“Quietly” (i.e., with no press attention) “Widening Terror War to Yemen”
Dec 28th, 2009 | 52 responses
The New York Times has a weirdly disconnected article about the United States “widening the terror war to Yemen” that reads as if it was written a year ago and pulled out now because there’s a handy news hook. Here are the opening paragraphs:
In the midst of two unfinished major wars, the United States has quietly opened a third, largely covert front against Al Qaeda in Yemen.
A year ago, the Central Intelligence Agency sent several of its top field operatives with counterterrorism experience to the country, according a former top agency official. At the same time, some of the most secretive Special Operations commandos have begun training Yemeni security forces in counterterrorism tactics, senior military officers said.
The Pentagon is spending more than $70 million over the next 18 months, and using teams of Special Forces, to train and equip Yemeni military, Interior Ministry and coast guard forces, more than doubling previous military aid levels.
And then, the fifth paragraph:
As American investigators sought to corroborate the claims of a 23-year-old Nigerian man that Qaeda leaders in Yemen had trained and equipped him to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day, the plot casts a spotlight on the Obama administration’s complicated relationship with Yemen.
Maybe the Times was sitting on the story at some government official’s request. Not that that’s ever happened before, ahem.
52 Responses to ““Quietly” (i.e., with no press attention) “Widening Terror War to Yemen””
You're right, the timing of the article seems a little convenient in relation to the pants-burning terrorist as it sounds like the US involvement in Yemen has been progressing for some time.
What the Yemen situation really illustrates to me is the whack-a-mole nature of dealing with Al Qaeda. Even if Afghanistan is stabilized this will do nothing to keep AQ cells from popping up elsewhere. Maybe we should be focusing less on major military operations and more on focused intelligence-based actions.
Thanks, DaGoat — and thanks to whoever put up that map!
Wait, we're starting a war in Yemen now? Is this part of Warmonger Obama's plan to dominate the world, all about Warfer Oil, being waged because the leader of Yemen threatened Obama's father? Is Obama lying to us about the threat in Yemen? Has Congress declared war? Is Obama shredding the Constitution and wiping his nether regions with it? Did the UN give us permission? Did we pass the Global Test? Have we examined the prison conditions to ensure that nobody being detained is unhappy? Has the Lancet sent a research group in to assess civilian casualties? Is the media bringing us daily human interest stories about the agony of refugees and children who are being killed? Are there top secret documents that the NY Times hasn't published yet?
(slaps forehead) Oh wait, my bad, Obama is a liberal Democrat. Forget it. Carry on. Obviously no problem.
whack-a-mole'
You got it. And, when it happened under B, it was “our meddling” and our being policeman of the world.
“The Obama administration is planning to repatriate six Yemenis held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a transfer that could be a prelude to the release of dozens more detainees to Yemen, according to sources with independent knowledge of the matter.
The release is a significant first step toward dealing with the largest group of detainees at the prison — there are currently 97 Yemenis there — and toward meeting President Obama's goal of closing the facility.
But Yemen's security problems and lack of resources have spawned fears about its ability to monitor and rehabilitate returnees. Critics of the administration charge that returning detainees to Yemen, a country where al-Qaeda is believed to be thriving, is tantamount to returning terrorists to the battlefield.”
Let's take a poll….Obama is doing this because…….
1. his left hand has no idea what his right hand is up to
2. he is being clever as a fox…….release the detainees to Yemen so that we can execute them on his new battlefield and the liberals won't be the wiser.
DaMav, we have not “started a war” in Yemen or done any of those other things (with regard to Yemen) yet, and no one except Joe Lieberman has advocated that we start a war against Yemen so please, take a chill pill. Really, DaMav. Calm down.
Good point. Bush starts wars. Obama “opens fronts”. It sounds so much nicer that way. Like a new store or a can of lovely jelly beans, right?
