A Contrast In Styles

by Eric Martin

Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen, who I linked to last week, had fascinating interview with Glenn Greenwald (via Yglesias).  Some excerpts below.  First, the Bush administration, in what is a familiar refrain, putting domestic politicis ahead of policy:

Yeah, I think the track record of US-Yemeni relations here is extremely important. So if you go to November 2002, this is when the CIA launched an unmanned drone that then carried out a targeted strike on the head of al-Qaeda in Yemen at the time, a man named Abu Ali al-Harethi, and this was one of the initial drone strikes in the war on terror. Immediately after that, the Bush administration - this attack took place on November 3 2002 - someone in the Pentagon leaked this to US newspapers.

This was the way the Bush administration I believe really needed an early victory on the War on Terror and they were trying to use this example to bolster their Republican allies for the midterm elections, which were going to take place on November 5, so two days after the strike. And this leak caused a great deal of problems for the Yemeni government back at home.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh felt as though he had been sold out by the US for domestic political concerns. And since then, Yemen's cooperation with the US against al-Qaeda has really gone downhill. Yemen started focusing on other things; they weren't as forthcoming in sharing intelligence and giving the US access to prisoners and things of this nature; and so for the Obama administration, certainly it's in their best interests to put a Yemeni face on these strikes and to make sure that they're the silent partner behinds the scenes helping the Yemeni government, that they're not too obvious in their actions.

And this also I think, if the US was too obvious, could come back to bite them, because then al-Qaeda can easily turn this to its rhetorical advantage by saying things like, oh, President Abdullah is only a paid agent of the Americans who is doing whatever it is the Americans want, and so if you're a true Muslim, you'll follow us.

Some more history/backstory:

Well, let me talk about it this way, if I can. This is the second incarnation of al-Qaeda in Yemen. Immediately after September 11th, we had what I like to term the first phase of the war against al-Qaeda. This lasted essentially from, say, the USS Cole attack in 2000 and really the September 11th attacks in 2001, up through November 2003. So, in this phase, the US and Yemeni governments partnered very closely. There was the drone strike in November 2002 that I mentioned earlier, and this was largely, at least for al-Qaeda, a reactionary war.

Throughout the 1990s, al-Qaeda had often thought of Yemen as sort of a refuge where they could come, relax; the Yemeni government ignored them as long as al-Qaeda ignored the government and didn't carry out any attacks. It was essentially what could best be called a tacit non-aggression pact between the two. Now, after September 11th, that of course all changed; President Saleh was very worried that Yemen would be on the US hit list, and so he cooperated quite closely with the US government after the strike in November 2002. One year later, the Yemeni government arrested Abu Ali al-Harethi's replacement, so really by November 2003, al-Qaeda in Yemen had been largely defeated by the US and Yemeni governments.

Then there's a period from about November 2003 to February 2006 where there's very little, almost no al-Qaeda violence in the country. Then in February 2006 there's a prison break of 23 al-Qaeda suspects including the individual I mentioned earlier, Qasim al-Raymi, as well as an individual named Nasir al-Wuhayshi. Both Qasim al-Raymi and Nasir al-Wuhayshi had spent time with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, trained in the camps there; Nasir al-Wuhayshi was actually a lieutenant, a personal aide to bin Laden - he fought with bin Laden at the Battle of Tora Bora before eventually moving to Iran and then being extradited back to Yemen where he stayed in jail until he escaped.

So from February 2006 up to today, we have this second phase of the war against al-Qaeda in Yemen. And this is when al-Qaeda has really become a threat, because they've certainly learned from the first phase. They changed a lot of their tactics, and since February '06 up until now, they've done a very good job of really building a durable infrastructure that can sustain and withstand the loss of key leaders, so when you assassinate cell leaders, you don't find the organization crumbling down around himself. And in January of 2009, they moved from being what you could call a local chapter of al-Qaeda just based in Yemen, into more of a regional franchise, this al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, which is the name that they use today.

Since then they've really been working to almost match their actions to their rhetoric, so their rhetoric says that they want to be an organization that can carry out attacks throughout the region, that is, throughout the Arabian peninsula. And so you've seen this; they've targeted Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism chief, Mohammed bin Nayef, for assassination, they've launched other attacks into Saudi Arabia that were foiled before they could take place. But this is the real danger that they present right now, is not just in Yemen, but using Yemen as a launching pad for attacks throughout the region.

Some sage advice going forward:

I think it's important for the US to realize that it's not going to defeat al-Qaeda in Yemen tomorrow, or next month, or even next year. Like I said, al-Qaeda right now is just too strong and too entrenched in Yemen. There really is no magic missile solution to the problem. It's going to be a very long and a very different fight.  And military strikes like the one that we saw last week, they really need to come at the end of the process, when al-Qaeda has been isolated from the population, when its rhetoric has been discredited, not at the beginning of the process, when al-Qaeda members are still seen as pious individuals defending their faith.

And that, for me, is the mistake that the US made, not necessarily in partnering with the Yemeni government to go after these individuals. Certainly, you have to do that, but just in having the chronology of the attacks wrong.  They didn't do the proper field work, they didn't do the proper groundwork to undermine al-Qaeda to the degree that these attacks would be seen as a good thing by the Yemeni population. Instead, they're been seen as a bad thing and as something that al-Qaeda, at least in my view, will be able to use these strikes and to really replace and offset any of the losses that they may have had. It's really, for al-Qaeda, a recruiting field day. [...]

