---

Discussion

Kate Burvish:

AUSSOM’s phase-two authorization allows up to 11,826 uniformed personnel, including 680 police, through the end of 2026. That is a legal ceiling, not proof that all 11,826 are deployed, equipped, paid or ready. The same distinction applies to money: a planning estimate, an allocation, a donor pledge, a cash transfer and a payment to a troop-contributing country are different events.

Sofia Jadler:

And authorization is not operational capacity. Security Council Resolution 2767 created AUSSOM as the successor to the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia, or ATMIS, beginning in January 2025. The African Union leads it; the United Nations authorizes and supports it through the United Nations Support Office in Somalia, or UNSOS. This is an AU-led, UN-authorized arrangement, not a conventional UN-commanded peacekeeping force.

Red Velhouse:

What is the Somali side expected to provide?

Ann Tofado:

The United Nations separately authorized logistical support for up to 20,900 Somali army and police personnel in joint or coordinated operations with AUSSOM. That is not a verified count of Somalia’s entire security establishment. Public estimates put the regular military at roughly 20,000, with additional federal-member-state forces, special units and tens of thousands of militia or semi-official forces. Police estimates range around 16,000 to 18,000, but the categories are inconsistent.

Ann Tofado:

Those forces are not one unified national army waiting in reserve. Some answer primarily to regional authorities; others are clan-linked or specialized. The political question is who controls them, who pays them and whether they operate under a common command when pressure is highest.

Sofia Jadler:

The comparison with Al-Shabaab needs the same caution. U.S. and United Nations-related estimates commonly place the group at about 7,000 to 12,000 members or fighters, with some newer assessments suggesting as many as roughly 18,000. Those figures may include fighters, auxiliaries, support personnel or local networks, just as government figures may include inactive or unavailable personnel.

Kate Burvish:

The missions are also fundamentally different. AUSSOM must protect bases, convoys and civilians while supporting a nationwide transition. Al-Shabaab can avoid fixed battles, concentrate smaller units and exploit local intelligence and political divisions. A nominal headcount therefore tells us little about operational advantage. The insurgency can be smaller and still impose a very expensive security problem.

Red Velhouse:

Let’s move from headcounts to the bill. How much is Somalia itself spending, and what does outside support still provide?

Kate Burvish:

The World Bank reported approximately $235 million in federal-government security financing in 2024, including salaries and rations for the Somali National Army. That was about 26 percent of federal public spending. Federal-member-state security spending was separately estimated at about $69.5 million in 2023. These are useful indicators, not one fully audited national total.

Kate Burvish:

The World Bank also cited roughly $1.5 billion a year in off-budget international security support. That is not the AUSSOM budget and should not be added mechanically to domestic spending. But it shows the fiscal gap: Somalia is being asked to assume responsibility while the international system has historically supplied resources several times larger than the federal security budget.

Ann Tofado:

That gap shapes political behavior. Somali leaders can claim national ownership while still needing outside money, logistics and mediation. Federal and state authorities then have incentives to compete over those resources rather than settle who commands forces and who pays for them. The handover is therefore a renegotiation of political authority, not just a military transfer.

Kate Burvish:

Somalia is trying to absorb part of the burden. The International Monetary Fund said its 2025 plans included about $30 million in additional on-budget security spending as foreign assistance declined. But that was a reorientation within a constrained budget, not evidence that Somalia could replace all external assistance. National ownership can become a label for transferring costs to a government without enough revenue to sustain the force.

Sofia Jadler:

AUSSOM’s financing illustrates the problem. Planning estimates ranged from about $166.5 million to $190.2 million depending on reimbursement assumptions, while the AU later reported an allocation of approximately $154.7 million for its 2025 share. None of those figures proves how much cash arrived, was spent or remains owed.

Kate Burvish:

The liquidity evidence is more revealing. In September 2025, the Secretary-General said only $24.6 million had been pledged against a stated requirement of $196 million, while troop-contributing countries had gone 15 months without allowances. Uganda’s defense minister separately said about $96 million was owed to contributors linked to ATMIS, though that was not an independently audited liability. A related trust fund for Somali forces held about $244,300 against a monthly requirement of $2.2 million at one point.