As they NY Times so cleverly puts it, “In the midst of two unfinished major wars, the United States has quietly opened a third, largely covert front against Al Qaeda in Yemen.”
Got it. The “third” that the Times refers to is not a war, but a “front”. Whew. I'm trying to better learn how liberals use language; thanks for your help.
So when are the “No Front For Oil” signs going to pop up? Will there be an “AntiFront Movement” picketing the White House soon? Will Congress issue a Declaration of Front, so Obama won't be shredding the Constitution?
And what's this? Lieberman wants War instead of Front?
Obama releasing Gitmo terrorist detainees to Yemen is called “sending reinforcements” to al Qaeda.
And shouldn't your headline be changed to “widening terror front“, lest someone think there is a war in Yemen?
Remember
War is unhealthy for children and other living things. Front is like a vitamin, a dollop of sunshine on a cloudy day, and builds strong teeth and bones.”
Let's have a little exercise.
Imagine that it's the 1970's and various organizations of Irish-Americans are raising money for the IRA, and giving them some basic weapons training. All of these actions being legal and above board, the British Government decides to put a stop to this source of funding and training by killing American Citizens on American Soil using bombs that kill innocent bystanders, how many such killings do you think it would have taken before the US would have declared war on Great Britain? and rightfully so…
THREATS AND RESPONSES: DRONE ATTACK; An American Was Among 6 Killed by U.S., Yemenis Say
I didn't know Obama was President in 2002…
And shouldn't your headline be changed to “widening terror front”, lest someone think there is a war in Yemen?
If you will notice, the words in my title to which you refer are in quotes. That means they are not my words.
Having said that, I don't really know what your argument is, here.
Let's have a little exercise.
I'm not sure what your argument is, either.
Surely you realize I am laughing at the hypocrisy. Here Obama goes and gets us further involved in what the NY Times describes as a “front” instead of a war and there is almost no reaction at all from the left. If Bush had done that the rhetoric would have been thunderous. Examples were provided.
Don't take it personally, it isn't meant that way. I even gave you a 'like' for your reply. OK, it was an accident but how about half-credit?
Our long term front is a 100 year war with Islam, with its devastating guerilla army without permanent leaders or borders. All they need is a little explosive and the Koran.
All we need is to take Mecca as hostage and nuke it if Islam hurts us again.
Bombing other countries is an act of war… And if someone bombed our country, no matter how good the reason, we would consider it an act of war.
Imagine how Roman Catholics would feel at the people who had nuked the Vatican, now multiply that by a few hundreds and you'll have an idea of haw Muslims would feel about having Mecca nuked…
At which point Al Quada would throw the biggest party this planet has ever seen…
Right now a few hot heads, a couple of dimwits and a bunch of people who have legitimate gripes with the US are willing to go out and kill a few Americans, after that every single Moslem will want to kill Americans…
I just want to know if they are teaching the Nigerian boy to sing under water yet.
It's bound to happen one day.
Surely you realize I am laughing at the hypocrisy. Here Obama goes and gets us further involved in what the NY Times describes as a “front” instead of a war and there is almost no reaction at all from the left. If Bush had done that the rhetoric would have been thunderous.
Yes, DaMav, yes. Of course I understood you saw hypocrisy. Of course I understood that, DaMav. What I don't understand is where this perception is coming from that Obama has gotten us involved in another war, and I understand that you think the word “front” is a euphemism for “war” that the NYT is using because the NYT is ultra-liberal and they would not use the word “front” if it were Bush doing this.
Let me try and take this apart one phrase at a time. First, “Here Obama goes and gets us further involved….” How has Obama gotten us further involved in anything that has to do with the NYT story on Yemen? Has Obama said anything or made any announcement to this effect? The covert special ops war that the article is about has been going on for a year, DaMav. It isn't clear to me at this point — and I don't know why it would be any clearer to you — whether it began before or after Obama took office, or who initiated it. Did the article say anything about Obama having initiated it? If so, I missed that.
