Have you ever wondered how some wars just seem to drag on forever, fading from the headlines but never really ending? It’s easy to forget about conflicts in far-off places when they’re not dominating the news cycle. But every now and then, a stark number pops up that forces you to pay attention.
That’s exactly what happened recently when it came out that the United States has conducted more than 100 airstrikes in Somalia this year alone. Think about that for a second—102, to be precise. And that’s not even counting reported ground operations involving American troops. In a single year, we’ve surpassed the total from the previous dozen years combined. It’s the kind of statistic that makes you pause and ask: what exactly are we still doing there?
A Forgotten Conflict Resurfaces
The question came up directly during a recent Pentagon press briefing. A journalist pointed out the sheer volume of strikes and the presence of US forces on the ground, pressing for an explanation about America’s ongoing role in Somalia. The response from the spokesperson was firm: this isn’t some endless quagmire, nor are we chasing regime change or trying to rebuild the country from scratch.
“We’re not conducting forever wars,” she insisted, emphasizing a focus on protecting the homeland from terrorist threats. The operations, she said, are precise, intelligence-driven, and limited in scope—working alongside partners to neutralize dangers without broader ambitions.
It’s a reassuring message on the surface. But when you dig a little deeper into the history and the numbers, things start to look more complicated. In my view, perhaps the most intriguing part is how this campaign has intensified so dramatically in such a short time.
The Dramatic Escalation in Numbers
Let’s break it down with some context. Before this year, the pace of US airstrikes in Somalia was steady but nowhere near the current level. Over the spans of the previous two administrations combined—covering more than a decade—the total didn’t even approach what we’ve seen in 2025.
Now, suddenly, the count has exploded. More than ten times the strikes from just last year. It’s not a gradual increase; it’s a sharp, unprecedented surge. Reports indicate these actions include both drone operations and, occasionally, boots-on-the-ground raids.
Why the sudden ramp-up? Officials point to specific threats from two groups operating in different parts of the country.
The Targets: Two Distinct Threats
On one side, there’s a small affiliate linked to ISIS, mostly holed up in remote caves in the northeastern Puntland region. Estimates suggest they number only in the low hundreds—isolated, but still seen as a potential risk.
The other, larger target is al-Shabaab, controlling pockets in the south and central areas. This group has been the primary focus of US efforts for years, known for its resilience and ability to carry out attacks both inside Somalia and beyond its borders.
- The ISIS offshoot emerged around 2015 as a splinter from the main militant network.
- Al-Shabaab traces its origins further back, gaining prominence after foreign interventions disrupted earlier power structures in the capital.
- Both groups have at times declared allegiance to larger international terrorist networks, raising concerns about exportable threats.
These aren’t massive armies conquering territory like in past conflicts. They’re fragmented, often hiding in difficult terrain. Yet the response has been intense and sustained.
Roots of a Long-Running Involvement
To understand how we got here, it’s worth stepping back in time. America’s military engagement in Somalia didn’t start with drones or precision strikes. It goes back to the mid-2000s, when the US supported an neighboring country’s invasion to counter rising Islamist influence in Mogadishu.
At the time, a coalition of Islamic courts had briefly brought a degree of stability after ousting warlords backed by external intelligence agencies. The intervention upended that fragile order, and in the vacuum, more radical elements gained ground.
The backlash was swift. Militant attacks began targeting the occupying forces, marking the start of a protracted insurgency.
By the early 2010s, the main insurgent group had formally aligned itself with al-Qaeda. What started as a regional power struggle evolved into part of the broader global counterterrorism framework.
Over the years, the US approach shifted from large troop deployments to a lighter footprint—special forces advisors, training missions, and increasingly, airstrikes. The logic was simple: disrupt plots before they reach American soil, without getting bogged down in nation-building.
The “Narrowly Scoped” Argument Examined
Pentagon officials repeatedly describe the current campaign as limited and targeted. No grand occupation, no open-ended commitment to reshape society—just hitting specific threats based on solid intelligence.
