To draw from John Steinbeck’s experience, the reasons for entry into Somalia by each of the leading actors that have helped to stabilise the Horn of Africa country vary, but the timing and style of their exit will be more important.

The American author learnt this lesson when, in the company of only his dog, he did a lunatic drive through every American state. Camped by the roadside one evening, Steinbeck was joined by a local farmer, and the two drank a bottle of whisky. But the farmer declined a second glass, arguing that it was noble to exit without staggering.

So what is the exit strategy of Uganda, Kenya and Burundi from Somalia? Will they leave with a swagger, or will they stumble out? And more importantly, with what economic benefit?

These are questions that geopolitical analysts are asking, now that the military job of pacifying Mogadishu is done. And with the election of Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as new president on September 10, the country’s long and tortuous transition is as good as over.

READ: Mr President: Somalia's surprise choice

Despite having been in conflict for more than two decades, the recent discovery of oil and other minerals has sparked interest among countries in the region. Somalia has uranium, and largely unexploited deposits of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt and natural gas.

The questions are even more relevant for Uganda, which has made a habit of fighting wars around the Great Lakes Region to liberate other countries, but often reaped economic bruises, not to mention loss of human life.

Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and now Somalia, come to mind, but Uganda also played a part in the campaigns against the anti-apartheid and racist regimes in South Africa and Mozambique.

By contrast, Kenya, which has not always pursued the military option — until last October when it shot its way into the Somali conflict — ends up reaping the economic benefits of pacifying these countries.

In short, Kenya has a plan and the economic muscle to execute it once the guns go quiet.

“There are two reasons a country takes part in war in another country: To occupy and extract. When you look at the manner Uganda has gone about this, it is simply joking around. To serve a mission of stabilisation is not an end in itself,” says Ugandan legislator Simon Mulongo.

What is at stake for each of the East African countries as the Kismayu assault looms and as it becomes clearer the Somalia war could be coming to an end?

A number of countries from the region have strategic interests in Somalia that are at variance with each other, even though they have come together under the umbrella of the African Union Mission in Somalia, Amisom, to defeat Al Shabaab and stabilise the country.

For the East African countries that form the backbone of Amisom — Burundi, Kenya and Uganda — and their Ethiopian allies, the gains and the defeat of Al Shabaab in central Somalia have brought fresh hopes, security analysts said.

Regional partners desires

As a group, the regional partners want a strong central government that will permanently end the Al Shabaab threat, chase foreign terrorists from Somali soil, curb piracy, and end the insecurity that has plagued the region since the collapse of the Somali state in 1991. But individually, they have interests they are eyeing.

Uganda has the biggest troop contingent in Somalia and wants to see continuity in leadership while Djibouti knows only too well that the factors that destabilised Somalia could destabilise it too. As such, stability in Somalia means stability in Djibouti.

For Kenya, an illicit parallel trade network worth millions of dollars thrives between Nairobi’s Eastleigh estate and Mogadishu. Nairobi hopes that a legitimate government and stability in Somalia will help formalise this parallel economic system.

Ethiopia on its part has been in conflict with Somalia since the 15th century, so stabilisation would aid its own national security. The US’s main interest is to ensure Somalia is no longer a launching pad for terrorists.

ALSO READ: Putting Somalia back together again

Mr Mulongo, who is also vice chair of the Parliamentary Committee of Defence and Internal Affairs, as well as a former director of the regional Eastern African Standby Brigade, argues that Uganda will leave Somalia nursing economic bruises.

“Uganda’s budget for air defence and ground troops runs into millions of dollars. But what’s the return?” he asks.

Uganda, for instance, is counting its losses after recently losing three choppers and several members of their crew en route to the Somalia mission.

READ: Planned Al-Shabaab assault takes major hit after chopper mishap

This, critics argue, was ill-advised considering that Kenya’s navy had strengthened Kismayu. Indeed, flying choppers to the conflict area is no guarantee of victory as the Vietnamese defeated the Americans without using a single aircraft.

It does not help that the UN Security Council remains muted on the deadline for withdrawal of the Ugandan and Burundian forces that have been in Somalia longest — at least since 2007 in the case of Uganda.

Kenya, on the other hand, has a target to pacify Kismayu, and a deadline within which to end its Somalia mission.

Sources indicate that although the Kenya Defence Forces are now part of the Amisom, Nairobi has an “invisible deadline” to be out of Somalia by March 2013, before its General Election.

“We should also start now, or should have given a deadline. After successful parliamentary and presidential elections, what next for Ugandan troops?” says politician Aggrey Awori, who served in President Yoweri Museveni’s Cabinet between 2009 and 2011.

“We should have made it clear that once Mogadishu or Kismayu are free, and there are no more urban war centres, we start our gradual withdrawal. Once the security machinery is in place, there should be no more [Ugandan] soldiers out there. Uganda should not try to get into the local politics and issues of good governance otherwise we’ll get bogged down into a similar situation as the Americans are facing in the Middle East.”

The insurgent al Shabaab militia can only resort to guerrilla tactics that may not threaten mercantile interests once Kismayu falls, and with Mogadishu already secured, Kenya’s economy will be better off.

For starters, Kenya shares a common border with Somalia, and even before stability returns to the whole country, Kenya Airways is already talking up flight schedules from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport to Mogadishu.

Once regular air transport starts, the major drivers of Kenya’s economy — banks, insurance firms, oil companies and transport services will open shop in Somali, pretty much the same way they moved into South Sudan following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 to dominate the country’s corporate setup.

“Did we have any grand plan beyond gun powder? None, whatsoever. In missions like these, you fight and then dominate the market. But what does Uganda have to take there? One plane should have taken soldiers into Somalia and the next delivers rice from Uganda for the Somalis to buy,” says Mr Awori.

He adds that President Museveni likes to play his cards close to his chest when it comes to Uganda’s withdrawal plan.

“This whole enterprise was left to the men in uniform, but there is no business plan,” he says.

As if to dismiss talk of Uganda’s failure to follow up on its military success with economic domination, President Museveni, named veteran economist Prof Sam Tulya-Muhika as Uganda’s envoy to Mogadishu, to be deputised by former Amisom commander Maj Gen Nathan Mugisha.

Who else will benefit from the Somali crisis?

A recent executive order from US President Barack Obama states, “Somalia constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the US.”

ALSO READ: A land full of contradictions and pleasant surprises

Nordic countries are the ones supplying water to the Somalis, while other European states including Turkey and the United Kingdom have named ambassadors to Mogadishu.

Through its European Union Training Mission, the EU has since 2010 spent €7.2 million ($9.27 million) on training and building the Somali National Army’s capacity to work towards stabilising the country as a means to protect the European bloc’s long term interests.

Then, the rations of Amisom troops are supplied by Halliburton, a logistics company that is associated with former US vice president Dick Cheney. Among other places, Halliburton has operated in the conflict hotspots of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Somali lesson is history repeating itself as it did in Congo when Ugandan troops returned home in the early 2000s with only Congolese wives to show for years of misadventure in that country since mid 1998.

Plunder has at all times and places been a result of war, but in Uganda’s case, it is the senior officers who have anything to show for it, when they finally exit.

Countries that wield economic power, on the other hand, will avoid Uganda’s mistake of going into a conflict with no exit plan.