Yemen
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Oct 29, 2010 at 10:09pm
A test case for the post-Iraq war on terror. Iraq isn't a model for how to respond. Neither is Afghanistan. No cause of war -- we are at pains not to be officially at war with Yemen -- no coalition of the willing, a set of constraints we haven't faced before, and a set of shifting variables (Turkey, Iran...) that look much different from even a few years ago. Choose your gray area, there it is: the drone killings, the complicity of American citizens, even geography -- Yemen is practically Africa. And there's no AFRICOM in Africa.
Mental notes: (1) Iran vs. Saudi Arabia. (2) Yemen standing with Saddam and against the Saudis in Gulf War I. (3) US gets the "tip" yesterday, or earlier, from "Saudi intelligence officials." (4) ...?
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Yemen
We've forgotten the second part of the Bush Doctrine: that we will make war on countries which give safe haven to terrorists.
Do we really believe the government of Yemen cannot find al-Awlaki? Do we really believe the Saudi's cannot stop Wahabbist financing of global terror? Do we really believe Pakistan cannot crush the Taliban in Waziristan?
Let's bomb them into rubble and find out.
Oct '10
Re: Yemen
Jun '10
Re: Yemen
Liberal guilt has made us feel that wars have to be turned into nation building. I say toss the rubble and go home, let the squat dwellers nation build themselves out of the rubble. Should they need help, we can always send them Barney Frank, who has all that mortgage lending experience. He won't be doing anything after Tuesday anyway, so why not?
Oct '10
Re: Yemen
the afghanistan war was doomed from the moment obama announced 2011 as the beginning of the date of withdrawal. Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the "good war", but reading mcchrystal on rolling stones and woodard's book show that obama doesnt really care and wants to bug out of afghanistan ASAP, and the taliban knows it.
And that is why the US is talking to the Taliban. Who's the strong horse now?
Re: Yemen
Absolutely we do. The government of Yemen doesn't seem to have much control over anything outside of Sana. As for bombing it into rubble, we've been bombing it into rubble. It's very unclear whether this has served to do anything useful.
Jun '10
Re: Yemen
4. Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden.
Oct '10
Re: Yemen
As for bombing it into rubble, we've been bombing it into rubble. It's very unclear whether this has served to do anything useful.
Havent the US tried that during the Clinton administration. In Sudan and Iraq?
Jun '10
Re: Yemen
I say we send one of our esteemed Ricochet intellects, perhaps Kenneth the Great, to debate their wisest mullah.After being mauled to rubble by our brilliance, they will no doubt crawl away like the worms that they truly are, never to be heard from again.
It will work about as well as anything else.
P.S.
Does Yemen even have a government?
Oct '10
Re: Yemen
Obviously bombing parts of pakistan hasnt dented Al Queda and the Taliban. They're winning in Afghanistan. They sense weakness in the US.
Pakistan is almost untouchable because of it's nuclear weapons.
Edited on Oct 30, 2010 at 5:32amJun '10
Re: Yemen
It might be worthwhile to attack the economic base. That would mean using herbicides against their number one cash crop, a narcotic known as kaat (qaat).
Re: Yemen
The economic base is oil and foreign aid, not qat, which isn't its number-one cash crop--fruit and vegetables are--and anyway accounts for less than 10 percent of GDP at most. The place is already suffering from soil erosion, sand dune encroachment, deforestation, and massive drought; and the idea of using herbicides to further wreck the agricultural economy is ... well, we could also spread smallpox there, I guess, or cholera. Then we could poison their waters with cyanide, or maybe just kill all their firstborn children. Or locusts, maybe, we could use locusts. That'll win us some hearts and minds.
Jun '10
Re: Yemen
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
The economic base is oil and foreign aid, not qat, which isn't its number-one cash crop--fruit and vegetables are--and anyway accounts for less than 10 percent of GDP at most.
Thank you for the clarification; I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the trade in qaat has pernicious consequences. We see the affects most notably in Somalia. Most contraband tends to generate revenue for criminal syndicates that include terrorists. As in Afghanistan, we can use herbicides, though perhaps a more humane and efficacious approach would be to buy the crop outright.
May '10
Re: Yemen
So Claire,
I am taking it that the ROE allow for lots of snark? I just want to be clear, because I thought this sort of post was a problem. This is a high level of sarcasm that does not really advance an argument in any fashion. Paules did not call for killing anyone.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
The economic base is oil and foreign aid, not qat, which isn't its number-one cash crop--fruit and vegetables are--and anyway accounts for less than 10 percent of GDP at most. The place is already suffering from soil erosion, sand dune encroachment, deforestation, and massive drought; and the idea of using herbicides to further wreck the agricultural economy is ... well, we could also spread smallpox there, I guess, or cholera. Then we could poison their waters with cyanide, or maybe just kill all their firstborn children. Or locusts, maybe, we could use locusts. That'll win us some hearts and minds. · Oct 30 at 5:50am
May '10
Re: Yemen
Claire's comments above show the problem with trying to approach this war pragmatically. Apparently, any act that hurts the civilians of another nation is now off the table. Ignore the fact that we targeted civilians in WWII to help win the war. (The idea being that you kill the workers, you hurt the war effort).
