 |
While U.S. drones rain fire on Al-Shabaab hideouts, a former U.S. official is lobbying for a peace table instead of a battlefield—offering a diplomatic fantasy that may be destabilizing the entire Horn of Africa.
At a Glance:
- Claims by a former U.S. official of secret U.S.-Al Shabaab talks are threatening to fracture the AU peacekeeping mission, with Uganda’s top general, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, citing the rumors as a reason to call for a “total withdrawal.”
- The mission, AUSSOM, is already struggling with significant funding gaps and waning commitment from international donors.
- Warfa claims, without evidence, that the Trump administration may already be engaged in talks—an assertion not confirmed by U.S. officials and doubted by regional experts.
- The proposal is at odds with current U.S. policy and the military reality of a resurgent Al-Shabaab capable of overrunning army bases.
- Warfa’s record raises serious questions about his judgment and potential conflicts between U.S. interests and his own nationalist allegiances.
The long-standing African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), already teetering due to chronic shortfalls in international funding, now faces existential threat. Unverified claims by a former U.S. official that Washington is negotiating with Al-Shabaab risk splintering this fragile mission, potentially accelerating Somalia’s descent into chaos.
The tipping point came when Uganda’s top general, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, publicly declared that he would recommend a “total withdrawal” of Ugandan forces—the backbone of the AU mission. His reasoning? Rumors that the U.S. had opened backchannel talks with Al-Shabaab, rumors traceable directly to former State Department advisor Hamse Warfa. “We even hear that the US has begun secret negotiations with Al-Shabaab in Somalia,” Muhoozi posted on X, before concluding that such betrayal warranted a full Ugandan exit.
That a senior military official is citing Warfa’s unsupported claims as justification for undermining an entire mission underscores the real-world damage of irresponsible diplomacy. Warfa’s advocacy, once an academic policy pitch, is now a political grenade lobbed into an already volatile region. It has drawn interest from a curious alliance—Al-Shabaab, Qatari intermediaries, Somali nationalists—but little support from Washington. A Somaliland Chronicle investigation into Warfa’s campaign reveals glaring contradictions and a worldview shaped less by strategic clarity than by allegiance to a collapsing Somali nationalism.
Military Reality vs. Diplomatic Fantasy
Warfa’s proposal arrives at the worst possible moment. AFRICOM Commander General Michael Langley recently testified before Congress about Al-Shabaab’s resurgence. In response, the U.S. has increased its drone strike tempo throughout 2025, targeting the group’s senior leadership.
This strategic escalation makes Warfa’s proposal not just mistimed, but deeply unserious. As the International Crisis Group notes, Al-Shabaab’s leadership views negotiations as “more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction.” Why would a group that overran a major army base in April 2025 and just this week captured the strategic town of Moqokori choose diplomacy over domination? It wouldn’t. And it won’t.
The Prophet of American Abandonment
The roots of Warfa’s position lie in a 2024 Heritage Institute conference in Djibouti, where he warned Somalis to prepare for American abandonment. In a twist of irony, his prediction proved partially true—but not because of U.S. fatigue. The Trump administration, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, recalibrated U.S. foreign policy around a cold-eyed America First doctrine.
Mogadishu’s government, long propped up by U.S. taxpayers, failed every basic test of a reliable partner. Corruption, incompetence, and outright collaboration with terrorist elements turned Somalia into an international welfare state. The Trump team finally called the bluff.
Yet here lies Warfa’s logical collapse. He correctly diagnosed U.S. skepticism but now asks the same administration to double down. He wants Washington to underwrite peace with the very terrorists Mogadishu never had the will to defeat. That’s not strategic recalibration—it’s intellectual incoherence. He’s not resolving a contradiction—he’s laundering it.
A Pattern of Flawed Judgment
This isn’t the first time Warfa has demonstrated poor judgment. In August 2023, as the State Department’s Senior Advisor for Human Rights, he met with Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre to affirm shared values. Two months later, Barre publicly praised Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.
There are only two explanations. Either Warfa misread Barre so badly it disqualifies his credibility, or his version of human rights diplomacy is politically selective and practically useless.
A Coordinated Political Campaign?
Warfa’s push for negotiations mirrors the long-standing efforts of his political ally and fellow Minnesotan, Rep. Ilhan Omar. For years, Omar has led efforts to curtail the U.S. drone program in Somalia. Now, Warfa surfaces with a diplomatic solution that perfectly complements her agenda.
Whether by coordination or coincidence, the optics are damning. One flank aims to disable the military option, the other steps forward to declare peace talks as the only viable alternative. Together, they form a political pincer movement—one that serves neither U.S. interests nor regional stability.
Hijacking U.S. Policy: The ‘Somalia-First’ Agenda
The clearest insight into Warfa’s worldview comes from his vocal opposition to the Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU. His position aligned with Biden-era policy—itself strongly shaped by Rep. Omar—that prioritized Somali territorial claims over evolving strategic partnerships.
This reveals a deeper agenda. Far from being a neutral bureaucrat, Warfa was a key proponent of a Somalia-first doctrine that worked against growing Congressional consensus in favor of Somaliland. It was a policy shaped more by clan allegiance than strategic reality.
The facts on the ground offer no comfort to his thesis. Somalia’s military is compromised by Al-Shabaab infiltration. Its government openly collaborates with Communist China, recently banning Taiwanese nationals to placate Beijing. Senator Ted Cruz called Somalia a “wholly owned subsidiary of Communist China.”
And yet Warfa—who once used Trump as an example of democratic decay—now claims he’s the president best suited to bring peace to Somalia. The moral gymnastics are staggering.
Serving Different Masters
Warfa’s proposal, stripped of its diplomatic varnish, serves interests far removed from Washington’s. For Al-Shabaab, negotiations legitimize their movement. For Qatar, they offer leverage. For Somali nationalists, they sustain the illusion of a unified state. None of these actors advance U.S. interests. Nor do they promote stability.
The question isn’t whether this strategy will work. It won’t. The real question is whether American policymakers will squander decades of investment for a fantasy that flatters terrorists and undermines allies. In an era of strategic realignment, the cost of getting it wrong has never been higher.