Next: “in what the NYT describes as a 'front' instead of a 'war' : Didn't Bush used to refer to “another front in the war on terror”? A front is a part of a war — at least a traditional war, which this isn't. So where is your outrage coming from, that you are somehow reacting out of some belief that a front isn't a war and so the NYT is saying this is not a war? I don't understand the distinction you're making.
Next: “And there is almost no reaction at all from the left.” Almost no reaction to what? The covert operation? We only just found out about it! There's been a lot of reaction on the left to the Yemen story in general, but Obama hasn't said anything about it yet, so what is the left supposed to say?
And I didn't take it personally, I just am bewildered by how or why you come up with this avalanche of questions about the left's reaction to something we barely know any details about yet.
Bout time someone called it what it is:
“Our long term front is a 100 year war with Islam”.
Of course, I'd say Wahabi Islam, or Muslim Extremism, instead of the broad “Islam”.
We have anti-terrorism operatives over the entire globe, in more nations than you could possibly imagine. The “Global War on Terror” is not Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It is GLOBAL. This is World War III, folks, whether or not you wish to admit it.
It will remain WW III no matter WHO is President. We will continue to hunt down and kill our enemies, whether Obama, Palin, Clinton, Huckabee, or anyone else is President.
We have only used drones in Yemen with the express permission of the Yemeni government, DQ.
Bombing other countries is an act of war… And if someone bombed our country, no matter how good the reason, we would consider it an act of war.
Did someone say bombing other countries isn't an act of war? Other than GWB, that is?
What am I missing here?
The United States has always been engaged in a lot of covert activities. There are documented cases of espionage and sabotage as far back as the civil war. The fact that most people don't know about them would say that they're pretty successful with the “covert” part. However, I don't they're quite as successful keeping those operations secret from the target countries.
Wow! Who is this Islam? Do you have his address? Maybe we can put him in jail, or make him pay a fine, do some community service, or write “I will not commit acts of terrorism” 1000 times.
I don't care who you are, you can be put into a group. No matter what group you're in, with the possible exception of pacifists (and apparently, you aren't one of those), there are violent people in there with you. Are you sure that you want to make the group pay when the jerks strike?
Thanks for the reality check.
So where is your outrage coming from
What outrage? I find the hypocrisy and spin from the NY Times and others to be hilarious. At no point have I been outraged. In fact it will come as little surprise to your discerning instincts to realize that I am delighted that Obama is pushing war on all three fronts. Pretty much in complete alignment with the prior President's policies, although not as competently executed despite the low hurdle.
the left's reaction to something we barely know any details about yet.
God forbid the left react to something before all the details are all in. After all, this isn't some rumor about Sarah Palin getting divorced or Karl Rove about to be frog marched out of the White House. Or reports from a few years ago about how Bush was about to bomb Iran.
“All we are saaaaing. Is give Front a chance.”
I find the hypocrisy and spin from the NY Times and others to be hilarious.
The hypocrisy and spin about what? What specifically are the Times and others spinning and being hypocritical about?
God forbid the left react to something before all the details are all in.
As I mentioned above, there has been quite a bit of reaction to the Yemen-related news from both left and right. If you go to Memeorandum you will see it — including, again as I said before, criticism of warmongering talk from people like Joe Lieberman. I really have no idea what you think liberal bloggers have or haven't said that makes them hypocritical.
You say you are “delighted that Obama is pushing war on all three fronts.” The problem is, I have not yet seen with my own eyes, or heard from you, where you gained the information that “Obama is pushing war on all three fronts.” I haven't seen anything even vaguely specific about Obama's plans with regard to Yemen. So if you're hilarious about the left's reaction to plans of Obama's that have not been conveyed to us, then you're hilarious about nothing.
That seems to be the size of it.
THREE fronts?!?!?!?
You wish!
How about the front in the Horn of Africa?
How about the front in the Phillipines?
Malaysia?
Indonesia?
