60 Minutes - Yemen & war on Terror

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

At what point did you stop Brother???

Crip

When did you start asking to ask????

[RC-Cola]

One of the basic methods Terrorist Organizations tend to use is Over Simplification. Or in other words, making things purely back and white. Either you're with us, or against us. That being said, the method that the US has been using backfires most of the time.

Let's walk through this. Policy Makers understand that there will be almost 0 support for going into Yemen. So what do we do? We fund money to the Yemeni Govt. thinking that if we throw money at the issue, it will be solved. Well not so much.

The Problem with the Yemeni Govt is that it is more corrupt than the Mexican Govt. And for those who don't know, that's a metric Sh** ton of corruption.(Goolge Mexican Drug wars if more info is wanted) Back to the point. We give money to the Yemeni Govt. which is supposed to be used to A: Assist and support the military operations and B: Win the hearts and minds of locals. To achieve B, the plan is to provide the basic needs that most people require; Food, Shelter, and basic medical care/education. Doing this the people and the Govt. become united again and can together work to oust the AQAP: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (This is the group of Al-Qaeda which Operates in Yemen, and is headed by our own Anwar Awalaki)

But this plan gets cut out at the knees, the Govt. is corrupt. The money that is meant to filter down to the people, sits in the laps of the Officials. While this is happening, the people are suffering and began to get angry with the Govt. What does Al-Qaeda do? They use this to their benefit. They show the people that the Govt is just another puppet of America and that they are not cared for at all. While people die of basic health issues, the Rulers are growing richer by the minute. Then the line begins to be drawn. Black and white comes into play. The people know that the Govt. won't help them, so what can they do? Well they look to who can. And Al-Qaeda happens to have all the money and the food they need! So who do you think the people will go to?

Long story short. We give money to the Govt. of Yemen to help the people and Military Operations. The money sits in the laps of the Officials and nothing gets done. AQ gains the upperhand by oversimplifying and turning the people against their own Govt.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by RC-Cola

One of the basic methods Terrorist Organizations tend to use is Over Simplification. Or in other words, making things purely back and white. Either you're with us, or against us. That being said, the method that the US has been using backfires most of the time.

Let's walk through this. Policy Makers understand that there will be almost 0 support for going into Yemen. So what do we do? We fund money to the Yemeni Govt. thinking that if we throw money at the issue, it will be solved. Well not so much.

The Problem with the Yemeni Govt is that it is more corrupt than the Mexican Govt. And for those who don't know, that's a metric Sh** ton of corruption.(Goolge Mexican Drug wars if more info is wanted) Back to the point. We give money to the Yemeni Govt. which is supposed to be used to A: Assist and support the military operations and B: Win the hearts and minds of locals. To achieve B, the plan is to provide the basic needs that most people require; Food, Shelter, and basic medical care/education. Doing this the people and the Govt. become united again and can together work to oust the AQAP: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (This is the group of Al-Qaeda which Operates in Yemen, and is headed by our own Anwar Awalaki)

But this plan gets cut out at the knees, the Govt. is corrupt. The money that is meant to filter down to the people, sits in the laps of the Officials. While this is happening, the people are suffering and began to get angry with the Govt. What does Al-Qaeda do? They use this to their benefit. They show the people that the Govt is just another puppet of America and that they are not cared for at all. While people die of basic health issues, the Rulers are growing richer by the minute. Then the line begins to be drawn. Black and white comes into play. The people know that the Govt. won't help them, so what can they do? Well they look to who can. And Al-Qaeda happens to have all the money and the food they need! So who do you think the people will go to?

Long story short. We give money to the Govt. of Yemen to help the people and Military Operations. The money sits in the laps of the Officials and nothing gets done. AQ gains the upperhand by oversimplifying and turning the people against their own Govt.

Let's not. It hurt my head to read that.... tell you what you do more reading and in 20 years you start posting your "Terrorist Strategies" again, but for now you read.

[RC-Cola]

"Let's not. It hurt my head to read that.... tell you what you do more reading and in 20 years you start posting your "Terrorist Strategies" again, but for now you read."

Understood. Came out a little more complicated than intended. Apologies.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

So, if large-scale military invasions and nation-building are not effective tools of counterterrorism, then how does the US combat terrorism? What are some of the key elements of a global counterterrorism strategy? I do say Al Qaeda has moved to Yemen as a base of support.

I think you have the million dollar question there.

Someone needs to change the way they think, either us or them. This is not a war on terrorism but a battle of ideologies and as many have suggested it's "the same shit different day".