That is, anywhere that you're going to do this sort of military strike without the proper groundwork and preparation work, you're going to run into the same problem, where it's going to be very, very counterproductive. And if you expand the net of who is al-Qaeda - and it's important I think to remember in Yemen, there's almost what, I think could best be called an Islamist spectrum.

That is, a number of people who view Islam as a political matter and who, at least in the West, it would be very easy to look at them, and they look like al-Qaeda and they sort of say many of the same things that al-Qaeda says, but they're not necessarily al-Qaeda. And in Yemen, al-Qaeda only occupies one point along this spectrum. And so if you want to broaden the war out, and target all of these people, or say that they're all al-Qaeda, then you're opening yourself up to a war that you can never end, because you're just fighting way too many people in Yemen. So the idea is to narrow this point of who exactly is al-Qaeda to as small as it can be possibly be before you attack.

Very sensible, informed by contextual and nuanced understanding, tempered by due circumspection and based on sound strategic thinking. On the other hand, there's Joe Lieberman urging the rash course:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (I-Conn) a renowned hawk and one of the foremost champions of the invasion of Iraq, warned on Sunday that the United States faced “danger” unless it pre-emptively acts to curb the rise of terrorism in Yemen.

“Somebody in our government said to me in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday’s war. Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war,” Lieberman said, during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday”. “That’s the danger we face.”

Ugh.

Comments

[Ugh]

Dude, what did I do? ;-)

[Eric Martin]

I was merely suggesting that this would be an appropriate post for you to snark on.

So get to snarkin!

[Hogan]

Yemen will be tomorrow's war if we don't make it today's other war.

[Marty]

One question: Did someone from the WH leak it to the preess this time to create political advantage for the midterms?

[Eric Martin]

Did someone from the WH leak it to the preess this time to create political advantage for the midterms?

No, it was a Pentagon link. Further, the leaks were careful to put the Yemeni government out in front, downplaying US involvement and initiative.

[Harald Korneliussen]

I like that phrase, "Magic Missile solution". It's too good to be used only in the context of Half-Elf sorceresses and such.

(Was this snarky enough?)

italics begone!

[Harald Korneliussen]

Looks like I failed my dispel italics roll. How about now?

[Eric Martin]

Points for snark, and the saving throw vs. italics!

[Marty]

Wow thanks for clarification, I feel so much better about this adminstrations hawkish leaks now.

[Eric Martin]

Wow thanks for clarification, I feel so much better about this adminstrations hawkish leaks now.

Um, what?

It was a Pentagon leak, not White House. And it wasn't really a leak insomuch as it was a report on a major military operation. Unlike the first drone attack which was much smaller and not in need of immediate disclosure, or the type of chest thumping disclosure it got.

[Marty]

So, as long as it is a major military operation, the Pentagon announces it and we say it was Yemens idea, thats better than a WH leak that wee used a drone to blow up some bad guys in Yemen? I am really struggking with understanding the logic here. Do we believe anyone thinks it was a Yemeni attack? Do we think it was a big enough operation it "had" to be announced?

All that is ridiculous. The only difference is it may be a little further from the elections.

Just so I am clear, I don't think either attack was probably worthwhile and I couldn't care less if they announced or leaked it. It is just stunning how we will go back to 2002 and bash Bush over something as stupid as this. To accomplish what? Say our announcement is better than your announcement?

And, BTW, YOUR post says the Pentagon announced the Bush attack.

[Hogan]

The only difference is it may be a little further from the elections.

"May be a little further"? Eleven months versus two days? Definitely a lot further. So far as to be useless for the 2010 midterms.

And of course there's the main point: Bush's leak made the Yemeni government less willing to cooperate with us on counterterrorism. Obama's leak will probably make them more willing, or at least no less willing. Which means that even if there is partisan benefit, there's also policy benefit instead of policy damage.

[Eric Martin]

What Hogan said.

Marty, the point is not to bash Bush. The point is a pragmatic one: how will the Yemenis react. They will tell us whether or not we sold them out. Me and you bickering is beside the point.

Although, point conceded re: the Pentagon thing.

[Marty]

"Which means that even if there is partisan benefit, there's also policy benefit instead of policy damage"

I don't think the Yemeni reaction has been any better this time. More willing? I doubt it, less willing probably.

Same set of questions as 2002. However, over the next year, accordiung to this source, Yemen cleaned AQ out of their country, not too bad cooperation from our standpoint. That policy damage was??

[Eric Martin]

I don't think the Yemeni reaction has been any better this time. More willing? I doubt it, less willing probably.

Do you have evidence? I saw today that they just arrested 28 AQ suspects.

However, over the next year, accordiung to this source, Yemen cleaned AQ out of their country, not too bad cooperation from our standpoint. That policy damage was??

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

[Marty]

"Do you have evidence? I saw today that they just arrested 28 AQ suspects."

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

[Eric Martin]

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

Again, I ask, do you have evidence of such damage?

[OCSteve]

Marty - you rock.

Keep up keeping these folks honest.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

</tagclose>

[Marty]

Thanks OCSteve, but Eric is getting slicker, I think I missed the good old days when I would have been agreeing with your comments.

[Ugh]

Speaking of the Bush administration:

Dear Tom Ridge,

Fnck you you fncking fascist fncking fnck.

Love,

Ugh