All of the former Southern Soviet Republics?
Come on, guys. This is not a THREE front war. It is GLOBAL!
Kathy said to DaMav:
So…you're using a distinction used by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to defend President Obama? Make no mistake, it's the same argument. There's one War on Terror, and many “theatres” or “fronts” or whatever. This was a GOP talking point ad nauseum and just so happens to be true, even when now made by the NYT or Dems like yourself…smile. I'm just wanting you to admit what you're doing, Kathy. DaMav is right on this one.
The extremist Muslim are about 80% of their population, not “a few hotheads.” Just as we threatened Moscow with the balance of terror in the Cold War, so we nuke Mecca if they do another attack on our citizens.
We must make it even worse. Smear pork grease on each missile so each Muslim gets contaminated with pork before he dies and goes to their hell. Smear pork grease on each US Army vehicle and make every US soldier eat pork once a day. When they are ambushed by Muslims, each terrorist and all their buildings get contaminated as well from the exploding vehicles coated with pork.
This is the way you fight the Seventh Century.
The extremist Muslim are about 80% of their population, not “a few hotheads.” Just as we threatened Moscow with the balance of terror in the Cold War, so we nuke Mecca if they do another attack on our citizens.
We must make it even worse. Smear pork grease on each missile so each Muslim gets contaminated with pork before he dies and goes to their hell. Smear pork grease on each US Army vehicle and make every US soldier eat pork once a day. When they are ambushed by Muslims, each terrorist and all their buildings get contaminated as well from the exploding vehicles coated with pork.
This is the way you fight the Seventh Century.
90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You have a link to back your claim, no?
That's right, and it is our God given imperial covert right to exercise power and domain over all these insignificant satellite countries! Yes, Yemen, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, among many others give their permission for us to attack any time day or night as well as forgive us our collateral damage, after all they are inferior to us and deserving of their fate…….and their leaders can be made to agree.
PS: NY Times may have been a liberal rag 20 years ago, but hardly today. Neither is NPR. Both of these Media outlets have moved to the misallocated center.
How many Muslims cheered the destruction on 9/11? In news reports from Morocco to Indonesia, 80% of Muslims agreed to the murder of our fellow citizens. That could have been you.
Professor, cite any Muslim, foreign or domestic who sided with us then or now. Use footnotes. Or least give one name of a pro-Western Muslim, not on the US payroll. Then prove how much support he has among ordinary Muslims. This is war.
Yes, let's get out the cheer-o-meter to measure who was happy with 9-11. And while were at it let's get out the angry or sad-o-meter to measure all other significant events of the last 10 years. Who smiled when MLK was killed? Kennedy? Who would have smiled if some crazed commie schizophrenic had taken it upon himself to assault ol Cowboy Bush?
The fundamental question of our day is whether or not the people will allow the USA to use their superior military might to crush all those who disprove or otherwise disagree with American imperatives on foreign soil. If we have no empathy for the unhappiness of others toward our behavior, then for our own self serving protection we should listen to what these people are unhappy about. Learn what angers them.
Elsewhere progressives are writing about the morphing of the war on Terror to apply to immigrants, freedom fighters, activists, and free speech advocates. So stay tuned to the war on terror in your neighborhood.
It takes a high degree of hypocrisy and narcissism to think that we will force the world to think like us or we will break all their arms, rape all their women, and destroy their civilizations. It matters not that their cultures are so much older than ours.
The prison door swings both ways and depending on who you ask, some of us feel the loss of liberty so deeply we feel we are behind the wall, others feel living in the green zone is protective. They feel more secure living in a militarized zone. In this sense we already know we have failed to contain the growth of anti American sentiment and the containment of their freedoms has resulted in the containment of ours. Do you feel safer? really?
The only reason to carry on this charade and lack of ability to grasp the problem in any other way other than military is if you have allowed yourself to become scared or you own stock in multi trillion dollar firms selling SECURITY and hey have lobbyists selling war/patriotism/private armies/fear/hatred, etc. etc.