If we cannot change the way they think through pain then another approach is required. Education might work if their ideology would allow it......

Someone is stuck in the 13 century and until they get their collective asses unstuck I'm afraid we will continue to suffer the actions of morons for decades to come.

[silentreader]

I think the answer to Mountain goat's question, while obviously still unresolved, has to be addressed at several levels.

1) Isolate the unreconcilables. As TS says, we are in a battle of ideologies. However, and perhaps this is where I would differ from the Team Sergeant, we are not in a battle of ideologies with the vast majority of Muslims, rather we are in it for them with a handful of 13th-century extremists. The real question, in my opinion, is how do we balance our desire to promote American ideals with our own needs. The American brand of freedom and prosperity has a huge, global appeal- our foreign policy objectives have not always emphasized that brand. If we let Yemen become a symbol of what life with AQ is like, the vast majority of Muslims will want nothing to do with it.

2) Take appropriate security measures with the goal of securing our most vulnerable areas and protecting ourselves against a catastrophic attack. Nuclear materials, in particular, must be closely monitored. Reasonable security measures at obvious targets (like airports) and not-so obvious targets (water filtration plants) must also be adopted/continue to be used.

3) Accept some degree of risk as an acceptable cost of living in an open society. 40,000 people or so are killed by cars every year. Yet not only do we still drive, our government saved the American auto industry. Why? Because cars are, simply put, worth the risk. Terrorists have, so far, yet to come even close to exacting the same death toll on America as cars do in a single year.

4) Use invasion and nation-building as a tool, but only when absolutely necessary. I'm not one of those we-invaded Iraq for oil conspiracy theorists. But for the life of me, I can not understand how it advanced our strategic position in the Middle East. However, if we do invade a country, it is of paramount importance that we have a clear and realistic plan for the aftermath of the invasion. If we're planning on toppling a government, nation-building has to be part of that plan.

ETA: This is obviously an incomplete list.

[Defend]

Originally Posted by silentreader

If we let Yemen become a symbol of what life with AQ is like, the vast majority of Muslims will want nothing to do with it.

I'm curious how you derived that conclusion.

-out

[silentreader]

Originally Posted by Defend

I'm curious how you derived that conclusion.

-out

From the CIA worldfactbook

Economy - overview:

Yemen is a low income country that is highly dependent on declining oil resources for revenue. Petroleum accounts for roughly 25% of GDP and 70% of government revenue. Yemen has tried to counter the effects of its declining oil resources by diversifying its economy through an economic reform program initiated in 2006 that is designed to bolster non-oil sectors of the economy and foreign investment. In October 2009, Yemen exported its first liquefied natural gas as part of this diversification effort. In January 2010, the international community established the Friends of Yemen group that aims to support Yemen's efforts towards economic and political reform, and in August 2010 the IMF approved a three-year $370 million program to further this effort. Despite these ambitious endeavors, Yemen continues to face difficult long term challenges, including declining water resources and a high population growth rate.

If AQ becomes established to the point they were with the Taliban, international aid and investment are out of the picture. Even with major international aid, Yemen could very well be the next country to collapse and will almost certainly be the first country to deplete its water table (link).

If you were asking how do I know Muslims don't want that; it's anecdotal and based on my experiences. What TV shows were popular in the muslim countries I've been to? What sort of fashions? What did people talk about in general conversation? The answer, to a surprising degree, has to do with wealth. Ever seen the clothes women wear under there heavy clothes, especially at weddings? Or watched the TV show Noor (Gumus, in the original Turkish)? Islam lacks the general discomfort with wealth that Christianity has. Remember, Mecca (especially) and Medina were merchant communities. While some might view the "chaos in the desert" future of Yemen as desirable it is my impression that the vast majority don't.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by silentreader

.....1) Isolate the unreconcilables. As TS says, we are in a battle of ideologies. However, and perhaps this is where I would differ from the Team Sergeant, we are not in a battle of ideologies with the vast majority of Muslims, rather we are in it for them with a handful of 13th-century extremists. ......................

Ah, you need to check with your local Imam and the Koran.

Both will tell you there is only one Islam - everyone else is an aspostate or infidel.

Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids and comforts the shark on it's journey. The deeper the sea the larger the shark can grow.

[silentreader]

Originally Posted by Pete

Ah, you need to check with your local Imam and the Koran.

Both will tell you there is only one Islam - everyone else is an aspostate or infidel.

Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids and comforts the shark on it's journey. The deeper the sea the larger the shark can grow.

This may be true- but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is. In fact, since you bring it up, you might find this article interesting.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by silentreader

This may be true- but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is. In fact, since you bring it up, you might find this article interesting.