Kate Burvish:

Shortfalls affect operations, not just accounting. They can mean less fuel, transport, aviation, communications, medical evacuation and maintenance. An offensive may still be possible, but holding ground afterward becomes harder. The key measure is operational endurance: whether a soldier, vehicle, aircraft or base keeps functioning after the announcement has passed.

Red Velhouse:

What can we say with confidence about Al-Shabaab’s financial system?

Kate Burvish:

Public estimates are intelligence assessments, not audited accounts. One UN Panel of Experts estimate put Al-Shabaab’s total income in 2023 above $150 million; other UN-related reporting cited roughly $100 million a year. The difference may reflect different years, coverage and definitions. The revenue model is clearer: taxation and extortion of businesses, checkpoint fees, livestock and agricultural payments, port and import charges, licensing, ransom and illicit trade.

Kate Burvish:

We cannot credibly say what percentage goes to military operations. The money also supports intelligence, recruitment, propaganda, corruption, logistics and shadow governance. But income in the range of $100 million to more than $150 million gives the insurgency an independent base, including in places where it lacks visible permanent control.

Ann Tofado:

That is a political advantage as well as a financial one. Al-Shabaab does not have to provide the full package of salaries, public services, national administration and international diplomacy. It can impose taxation, punish noncompliance and offer coercive dispute resolution. If people see the state as unable to protect them or resolve disputes, an insurgent shadow system can remain influential even after it loses a town.

Sofia Jadler:

That is why clearing, holding and governing territory are different tasks. A military operation may dislodge an armed group, but it does not automatically establish police authority, courts, property rules, local administration or protection against abuse. The Security Council connects the transition to Somalia’s Security Development Plan, National Security Architecture, police and justice institutions, and agreements between the federal government and member states.

Red Velhouse:

Are those institutions advancing alongside the military handover, or are soldiers and money postponing the harder political work?

Ann Tofado:

The evidence is mixed. Reform is real: Somalia launched a national Justice Sector Strategy, trained local mediators and expanded justice, policing and community-engagement programs. A UN-supported joint police program reported progress in training, legal frameworks and a federated policing model. But these are small steps compared with the national challenge.

Ann Tofado:

The unresolved problems are more fundamental: tensions between federal and state authorities, disputes over federalism and fiscal power, clan politics, corruption and limited local ownership. A 2026 UN human-rights assessment said stabilization in recovered areas through local governance, basic services and security remained nascent, while a heavily militarized response had overshadowed broader conflict-resolution and governance efforts.

Sofia Jadler:

There is also a security-sector governance problem. Somalia has made progress with digital financial systems, audited statements, payroll reforms and biometric controls, but verification and transparency gaps remain over personnel and spending. A nominal force can be much larger than the force properly registered, paid, equipped and available for coordinated operations.

Red Velhouse:

If AUSSOM were fully funded and deployed, what could it realistically accomplish?

Sofia Jadler:

It could preserve strategic bases and transport corridors, support Somali-led offensives, provide air and logistical enablers, protect key population centers and reduce the danger of a rapid security vacuum. It could give Somali forces time to improve readiness. But that is a bridge function, not a legal or political settlement.

Ann Tofado:

It would probably not eliminate Al-Shabaab or create a lasting settlement by itself. The insurgency’s resilience comes from taxation, local networks, recruitment, coercive governance and political fragmentation. If federal and state authorities do not agree on command, resources and administration, Somali troop numbers remain politically divided. If recovered communities do not receive justice and services, military gains can remain temporary.

Kate Burvish:

The balanced conclusion is that AUSSOM can reduce the risk of collapse and improve battlefield endurance, but it cannot substitute for a sustainable Somali security economy. Somalia needs predictable domestic revenue, accurate force registers and regular payments. Donors need to distinguish pledges from cash and allocations from expenditure. Otherwise, emergency funding may sustain operations without creating a force the state can afford after international support declines.

Sofia Jadler:

The legal benchmark should be performance, not another transition date. Can Somali forces hold recovered territory? Do police and courts function there? Do federal and state authorities cooperate? Can civilians obtain protection and justice? And do financing arrangements survive beyond the current mandate? AUSSOM can be a bridge. It cannot be the destination.

