Biden Escalates in Somalia

It is absurd to think that Al Shabaab poses any threat to the United States, so it is hard to see how any genuine U.S. security interests are being served by expanding our role in the war.

Posted on

Biden is sending more troops back into one of the endless wars:

President Biden has signed an order authorizing the military to once again deploy hundreds of Special Operations forces inside Somalia – largely reversing the decision by President Donald J. Trump to withdraw nearly all 700 ground troops who had been stationed there, according to four officials familiar with the matter.

In addition, Mr. Biden has approved a Pentagon request for standing authority to target about a dozen suspected leaders of Al Shabab, the Somali terrorist group that is affiliated with Al Qaeda, three of the officials said. Since Mr. Biden took office, airstrikes have largely been limited to those meant to defend partner forces facing an immediate threat.

The earlier withdrawal from Somalia did not mean that the US was no longer involved in the conflict, but pulling troops out of there was one of the few things that Trump got right. Reversing that withdrawal is a mistake, and launching more strikes in Somalia practically guarantees that more Somali civilians will be killed by US attacks. US military involvement in Somalia is relatively limited, but it is still unnecessary and ill-advised. Limited US involvement is how it has been possible for the last three presidents and now Biden to wage a war there that most Americans know nothing about. That has happened because there has been scant oversight and no pressure on any administration to justify the continuation of the war.

The legal authority for US involvement in Somalia’s conflict is as shaky as it gets. Because Al Shabaab is considered an “associate force” of Al Qaeda, the government claims that the 2001 AUMF applies to a group that didn’t exist when the AUMF was written. This is a prime example of why the 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed: it gives any president a free hand to wage war virtually anywhere against any group provided that there is some notional link with Al Qaeda. It is absurd to think that Al Shabaab poses any threat to the United States, so it is hard to see how any genuine US security interests are being served by expanding our role in the war.

There was an opportunity here for Biden to change the policy he inherited in a way that wouldn’t repeat the mistakes that the US has been making in Somalia for decades, but instead he has decided on going back to a militarized approach that was bringing Somalia neither peace nor security. As Elizabeth Shackelford explained shortly after the 2020 election, US intervention in Somalia was not succeeding in defeating Al Shabaab:

The security situation has remained a violent stalemate. Somalia’s President Mohamed Abdullahi recently declared that – with US assistance – Somalia is “on the brink of defeating” al-Shabaab, the al Qaeda-affiliated group we are fighting there. The consistency of al-Shabaab’s attacks and civilian casualties for several years now suggests otherwise. US military leaders have conceded that military defeat of al-Shabaab is not possible and that the conflict will only be won by addressing the underlying causes of extremism in that country with better governance. In the absence of any signs that governance will improve on its current course, maintaining the same military-led strategy is counterproductive.

Read the rest of the article at SubStack

Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

10 thoughts on “Biden Escalates in Somalia”

  1. Al-Shabaab’s biggest crime is identical to the Taliban’s. They are both organizations that reject the Westphalian nation state and a monopoly on the use of force. America loves jihadist whack-jobs, just not one’s that flirt with anarchism. Statelessness is bad for business.

  2. These are heady days for the MIC, as the profits from endless wars roll in. That is all you really need to know about the situation. It really makes no difference if it is Somalia, Afghanistan or some other hellhole, bombing brown people in third world countries is definitely big business.

  3. Another “Black Hawk Down” scenario soon to be seen on national television? The movie made everyone heroes, while neglecting why it happened: we chose the wrong war lord, then killed upwards of 2,000 Somalis.

    1. The presidents after WWII were warmongers. So were some presidents before that time. Bill Clinton as well as George H W Bush and George W Bush bombed Iraq after the Gulf War ended and before the Iraq War started and imposed UN sanctions against them which led to starvation of the people there. Clinton also bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and bombed Somalia which caused the Black Hawk Helicopter to be shot down. The move Black Hawk Down depicts the Americans as good guys and Somalis as bad guys.

Comments are closed.