Strategies for Neutering Al Qaida in Yemen

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:14:10 PM EST
Tags: Yemen, AQAP (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

After reading countless news articles and think tank reports on al Qaida Arab Peninsula (AQAP), its leaders, its presence in Yemen and merger with the Saudi al Qaida's, I think this November 2009 analysis by the Human Security Group Project is most on target.

AQAP can't survive in Yemen without the support of the tribes. Lots of other groups have been treating the rebel insurgents and AQAP as one. This group doesn't and its report presents strategies to keep the rebels and tribes from joining up with AQAP.

Western policy should focus on degrading AQAP’s leadership and breaking this developing tribal nexus in a timely fashion without becoming too overtly involved.

U.S. threats to go after al Qaida are unlikely to do the trick. The economic and other problems in Yemen must also be addressed -- by them. [More...]

Two elements of any successful strategy will be the targeting of key AQAP leaders, and addressing the grievances of average Yemenis, particularly the tribes, that give al-Qa’ida groups oxygen. In terms of targeting AQAP leaders, it will be important for the West to work through Yemeni security forces.

Overt Western involvement in targeting AQAP’s leadership risks fuelling the anti-Western sentiment amongst the tribes that would be far more likely to strengthen, rather than weaken, their support for AQAP.

It's not an insurmountable task. It just has to be done smartly. It's not smart for the U.S. to threaten to go to Yemen and take out al Qaida. President Obama's statement today:

[W]e will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."

is not the best or most productive answer.

< Abdulmutallab's Travel Route | Monday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Strategies for Neutering Al Qaida in Yemen | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Power of Nightmares' (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:08:08 PM EST

...central theme is that we empower al Qaeda by treating them like more than they are, complementing their own PR strategy that they are not just a small fringe, but a power that takes down empires. (The film maker comes right out and says that the two small fringes of our neocons and al Qaeda needed each other to appear much bigger than they were in reality).

I have the sense that all the DC talk about Yemen will end up being counterproductive, that if either side is successful at drawing attention to the problem, that it will only get worse.

The lesson that the documentary tries to teach is that fringe terrorist movements usually self-sabotage and can't sustain themselves if they are left to themselves.

I suspect the answer to problems like Yemen requires a very soft touch, softer than our huge agencies are capable of. On this, Greenwald is probably right, that bombings that are the slightest bit sloppy will cause far more blowback than they prevent. Can we do it by local proxy and get away with it?

JM's post is probably as close to the right answer as possible. In theory.

: The only upside I can (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:18:39 PM EST

see to training a Yemeni army to fight this by proxy is at least we decrease their unemployment. It's something absurd like 30%. It's a heckuva way to be providing aid though. According to what I was reading almost half their population is under 15.

Again (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by SOS on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:07:21 PM EST

the purpose of terrorism is to get us to do much more damage to ourselves than the terrorists ever could.

We're gonna win their hearts and minds (none / 0) (#1)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:05:44 PM EST

with guns and bombs. It's that uniquely American and traditional way we do things. Out of all the areas I actually had hope for Obama was that he'd seek solutions to foreign policy less conventional then the ones we have utilized in the past to our detriment.

It isn't any surprise that an impoverished place like Yemen would be ripe pickings for AQ. They specialize in exploiting people who have nothing left to lose.

Me too. (none / 0) (#4)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:24:29 PM EST

Part of the bundle of contradictions that is Obama is that he reflexively recoils from the history of the Clinton era while at the same time hiring Hillary to run things. The '90s era partisan s*!% storm with allegations of wagging the dog in the Balkans gives BO the creeps. Forceful diplomacy and international peacekeeping were successful at stopping genocide, but we won't see that kind of politically icky stuff now. This time, we can expect pre-compromise with the uber hawks - post partisanship is now more important than minimizing death and suffering.

But my view is also formed by lessons I took from the '90s: success has a lot to do with competence, not just rhetoric with a bullet list of the right policies. I can't imagine GWB pulling off the same success with the same strategy in Kosovo, and I can't imagine it of BHO either: with one president, it might be best to try a complex intervention, with another it might be best to leave the problem alone.


I like Hill on domestic policy (none / 0) (#5)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:32:14 PM EST

I was less than thrilled with her on foreign. She seemed to go the traditional somewhat hawkish route. It hasn't served us well for YEARS.


Yes (none / 0) (#6)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:33:32 PM EST

The Bush years;)


: We could go back further (none / 0) (#7)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:51:46 PM EST

the actually putting Saddam in power to fight Iran by proxy was pre Bush. Then there was that whole training Bin Laden thing so he could fight by proxy. I'm almost afraid to contemplate what teaching 15 year olds to fight by proxy is going to result in. Our options appear to be bad and worse at this point though.

I thought our basic strategy with (none / 0) (#9)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23:42 PM EST

genocide in the 90s was to ignore it if it was black or brown (see: Rwanda, the Congo, etc.) and to launch massive airstrikes if it involved Europeans (see: Kosovo-- where we were suckered in large part). We only put troops on the ground after Airstrikes. Oh, and pretending it didn't occur when we were at best an ancilliary participant in it (Iraq: half a million deaths attributed to sanctions).


You're right (none / 0) (#12)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:55:57 PM EST

to a point, and Clinton himself said that Rwanda was his worst failure.


: And, um (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Pacific John on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:04:46 AM EST

I'm thinking Pres. B+ won't be as effective or introspective. He seems to have the same affliction that GWB had when reviewing his weaknesses.

The problem is that (none / 0) (#8)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:19:33 PM EST

hearts and minds takes boots on the ground- is anyone on the left going to support major troop involvement in Lebanon- or heck even Special Forces involvement?


Is that how it works? (none / 0) (#11)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:23:45 PM EST

the test for US military involvement is whether it has support on the left? Didn't know that.


Good news (none / 0) (#13)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:58:58 PM EST

the "left" will go along with just about any military intervention BHO proposes as a matter of deep principle, from reading Matt Yglesias.


No its not (none / 0) (#15)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:10:40 AM EST

but considering doing the right thing in this case could we result in the president being abandoned by a section of his base its unfortunately kind of a sticky situation.


: Define doing the right thing? (none / 0) (#16)
by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:21:33 AM EST

I suspect the boots on the ground you are proposing are going to have to come from Afghanistan, Iraq or a draft. Oh but I'm sure we can pay off 50 people from Zimbabwe and call it the "coalition of the willing."
Frankly, it's getting to be a bit tiring chasing one group of reprobates before shuffling all our guys to the next group of reprobates and so on and so on. The military is equipped to handle a two front war and for some odd reason people seem to think that means they can cover Iraq,Afghanistan,Yemen and still be prepared to deal with North Korea or Iran without problems with readiness.