The US just admitted that they killed two civilians in an air strike in Somalia. The acknowledgement is a huge shift in strategy from the usual silence. So, how will it shape their ongoing air campaign against al Shabaab?
This week, the US did something I thought they would never do. US Africa Command openly admitted that an air strike, conducted on 23 February near Kunyo Barrow in Somalia, killed two civilians and injured three others. They added, as if to make up for this, that the strike had also killed the three intended targets - al Shabaab operatives.
The announcement took me by surprise because, from a strategic point of view for the US, an acknowledgement like this is sure to cause their overall strategy more harm than good.
A history of silence
In the 12 or so years that the US has been conducting air strikes against al Shabaab in Somalia, they have only once admitted that civilians had been killed in a particular strike, despite dozens of accusations having been made throughout these years. That particular incident followed an Amnesty International report, which said it could show that two civilians had been killed by a US air strike on 1 April 2018. A year later, AFRICOM said Amnesty was correct: two civilians had died.
But this was the exception rather than the rule. In the last two years alone, the accusations have continued to grow and in response, AFRICOM has remained largely quiet. In February 2020, the air strike monitoring group, Air Wars, released their own data, which they said showed that the US had been massively underreporting civilian casualties. The Intercept followed this up with their own investigation, which presented more evidence that civilians were being targeted. In early March, an airstrike, which AFRICOM said had targeted four militants, was condemned by residents and a local lawmaker as having killed five civilians in a minibus. Still, AFRICOM followed their tried-and-tested strategy of silence.
A change in direction
Then, on 31 March, AFRICOM suddenly announced the launch of the Civilian Casualties Status Report Initiative (CCSRI), which would increase transparency by showcasing the findings of internal investigations into civilian casualties, as well as how those investigations are conducted. This would result in a quarterly report, which would lay bare all that the Americans had found.
So, why the change in strategy? Well, it is clear that silence was just not effective. Amid the increasing accusations, silence only equalled guilt. Each accusation that went unaddressed added to suspicion and provided continuing opportunities for al Shabaab to capitalise in their ongoing propaganda war. On top of this, the US air campaign has been increasing dramatically and looks set to continue to do so: in 2019, the US launched 64 strikes, while in the first four months of 2020, they have already launched nearly 40, well on track to set a new record, with eight months still to go. But with increasing strikes comes the increased risk of civilian casualties in those strikes.
Thus, the launch of a PR strategy that would allow AFRICOM to address the allegations, attempt to project some form of transparency and hopefully seize control of the negative narrative that has worked against them. It seemed like a good idea, especially as it would provide something to fall back on if and when more accusations surface in the future. However, it appeared unlikely that this initiative would result in AFRICOM acknowledging the possibility that civilians may have been targeted, at least, any more than it had already done in the past.
At best, AFRICOM might perhaps reveal the launch of investigation, acknowledging the possibility of claims and pay lip service to the goal of transparency. But admit that some of those claims are true? Such a revelation would play right into al Shabaab’s effective propaganda machine, presenting a moral victory to the militants that might result in greater support for them, whilst weakening the argument that the US air campaign is an effective method to win this war.
A genuine attempt at transparency?
Imagine my surprise when this is exactly what AFRICOM did. The first of these quarterly reports was released on 27 April and contained an acknowledgement of the civilians killed in the 23 February strike, stating that “we will admit the mistake”, and adding an apology to the government and people of Somalia. The report also contained 20 incidents of closed investigations that found no evidence of civilian casualties, as well as seven ongoing investigations.
Almost immediately, social media was ignited, with many individuals accusing the US of killing innocent Somalis and requesting their government cease the partnership. Al Shabaab has yet to release a full statement, but when it comes, it will be sure to use this opportunity to the full extent.
The question, therefore, is: knowing now that this new US strategy is at least partly genuine in its promise to investigate and reveal incidents of civilian casualties, how will it affect their war against al Shabaab?
Perhaps AFRICOM is banking on the fact that one revelation here and there will lend credence to the negative findings of investigations into dozens of other incidents. It must be said that amongst the backlash of criticism following this week’s revelation, was some lauding of the report by both civil society and media, praising some transparency at last.
Or perhaps AFRICOM is attempting to be totally genuine with the new strategy, adopting a completely transparent approach that it hopes might win it support from the Somali public and present the case for the need for an air campaign to disrupt al Shabaab operations. After all, the new report includes a statement from AFRICOM commander General Stephen Townsend: “There is no secret air or shadow war as some allege. How can there be when the whole world knows we are assisting Somalia in their fight against al-Shabaab terrorists? When we publically announce every single airstrike we conduct? When we publically admit to our mistakes?”
If so, it’s a risky strategy and one with the potential to backfire on US operations in Somalia. We shall have to wait and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment