Uganda has begun withdrawing troops from Somalia after nearly two decades of involvement in African Union security missions. The first contingent serving under a bilateral agreement has returned home, while Uganda says all its forces—including those assigned to the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia, or AUSSOM—should leave by the end of 2027. This is not an immediate evacuation of every Ugandan soldier: thousands remain, and the timetable is phased. The decision matters because Ugandan forces helped remove al-Shabaab from much of Mogadishu and still protect strategically important areas. A poorly managed handover could expose communities and transport routes to militant attacks, while a successful transition could strengthen Somali responsibility for its own security.
Checked as of 2 November 2026. This is a developing subject, so later official statements, investigations or agreements may change the assessment.
Key takeaways
- Uganda has begun withdrawing troops deployed under its bilateral arrangement with Somalia.
- Uganda says its remaining forces, including AUSSOM contingents, will leave by the end of 2027.
- Uganda first deployed in 2007 and became one of the mission’s most important troop contributors.
- Al-Shabaab still carries out bombings and armed attacks, so security risks remain substantial.
- Funding, logistics and the readiness of Somali forces will determine whether the handover is safe.
What has Uganda announced?
The Uganda People’s Defence Forces said the first cohort had already returned and that bilateral forces would leave first. Reuters reported that Uganda has roughly 4,500 personnel in AUSSOM according to state media, although the number deployed separately under bilateral arrangements is uncertain. The distinction matters: withdrawing one category of troops does not mean every Ugandan peacekeeper has left.
Uganda describes the process as a planned transfer of responsibility to Somali armed forces. An AUSSOM warning reported by Reuters said that withdrawal could leave parts of Lower Shabelle vulnerable to al-Shabaab. Somalia’s state minister for foreign affairs said the situation was not immediately dire but acknowledged that a sudden exit could create problems. These are informed assessments, not proof that a particular town will fall.
Why Ugandan troops went to Somalia
Somalia’s central government collapsed in 1991, producing civil war, rival authorities and repeated humanitarian crises. The rise of al-Shabaab added an organised Islamist insurgency linked to al-Qaeda. Earth Site’s history of Somalia explains this longer state-building crisis, while the Somalia country profile describes its geography and political challenges.
Uganda became the first state to deploy troops to the African Union Mission in Somalia in 2007. At that time al-Shabaab held markets, roads and neighbourhoods in Mogadishu. Ugandan, Burundian and later other African forces helped push the group out of fixed positions in the capital, protected government institutions and supported humanitarian access.
How the mission changed
The mission passed through several names and mandates: AMISOM, ATMIS and now AUSSOM. These changes reflected an intended transition from large-scale combat support towards stabilisation and Somali-led security. Renaming a mission does not automatically create capable local institutions, however. Training, salaries, intelligence, logistics and public trust all matter.
Who is al-Shabaab?
Al-Shabaab is an armed Islamist organisation that seeks to overthrow Somalia’s internationally recognised government and impose its strict interpretation of Islamic law. It controls or influences rural territory and conducts bombings, assassinations and assaults against military and civilian targets. The group also raises revenue through taxation and coercion.
Military pressure has prevented al-Shabaab from openly controlling much of Mogadishu, but it has not eliminated the movement. This illustrates a central counter-insurgency problem: retaking a town is easier than establishing trusted administration, courts, policing and livelihoods after troops move on.
Why the withdrawal is happening now
A long-planned transfer
Somali governments have repeatedly argued that national forces should eventually take responsibility. Permanent foreign deployment can weaken sovereignty and become politically unpopular even when it supplies necessary security.
Funding and logistical pressure
AUSSOM depends on outside support for food, fuel, transport, medical evacuation and equipment. The United States has said it will no longer support the UN logistics office after a drawdown period. A force may have trained soldiers but still fail if vehicles cannot be fuelled or casualties evacuated.
Domestic costs for Uganda
Uganda has sustained casualties and financial costs over two decades. Exact casualty totals have not been publicly established. Governments must balance regional security commitments with domestic military priorities and public accountability.
What could go wrong?
- Al-Shabaab could exploit gaps between departing Ugandan units and arriving Somali forces.
- Rival Somali authorities could compete over bases, weapons or local influence.
- Unpaid soldiers might abandon posts or establish informal checkpoints.
- Civilians could face retaliation if militants believe they cooperated with peacekeepers.
- A rapid loss of international logistics could weaken units beyond the withdrawal areas.
Earth Site’s overview of the countries of Africa provides the regional setting. Somalia’s long coastline sits beside routes connecting the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea, giving its stability wider importance.
What would a successful handover look like?
Success would require joint mapping of bases, staged replacement of units, reliable payment for Somali personnel and a clear command structure. Local administrations need police, courts and services so security is not measured only by the absence of a large attack. Communities should also have ways to report misconduct by national or international forces.
The culture and history of Somalia is a reminder that the country is more than its conflicts. Diaspora investment, trade, pastoral livelihoods and strong local networks can support recovery if institutions become safer and more predictable. International partnerships, including those between the African Union and organisations discussed in Earth Site’s guide to NATO’s military and peace-support roles, can provide lessons without assuming one model fits every region.
Confirmed facts, attributed claims and uncertainty
Confirmed: Uganda announced the phased withdrawal; the first contingent returned; Uganda intends to end all deployments by the close of 2027; al-Shabaab remains active.
Attributed claims: Uganda presents the transition as allowing Somali forces to assume full responsibility. AUSSOM officials warned of vulnerability in Lower Shabelle. Both should be identified as their assessments.
Uncertain: the exact total number of bilateral troops, the final pace of withdrawal, replacement forces, future financing and how al-Shabaab will respond.
Conclusion
Uganda’s decision closes an important chapter in African peace operations, but the final outcome will depend on the handover rather than the announcement. Somalia has a legitimate interest in national control, while civilians need continuity and protection. The safest interpretation is neither that foreign troops have solved Somalia’s conflict nor that withdrawal guarantees collapse. It is a high-risk transition whose results will be visible in local security, public services and the ability of Somali institutions to hold territory.
FAQs
Have all Ugandan troops already left Somalia?
No. The withdrawal is phased and is intended to finish by the end of 2027.
What is AUSSOM?
It is the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia.
Why did Uganda deploy troops in 2007?
It joined an African Union mission supporting Somalia’s government against al-Shabaab and wider instability.
Is al-Shabaab defeated?
No. It has lost major urban positions but retains the ability to attack and control or influence rural areas.
Who will replace Ugandan forces?
Somali forces are expected to take greater responsibility, but exact local arrangements remain uncertain.
