Washington, USA — The International Crisis Group (ICG) in a new report urged the U.S. administration to force Somalia’s feuding political leaders toward compromise, calling it the “best way forward” in the long war against Al-Shabaab.
The think tank warned that simply maintaining the status quo or a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would both fail to stabilize the Horn of Africa nation.
The report, published on October 24, lands as the Trump administration is reportedly reviewing its policy on the deployment. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the U.S. mission, which supports Somali forces against the Al-Shabaab insurgency.
The ICG warned that while Trump is “decidedly unenthusiastic” about the mission, a “rush to the exits could have unwanted consequences.” The group said this includes “encouraging Somalia’s other partners to follow suit.”
The U.S. has pursued counter-terrorism operations in Somalia for decades, targeting Al-Shabaab, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2012. U.S. policy has centered on training the elite Somali Danab brigade and conducting drone strikes, according to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
The primary sticking point remains the Somali government’s internal political fractures, which Al-Shabaab exploits to control large rural territories, UN reports state.
‘Stuck in a holding pattern’
The report describes U.S. engagement as “stuck in a holding pattern.” It argues the primary reason for failure against Al-Shabaab is not military, but Somalia’s “fractured politics.“
The government in Mogadishu is “mired in debilitating disputes“ with member states over power and resources, the ICG wrote. These quarrels “hinder the development of a united front to fight the insurgents.”
As an example, the report noted that while the government was distracted by election disputes, insurgents “went on the offensive.“ The group said the militants “recovered much of the territory“ in central Somalia in early 2025.
Other political divisions also hamper progress. The report highlighted the “rancour“ between Mogadishu and Somaliland, a northern region that declared independence in 1991 but is not recognized by Somalia.
A moment of leverage
The Crisis Group argues that this political paralysis creates an opportunity for Washington.
Somali leaders are “conscious of Trump’s previous abrupt 2020 decision“ to order a U.S. withdrawal, the report said. This has driven the Somali government to “pre-empt what it would consider adverse decisions.“ These actions include hiring lobbyists and offering the U.S. strategic port access.
This “solicitousness,“ the ICG states, provides the Trump administration with significant leverage that it should “use… to push key actors.”
The report dismissed other options as unappealing. A sudden U.S. exit would “open the door for an Al-Shabaab resurgence.“ Meanwhile, throwing U.S. support behind Somaliland’s independence “would do little to address Somalia’s issues“ and could “attract opposition from regional powers.”
A four-point plan
The ICG outlined four key areas where the U.S. should apply pressure rather than “cut and run.”
First, Washington should push Somalia’s politicians to engage in “good-faith dialogue“ to secure an “immediate election deal“ ahead of the 2026 polls.
Second, the U.S. must work to ease tensions over the country’s federal model. This includes disputes between Mogadishu and member states, such as Puntland. The U.S. could “serve as a useful intermediary“ to push both sides back to the table, the report added.
Third, the report addressed the status of Somaliland. It advised the U.S. to “encourage Mogadishu to resume good-faith engagement with Hargeisa“ in their relationship.
The ICG specifically warned that this approach is “better… than jumping the gun with immediate, unilateral recognition of Somaliland.”
Finally, the ICG said the U.S. should urge Mogadishu to prepare for an eventual conversation with Al-Shabaab. This conversation would be “about ending the war.”
The group acknowledged that “none of these efforts is guaranteed to result in a breakthrough.”
However, it concluded this strategy is “better than the alternatives“ and could “create improved conditions for U.S. forces to draw down“ while advancing stability.