Amanda Sperber: “airstrikes are terrorising and terrifying communities”

US president Donald Trump appears to be repeating a past policy on Somalia: relying on airstrikes, supposedly to resolve the country’s issues with al-Shabaab and IS-Somalia.

Just 10 days into his second term, Trump announced airstrikes on Truth Social, targeting the Somalia branch of the so-called Islamic State. Caves used as hideouts were destroyed, 14 insurgents were killed, and, as the president stated, no civilians were harmed. That is according to the US military.  

Naturally, one can only wonder: has the president reversed his stance on ending “forever wars,” or are we witnessing a revival of his deadly drone campaign from his first term in office, which saw the US carry out over 200 drone and airstrikes in Somalia, as documented by the London-based Airwars? This outnumbered the airstrikes carried out under all previous US presidents in Somalia combined.

The intensity of the US aerial bombardment in Somalia during Trump’s first term even led international rights groups in 2019 to accuse the US of committing war crimes in Somalia. Africom (US Africa Command) has admitted to only five civilian deaths from their airstrikes in Somalia, none of which were compensated. The real number of civilian casualties is believed to be much higher, but that figure remains elusive, as the vast majority of US airstrikes in Somalia occur in areas controlled by the armed group al-Shabaab, where independent journalists and human rights organisations are unable to access, making verification a challenge of Africom reports a challenge.

Nobody knows this better than Amanda Sperber, an award-winning investigative journalist who has covered America’s shadow war in Somalia first-hand. From tracing remnants of exploded ordnance to botched night raids and talking to rural pastoralists under bombardment by the ‘birds’ as Somalis called the US drones, Sperber’s reporting has shed light on it.  

Geeska spoke with Sperber to get her take on the US’s recent airstrikes and what they could mean for how the US will engage with Somalia under Trump 2.0.  

Mohamed Gabobe: Trump has carried out his first military operation overseas just 10 days into office, in the form of airstrikes in Somalia. What does this suggest about how Donald Trump intends to approach security engagements with Somalia?

Amanda Sperber: It’s hard to say at this stage. Somalia — and Africa in general — is not treated as a top priority when it comes to US foreign policy. With the potential for an end of a ceasefire in Gaza and negotiations between Russia in Ukraine, I can’t imagine that changing. But with that in mind, the narrative that Islamic State has newly based itself in a remote corner of Somalia and is becoming this powerful cell that channels funds from the Horn of Africa across the continent and the Middle East is one that seems to be taking hold more broadly. So that, on top of the fact that Trump tweeted about it and shared the video footage of the attack (which implies to me it was something that excited him) suggests that targeting IS-Somalia could be a military focus of the Trump administration. At this point I can’t imagine any engagement would involve much more than airstrikes and potentially increased support to the Puntland Special Forces, which the US has previously armed. (Check here).

MG: Does Trump’s approach to Somalia contradict his claims of ending “forever wars” in other conflict zones in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa?

AS: It would seem to, but my sense is that no matter who is promising to end “forever wars” if there is a concern — whether real or perceived — about US interests, that takes precedence. So, if there is a sense that IS-Somalia is a threat, I would expect that would override those.  

MG: Large swaths of territory in Somalia are controlled by armed non-state actors. These areas are also where the majority of US airstrikes take place and where journalists, humanitarian organisations, and NGOs either have difficulty accessing or are barred from doing so. In such an environment, how much credibility can we give to reports from Africom saying that no civilians were harmed, as it often claims after strikes?  

AS: This is an incredibly important question, and one I would respond to with another question which is: who is considered a civilian in these areas controlled by non-state actors? In these territories, you have kids who are paid by militias to guard farmland and people who might sell fuel to a militant because those are the only people buying — does that make them a combatant? That is an issue I’ve come up against a lot in my reporting on US airstrikes. I’ll talk to a dozen relatives and friends of a person who was killed who will all attest that they were not a militant, sometimes I have had NGOs and businesses email me documents of someone's paperwork to show they had previously worked for them, and then the US military will acknowledge the reporting and say they have intelligence that makes that person a legitimate target. So, it’s possible that people who were killed were, in their spare time when they aren’t working for NGOs or private Somali companies, working with al-Shabaab. Or it’s possible these communities are all lying. The final possibility is that the remit for who counts as a legitimate target is very broad.      

Link to my reporting on shadowy policies:  

• https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/somalia-secret-air-campaign/  
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/07/does-america-know-who-its-airstrike-victims-are-somalia-africom/

the US military will acknowledge the reporting and say they have intelligence that makes that person a legitimate target.

MG: What have your years reporting on US airstrikes taught you about Africom statements which repeatedly say that no civilians were harmed in US strikes?  

AS: I’d say that my years of reporting has taught me that we need to understand more clearly who counts as a “civilian” and who counts as a “combatant.”  

MG: Despite admissions of civilian deaths in Somalia from airstrikes, Africom has yet to compensate the victims. What does this say about transparency from the US? Or are the Americans simply immune to accountability?

AS: A few years ago, I reported on the families who had relatives killed by US airstrikes, whom the military later admitted were civilians. Many of them had awful, surreal experiences, including one man I spoke to, who heard about the admission on the BBC and thought: “Oh, that must be the strike that killed my sister.” It is still unclear why they have not been compensated, even though money has been allocated for them. I’m also curious as to why the Somali government does not do more to advocate on their behalf. I think that dynamic is often underreported.

Link to reporting:  

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/us-airstrikes-have-torn-somali-families-apart-theyre-still-seeking-justice/

MG: When civilians are killed in US airstrikes, it often plays into the hands of armed non-state actors, who use these grievances to recruit. What are your thoughts on the stated aims of these strikes – degrading terrorist organisations – and the outcomes they have on the communities they impact. 

AS: Airstrikes are terrorising and terrifying to communities, even when they are surgical. They hit trees and set homes on fire. It’s scary to have a drone buzzing over your head day and night. From my reporting, I have been told that strikes add another element of war to areas that are already distressed.  

MG: Based on Trump’s rapid response targeting IS-Somalia, witnessed barely 10 days into office, do you think he might loosen the rules of engagement and revive the massive drone campaign seen in Somalia during his first term in office.

AS: Yes, absolutely.