There are many reasons why some military conflicts go unreported or underreported. Local restrictions on press freedom. Prohibitively high risks to journalists’ safety. A lack of resources. The tendency for geopolitical conflicts to attract more attention than civil conflicts. And the sheer number of armed conflicts around the world right now. All these factors can also impede reporting on the humanitarian toll, civilian casualties and attempts to hold armed forces accountable.
Earlier this week, the Guardian published an investigation into the deaths of at least 12 civilians, including eight children, who were killed in a US airstrike in Somalia last year amid Washington’s covert military campaign against the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab. The articles, which are part of our Rights and Freedom series, are an example of the Guardian’s efforts to highlight conflicts that might otherwise receive little public attention.
“We’re reporting on this in the hope that the information and the Guardian’s reach will cut through,” says Mark Townsend, a senior global development reporter who worked on the investigation with Mohamed Gabobe, a freelance journalist and producer based in Mogadishu. “But it’s a very hard conflict to actually report on. Even excellent reporters like Mohamed can’t travel to areas controlled by al-Shabaab where this war is being conducted. And civilians in those areas aren’t allowed internet access or smartphones, so getting footage of strikes or images of the aftermath and victims and all the things you’d want to corroborate testimony is very difficult. On top of that, the US doesn’t release anything about what’s going on – it’s a very opaque campaign.”
The airstrike in question happened in November in the town of Jamaame. It was the deadliest US operation for civilians in Somalia during either Trump administration, and the bombing has become increasingly aggressive.
Mohamed says the impact on civilians caught up in the US drone war is all-too often overlooked by western news organisations. “I sometimes get the sense that many western media outlets view civilian casualties from US airstrikes in Somalia as a norm and part of everyday life,” he says. “But death shouldn’t be normalised, especially when the most powerful nation in the world is doing it on communities that have nothing to do with the armed parties involved in the Somalia conflict.”
Mohamed and Mark’s collaborative reporting illustrates how these kinds of hidden military operations can still be properly probed instead of neglected or normalised. As well as close cooperation between the Guardian and a well-connected journalist with local expertise, the investigation involved piecing together disparate sources of information in the absence of official records and documentation, and putting the findings to the relevant authorities.
“When it comes to this model of working, I think it varies depending on the particular news organisation,” says Mohamed, who has been a journalist for 10 years and first reported for the Guardian in 2022. “For instance, some western media outlets allow the local journalist in the field to take the lead, and once the work is done they’ll continue to coordinate with that local journalist to make sure the story is told in an accurate and authentic way. Meanwhile with others, once you do the work, they will overlook the knowledge and context of the local journalist and will release the story in a manner that fits their narrative – which isn’t always accurate and, in some cases, is biased, sometimes without them even knowing.”
Mark, who has reported for the Guardian and its former sister newspaper, the Observer, for 24 years, has worked on several similar collaborations with local journalists in other countries. “Obviously, it requires trust on both sides,” he explains. “It’s a collaboration in the most complete sense. But Mohamed did the hard yards here in terms of the on-the-ground reporting, so whatever feedback he had – for instance if something needed to be changed or slightly nuanced – then he got the final say, as far as I was concerned because it’s his lived experience, he’s the expert.”
Mark first contacted Mohamed after Tess McClure, an editor for the Guardian’s Rights and Freedom series, first spotted reports of a high number of children killed in last November’s airstrike.
Given the physical restrictions and risks of prosecution for reporting from al-Shabaab-controlled areas, Mohamed had to improvise. “I reached out to clan elders in Mogadishu,” he explains. “Clan elders are the leaders and decision-makers when it comes to the affairs of each respective clan and sub-clan in Somalia. By negotiating with them and explaining my intentions and the importance of survivors speaking out, they helped put me in touch with some of the victims.”
The survivors’ accounts of that day bring home the devastating reality of the drone strikes for civilians caught up in the conflict. “One of the biggest challenges was asking the victims who’d lost loved ones in the attack certain questions that went into details about the bodies of their loved ones, or the screams they heard once the aerial bombardment ceased,” says Mohamed. “I don’t like asking people those kinds of questions – it feels like you’re making them relive horrors that no human being should endure. When asking these questions, if the victim pauses, I get the sense that they’re having a flashback. And if they weep or whisper a prayer, or even make a reference to a verse of the Qur’an, then I know they’re hurting a lot. But these details are crucial for putting together what actually happened.”
Alongside the witness testimony, Mohamed and Mark also pieced the story together using photographs, video footage, X-rays of children’s shrapnel injuries, interviews with drone specialists and military analysts. Mark put about 30 detailed questions to the recently renamed US Department of War. They did not respond. The White House was also approached for comment and their eventual response, which is quoted in one of the articles published this week, is a stark reminder that the current US administration presents its own kind of hostile environment for journalists.
“It’s very important that their response was included in the article because it shows how they’re doing these things without any kind of transparency or proper legal course,” says Mark. “They didn’t know, didn’t care, or wouldn’t say. Either way, it’s pretty dire if you’ve killed innocent people – you’d think you’d feel a responsibility to work out why.”
The articles contain a series of urgent and unanswered questions, such as who signed off the attack on a densely populated family neighbourhood? Why and who, if anyone, was the intended target? The questions provide a powerful accompaniment to the witness testimonies. “Their refusal to share anything about what happened is in itself a galvanising factor,” says Mark.
Mark’s extensive and acclaimed reporting on the wars in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo has demonstrated that readers are willing to pay attention to underreported conflicts: “Readers have responded brilliantly to our reporting about Sudan and the DRC, which are knotty conflicts that are quite complex. Readers do really care, which is very reassuring. Whether or not the wider world does, I’m not sure, but our readers do.”
This article is taken from the Guardian’s weekly email for supporters, sent on Tuesdays. To support the Guardian’s work, please click here. To find out more about theguardian.org, please click here