Where to start with such moron-ism?
There are approximately one billion Muslim living on this planet, did you see 800 million of them attacking the US? Now of that billion Muslim, approximatively 300 million of them are Indians, are we at war with India? another 180 million of them are Indonesian, are we at war with Indonesia? another 100+ million of them are Bangladeshi, are we at war with Bangladesh? another few million are Malays, are we at war with Malaysia? another 70 odd million of them are Turks, are we at war with Turkey?
Except for India, all the countries listed above are predominantly Muslim…
OH did I mention the 6 million Americans who are Muslims? Are we at war with them to?
Now there are a whole bunch of people in the Middle East which have problems with the US, but these problems aren't with the US per se, but with US Foreign Policy. There are plenty of Saudis who are tired of living under one of the most repressive regimes one the Planet backed by Uncle Sam since WWII, there are plenty of Egyptians who are tired of living under a dictatorship backed by Uncle Sam since the 80's, there are plenty of Iraqis tired of being starved and bombed by the US for the last twenty years, there are plenty of Lebanese tired of having there country invaded and bombed by the Israelis for the last thirty years, there are the Iranians who are tired of having their government overthrown and their country sucked into pointless wars and then there are the Palestinians who are tired of living in refugee camps in their own country… If we were to stop selling weapons to the dictatorships, and butted out of their internal affairs, most of these countries would go through a series of bloody revolutions and wars, but since most of those countries float on lakes of Oil, we won't do that, so the population of these countries gets more anti-American by the day…
So if you can find a way to make peace between he Palestinians and the Israelis, force the Saudi Royalty to become a Constitutional Monarchy, force Egypt to have honest elections, get the hell out of Iraq and stop butting into the affairs of Iran in another thirty odd years the Middle East would be just another region of the globe, no more no less troubled than any other one…
Every body loves to see a bully get his nose punched…
How many Americans cheered the “shock and awe” of Baghdad?
Tariq Ramadan
I was going to answer, but sprasol's and DQ's beat me to the punch, and I like their answers better anyway.
You make many valid points there, Spirasol. There is, indeed, a great measure of “imperialism” when it comes to our military might.
“whether or not the people will allow the USA to use their superior military might to crush all those who disprove or otherwise disagree with American imperatives on foreign soil”
However, when you embrace globalism, it is the inevitable byproduct. When you have a global economy, you must be willing to deploy your military to foreign lands, since your economic base is no longer in your own country. Many liberals love globalism and an eventual one-world-government; but the crinch at the thought of protecting it with might. You simply cannot have one without the other, unless you are willing to take all economic decisions out of the hands of our government and give it to the UN.
I'm not willing to allow that. I agree that our military is involved in the sovereign business of other nations (and shouldn't be); but my cure is to stop shipping out our economic might to other nations, and return it to the homeland.
The only stats I can find range the percentage of all Muslims who are “extremist” ranges from 1% to 2%. That's no different than the stats of extremists within other religions.
The problem is extremism itself. ALL extremism must be combated – within ANY religion. It is the duty of all persons of faith to rid their ranks of such unGodly influences. The problem is, however, that many Muslim clerics fail to do this. If we are serious about destroying extremism, the extremist clerics must be targeted, arrested, or eliminated.
Not as much as this guy does…
Don't go blaming liberals for “Cheap Labor Conservatism” imposed upon the American Public by Republican owned and run Multi National Corporations…
Actually those decisions are out of the hands of the UN and in the hands of the WTO… Wouldn't want to let democracy get in the way of economics…
Jack Welch IS a liberal, DQ; as is his corporation. He is ALSO a “conservative” that believes in exploiting labor and skirting environmental law. Most corporate barons are like that and always have been. Their job as CEO is to maximize profits. It's what their stockholders pay them to do. The only remedy to this is regulation. Wouldn't you agree?