In Muslim nations all over the world, civilians are supporting the people we are at war with. In a war, the only way to win is to go after the secure base of the enemy. But, any suggestion of doing that is met with revulsion and dismissed.
I don't see that we are winning any hearts and minds in Europe, let alone the Middle East. Who cares about hearts and minds. I want people to respect America's might. I don't really care if they like us or not. Attacks on America or her interests should be met with dramatic responses.
Don't throw crap at an armed man.
Don't stand next to someone throwing crap at an armed man.
You only have to be dramatic a few times before the need will go away.
Oct '10
Re: Yemen
Who is the strong horse indeed. After 9 years, the world's most powerful military nation and its 30+ allies, representing essentially the entire western world and a few other allies, have utterly failed to destroy the Taliban. That is a victory for the taliban. Even thinking about negotiating with the taliban is victory for the taliban. After 9 years the question shouldn't be can we work out a deal, it should have been "is it necessary to go into every last cave and be sure we've taken care of all of them."
Re: Yemen
Bryan G. Stephens: So Claire,
I am taking it that the ROE allow for lots of snark?
Bryan, it's not snark. My very serious moral point is that destroying the country's agricultural base would be indiscriminate and cruel. If our sole aim is to terrorize the world into short-term compliance, we have a vast nuclear arsenal. We don't use it for many reasons, among them, that we're not animals. We certainly do lose hearts and minds when we kill civilians, and we also win them through the contrast between us and those with no moral restraints. Al Qaeda in Iraq lost popular support in large part because they visibly killed a lot of civilians. Of course we should use force credibly, effectively, and in such a way that it is absolutely clear that those who attack us die. It is just as crucial to make clear that those who don't attack us have no better friend than America. Starving the entire nation of Yemen--its women, its children, people who have fought on our behalf? It would not work, and it would be wicked.
Aug '10
Re: Yemen
I'll have to disagree with Bryan's thoughts on whether we needn't care about catching Yemeni innocents in the crossfire. Just because a populace is sympathetic to terrorists doesn't give us the moral right to kill them indiscriminately. Now, if they are actively supporting terrorists they're fair game in my book. They stop being innocents at that point. "Hearts and Minds" probably isn't going to do much for us with people that support terrorists, but we should be concerned with how we conduct ourselves in wartime. Especially, for people on the fence. Being "dramatic" a few times probably doesn't solve anything and only further worsens the problem.
May '10
Re: Yemen
1. Khat is not a food crop. No one is going to starve if that is taken out.
2. If a group of people supports terrorists, they are part of the problem. To me, this includes funding terror organizations.
3. Fascism was popular until we defeated it. Then, it was not. Victory here means making jihad against us such a losing proposition that no one wants to do it.
4. If attacks come from a nation, that nation should be held to account. If it cannot manage to control terror in its own borders, then what real claim does it have to any sovereign rights?
May '10
Re: Yemen
Your point was expressed entirely with sarcasm, not as it is here. Just clearing what the ROE is.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Bryan, it's not snark. My very serious moral point is that destroying the country's agricultural base would be indiscriminate and cruel. If our sole aim is to terrorize the world into short-term compliance, we have a vast nuclear arsenal. We don't use it for many reasons, among them, that we're not animals. We certainly do lose hearts and minds when we kill civilians, and we also win them through the contrast between us and those with no moral restraints. Al Qaeda in Iraq lost popular support in large part because they visibly killed a lot of civilians. Of course we should use force credibly, effectively, and in such a way that it is absolutely clear that those who attack us die. It is just as crucial to make clear that those who don't attack us have no better friend than America. Starving the entire nation of Yemen--its women, its children, people who have fought on our behalf? It would not work, and it would be wicked. · Oct 30 at 8:36am
Jul '10
Re: Yemen
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Absolutely we do. The government of Yemen doesn't seem to have much control over anything outside of Sana. As for bombing it into rubble, we've been bombing it into rubble. It's very unclear whether this has served to do anything useful. · Oct 30 at 4:09am
Mere surgical pinpricks. Same as in Pakistan.
One does not win wars with faint-hearted measures. One wins wars by destroying the enemy's means and will to resist.
People seem to forget that we did not eject AQ and the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 with surgical strikes and a "hearts and minds" strategy. We did it with carpet-bombing by B-52's and help on the ground by the Northern Alliance - not known for their exquisitely sensitive ROE's.
I don't agree with Colin Powell on much, but I do agree that the United States, when it goes to war, should go with massive, overwhelming force. And use it - massively, overwhelmingly and yes, sometimes, even indiscriminately.