development goals and great power competition. While the U.S. has invested billions in security assistance across the Sahel and East Africa, extremist groups have generally expanded their reach. Meanwhile, China has increased its economic influence through infrastructure investment, and Russia has deployed mercenary forces to several African conflicts.
The situation in Somalia serves as a microcosm of these challenges. Despite tactical successes against Al-Shabaab leadership and temporary territorial gains, the underlying conditions that fuel extremism – poverty, weak governance, clan rivalries, and climate-induced displacement – remain largely unaddressed. Military action alone cannot resolve these deep-seated issues, yet the security situation prevents the kind of sustained development work needed for long-term stability.
As mortar rounds fall on American positions in Kismayo, they raise a question that echoes from Kabul to Mogadishu: Can the United States ever truly leave the battlefields it has entered, or does partial withdrawal simply mean accepting greater risk for diminished influence?