And the WTO was implied with my “UN” statement. The one-world government has it's own “bank”.
But that did not address my main concern, DQ.
If you support a one-world-government, it is hard to build a case against world-dabbling military action to protect your assets. Since your economy (the US economy) lies mostly outside its own borders, what choice do we have?
The claim that only 2% of Muslims are extremist is pure propaganda. Conservatives use 2% to prove that this preposterous ground war is winnable. Liberals use 2% to show stinky people are wonderful. Both lie. Get out of Muslim lands now.
By extremist I mean the 80% of Muslims who sympathise, aid and harbor the actual bombers. It is ridiculous to say only 2% sympathise with war with the West, and that 98% of Muslims wish us well.
No more political correctness, check: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumn…
Your hero Tariq Ramada, tho Swiss, wants the Koran and Sharia repressions to govern Europe. If you think Tariq is pro-West and anti-jihad, then you have a very weird idea of who the West's friends are.
I win my argument ny default. Nobody else can come up with a nice Muslim either.
A Muslim you might admire would be: ?al?? ad-D?n Y?suf ibn Ayy?b, better known as Saladin, 1138-1193.
A great 1799 play portrays has him as a charismatic character: “Nathan The Wise”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_the_Wise
PART FOUR: DEMOCRACY, GENERAL ELECTRIC STYLE
Either you don't what a liberal is or you and I live in different universes…
“Either you don't what a liberal is or you and I live in different universes”
First, you did not address my statement about the one-world government that you want so much – or at least those you vote for want so much.
Corporatocracy finds strange bedfellows according to utility. It's no secret that much of GE's money and resources goes to fund liberal organizations, as does Progressive Insurance, and many other benefactors (Soros, et al). But they ARE a mega-corporation and continue to live by the corporatocracy creed – they ALL do. Did I ever give you some inclination that I support corporations? Can't stand them. I think many Teddy Roosevelt moments are needed in America – break them ALL apart. The power hasn't been in the hands of the people for about 100 years or more. Corporations are a part of this problem. The second part is the two party system – or parties themselves. This is why the Founding Fathers warned about adherance to a party system. They warned us, yet we did it anyway.
Get real, One World Government?
While there might be some idealist who think that a “One World Government” would probably be a good idea, I'll admit that I may be one of them, I don't expect to see a “World Government” within my lifetime or that of my children, far to many economic, social and cultural issues would have to be resolved before a realistic attempt at a “One World Government” could even be attempted… On the other hand, various regions of the globe should attempt to duplicate the EU, prime areas for this would be Central America, south of Mexico and North of Colombia, the Maghreb countries, the Middle East between the Mediterranean and Iran, possibly Mercosur and Indochina, but none of these attempts would reach EU levels of success for at least thirty years… And this assumes that an EU with 27 countries can survive…
Please make a list of liberal organizations supported by GE, in this list include the amount of money GE has contributed and in which year it was contributed or else just get over it and accept the fact that GE is just another corporation run by right-wingers.
Progressive Insurance may call it self progressive, but it's just another insurance company…
What does Soros have to do with GE,? Aas far as I know he has never been employed by GE. BTW Soros is an individual, he can do whatever he pleases with his money as long as he pays his taxes…
Here's something on GE:
http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html
“69% of GE's political action committee cash to House candidates so far this year have gone to Democrats, with Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C. (95% liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action), the top recipient. ”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs…
On Progressive Insurance:
Courtesy of the liberal web, Atheism.about.com, “Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance, has donated USD $8.5 million to the ACLU because he believes in the work they do defending Americans’ liberty. [sic]“
Courtesy of the Conservative web site, National Journal “Lewis Was Second Largest Donor To Democrat-527 Groups In 2004 Cycle, Giving $23,997,220. Top Donors To MoveOn.Org Voter Fund 527 Were Herbert And Marion Sandler ($2,505,014), Peter B. Lewis ($2,500,000).”