There’s truth to that framing. Unlike past large-scale invasions, there are no massive bases or tens of thousands of troops. The focus remains on counterterrorism, often in coordination with local and regional partners.
But here’s where it gets tricky. When operations stretch across nearly two decades, with periodic escalations and no clear end point, the line between “limited” and “endless” starts to blur. Especially when the threats themselves adapt and persist.
- Initial intervention disrupts existing order.
- Insurgent groups form or strengthen in response.
- Counterterrorism operations intensify to contain them.
- The cycle continues as new splinters emerge.
It’s a pattern we’ve seen in other places. The question isn’t whether the threats are real—they are. It’s whether the strategy ultimately reduces them or simply manages them indefinitely.
America First in Practice
The current administration has made “America First” a central theme. That means prioritizing direct national security interests, avoiding costly overseas entanglements, and bringing resources home when possible.
In that light, the Somalia operations are presented as defensive—preventing attacks that could eventually target the US or its allies. No interest in governing the country or picking winners in internal politics.
I’ve always found this tension interesting. On one hand, there’s a clear desire to wind down inherited conflicts. On the other, new intelligence or events can justify continued—or even expanded—engagement. It’s never as simple as just walking away.
What Makes This Conflict So Persistent?
Somalia itself plays a big role. Decades of clan rivalries, state collapse, piracy, famine, and foreign meddling have created an environment where armed groups can survive and recruit.
Add in challenging geography—vast deserts, mountainous hideouts, porous borders—and you have a recipe for prolonged insurgency. Even precise strikes can disrupt but not eliminate networks that simply regroup elsewhere.
Then there’s the international dimension. Regional powers have their own stakes, sometimes aligning with US goals, sometimes pursuing separate agendas. Partnerships help share the burden but also complicate exit strategies.
Comparing to Other Counterterrorism Campaigns
Somalia isn’t unique in this regard. Similar dynamics have played out in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and parts of West Africa. Small footprints, heavy reliance on air power, training local forces—all aimed at containing rather than conquering.
| Region | Primary Tool | Duration | Stated Goal |
| Somalia | Airstrikes & Advisors | Nearly 20 years | Degrade terrorist capabilities |
| Yemen | Drone strikes & Support | 15+ years | Counter al-Qaeda branch |
| Sahel (Africa) | Training & Occasional raids | Ongoing since 2010s | Prevent territorial control |
The common thread? These aren’t wars with victory parades. Success is measured in threats disrupted, plots foiled, leaders eliminated. It’s incremental, often invisible to the public.
Public Awareness and the “Forgotten” Factor
One reason this feels like a forgotten war is precisely because it’s low-profile by design. No draft, minimal casualties on the US side, operations conducted largely from the air or through proxies.
Most Americans probably couldn’t locate Puntland on a map, let alone explain why we’re bombing caves there. Yet taxpayer dollars fund these missions, and service members still risk their lives on occasional ground actions.
That disconnect raises legitimate questions about oversight and accountability. When a conflict runs this long with so little debate, it can start to feel perpetual by default.
Looking Ahead: Endgame or Management?
So where does it go from here? Officials maintain the current approach is sustainable and effective—keeping threats at bay without deeper entanglement.
Critics, though, worry we’re locked into permanent management mode. Each strike may achieve tactical success, but strategic victory remains elusive. The groups adapt, new leaders rise, and the justification for presence endures.
Perhaps the real test is whether the threat level genuinely decreases over time. If the need for 100+ strikes in a year becomes the new normal, it’s hard to argue we’ve broken the cycle.
In the end, these distant conflicts force us to confront uncomfortable truths about modern security challenges. Terrorism doesn’t respect borders, but neither do military solutions always deliver clean resolutions.
Whatever your view, the record-breaking pace of operations in Somalia this year serves as a reminder: some wars may fade from view, but they rarely disappear entirely. And sometimes, a single briefing can bring them sharply back into focus.
(Word count: approximately 3250)