Red Velhouse:

Somalia’s security transition is a wager on more than military replacement. AUSSOM’s authorized force—up to 11,826 uniformed personnel—is substantial enough to protect strategic locations, support Somali offensives and reduce the risk of a sudden vacuum. But neither AUSSOM’s ceiling nor Somali headcounts tells the whole story. Somali forces have uncertain readiness and divided command. Al-Shabaab is estimated at roughly 7,000 to 12,000 fighters, with higher figures possible, but it compensates through taxation, local networks, coercion and asymmetric attacks. Somalia spends hundreds of millions of dollars on security, while international support has been estimated at roughly $1.5 billion annually and Al-Shabaab’s income at about $100 million to more than $150 million. Those figures remain uncertain and are not directly comparable. The reforms needed for a lasting settlement—political agreement, accountable force management, policing, justice, local administration and sustainable revenue—are advancing unevenly. Full AUSSOM implementation could buy time, preserve key corridors and improve Somali operational capacity. It is unlikely by itself to defeat the insurgency or make the state legitimate. Funding and troop numbers become lasting security only when political authority, public institutions and local trust move with them. Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. United Nations Security Council — Security Council resolution 2767 (2024) on establishment of AUSSOM (PRIMARY)
2. United Nations Security Council / UN Mandate Registry — Resolution 2809 (2025), AUSSOM and UNSOS authorization (PRIMARY)
3. United Nations Support Office in Somalia — Support to Somali Security Forces (PRIMARY)
4. United Nations Human Rights Council — Report on the human rights situation in Somalia, A/HRC/61/52/Add.2 (PRIMARY)
5. United Nations Support Office in Somalia — Support to Somali Security Forces: up to 20,900 personnel (PRIMARY)
6. UK Home Office — Somalia: Mogadishu—Al-Shabaab and the security situation, July 2025 (OTHER)
7. CIA World Factbook, reproduced in UK government country note — Somalia security forces and estimated regular military personnel (OTHER)
8. BFA Staatendokumentation / Austrian country-information report — Somalia country information, police-force estimates (OTHER)
9. European Union Agency for Asylum — Somalia: updated list of main actors (ANALYSIS)
10. World Bank — Somalia Economic Update: security-sector spending snapshot (DATA)
11. World Bank — Somalia Economic Update: Reforming Somalia’s Security Sector (ANALYSIS)
12. International Monetary Fund — Somalia: Program and Policy Discussions, 2025 (PRIMARY)
13. International Monetary Fund — Staff-level agreement on Somalia’s third ECF review (PRIMARY)
14. U.S. Department of State — Country Reports on Terrorism 2024: Al-Shabaab (PRIMARY)
15. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point — The Somali National Army Versus al-Shabaab: A Net Assessment (ANALYSIS)
16. Congressional Research Service — Somalia: Background and U.S. Policy (ANALYSIS)
17. United Nations Security Council Sanctions Monitoring Team — Report on Al-Shabaab’s threat and operational capacity, S/2025/777 (PRIMARY)
18. Associated Press — Al-Shabab extremists are greatest threat to peace in Somalia and the region, UN experts say (NEWS)
19. European Union Agency for Asylum — Somalia: repercussions for refusing to pay taxes to Al-Shabaab (ANALYSIS)
20. Associated Press — UN experts: terrorist threat is high in Africa conflict zones (NEWS)
21. Africanews — UN experts: terrorist threat is high in Africa conflict zones and Afghanistan (NEWS)
22. Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime — Al-Shabaab’s financial footprint in Mogadishu (ANALYSIS)
23. UNDP Somalia — UNDP Somalia Annual Report 2024 (PRIMARY)
24. United Nations in Somalia — 2024 UN Country Annual Results Report: Somalia (PRIMARY)
25. UNDP Somalia / Somalia Joint Police Programme — Joint Police Programme final report (PRIMARY)
26. United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia — UNSOM Police and federated policing support (PRIMARY)
27. United Nations in Somalia — Round-up of UN activities in Somalia, January 2026 (PRIMARY)
28. International Monetary Fund — Somalia 2024 Article IV Consultation and Second Review (PRIMARY)
29. World Bank — Somalia Financial Governance Report 2025 (PRIMARY)
30. Office of the Auditor General of Somalia — 2024 Annual Audit Reports (PRIMARY)