I'll believe in moderate Muslims when I see them being more active in the process of stamping out the hard liners.

Oh, by the way, how are things gong for Christians these days in Egypt. Things going just great in the land of tolerance?

Thkn about it when I say "Islam is the sea......."

[Defend]

. Double post .

[Defend]

SilentReader,

I’m going to be direct in order to make my points, but realize I’m challenging the accuracy of your perceptions, not attacking you personally.

Originally Posted by ”Silent Reader”

From the CIA worldfactbook

Your quotation about foreign programs investing/aiding Yemen don’t prove your point. The pockets of Al-Qaeda may very well run deep.

Originally Posted by ”Silent Reader”

it's anecdotal and based on my experiences.

Your experiences appear to be narrow – To answer your question, yes I have seen the pop culture, been to (and in) the weddings, and watched the TV shows. I’m not saying that all Arabs are hardliner Muslim terrorists, but the vast majority have some fundamental beliefs that affect their view of ‘radical’ groups, and allow them to define those groups as ‘moderate’. Do you remember what the 9/11 hijackers (I’m assuming all avid supporters of AQ) did in the days leading up to 9/11? They went to strip clubs and participated in other “sinful” activities, while still supporting AQ. What a woman wears (or doesn't wear!) under the Hijab does not tell you her views on AQ, and the number of Russian prostitutes a man has slept with does not tell you his view on Sharia Law.

Originally Posted by ”SilentReader”

While some might view the "chaos in the desert" future of Yemen as desirable it is my impression that the vast majority don't.

That is because you view total Islamic domination as “chaos in the desert”. That statement reveals a lot about your perception of the Islamic mindset. To the Muslim, Sharia is the perfect systematic governance of society given to Muhammad by Allah. Muslim religious leaders mourn the fact that there are no fully Islamic governments, including Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by ”Silent Reader”

but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is

I disagree. Islam is submission to Allah – no room for discussion. I have never met a Muslim, and certainly not a religious leader, who would disagree with that. I’m curious how much time you spent in religious circles while you were in the Arab world. Your descriptions of your experiences sound very much like an observer – not like an immersed (and aware) student of the culture and religion.

I challenge you to find a single Middle-Eastern trained Imam who would even deny that physical Jihad is mandated by Allah. The only room for discussion there is in what order the three calls to Jihad take precedent (Physical, Societal, Spiritual). If you find one who claims physical Jihad is not mandated, do a search on these forums for “Taqiyya”. There have been many great discussions here on the subject of authorized lies in Islam. A cab driver once explained to me that there are three circumstances under which a Muslim can lie:

1) Speaking to his wife
2) In time of war
3) To further the cause of Islam (i.e. to protect a Muslim)

Take that into consideration the next time you engage in a discussion with a Muslim about terrorism, Sharia, or AQAP.

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is this- nothing is ever as it seems. The Islamic world is no exception.

But don't take my words for it:

Originally Posted by Optimus Prime

I have witnessed their capacity for courage, and though we are worlds apart, like us, there's more to them than meets the eye.

-out

[MtnGoat]

Great to see this discussion going on!!

Last year, the U.S. was spending $300 million on Yemen — split between development aid and military assistance. Yemeni CT units reportly streamed into the streets of the Yemeni capital last fall after a deadly attack on intelligence services by alleged al-Qaida gunmen. Yemeni Government will only focus on the Capital and two other key cities IMO. So without U.S. helping out the Government with something more than just a Million dollars.

[silentreader]

Originally Posted by Defend

SilentReader,

I’m going to be direct in order to make my points, but realize I’m challenging the accuracy of your perceptions, not attacking you personally.

No problem, I appreciate the discussion.

Your quotation about foreign programs investing/aiding Yemen don’t prove your point. The pockets of Al-Qaeda may very well run deep.

Perhaps I should have added this as #5 on my list. Make sure those pockets don't run deep. While I am not "in the know" it is my impression that one of the great successes of US intelligence in the years since 9/11 has been decimating the once-significant funds of AQ and its ability to move those funds.

Your experiences appear to be narrow – To answer your question, yes I have seen the pop culture, been to (and in) the weddings, and watched the TV shows. I’m not saying that all Arabs are hardliner Muslim terrorists, but the vast majority have some fundamental beliefs that affect their view of ‘radical’ groups, and allow them to define those groups as ‘moderate’. Do you remember what the 9/11 hijackers (I’m assuming all avid supporters of AQ) did in the days leading up to 9/11? They went to strip clubs and participated in other “sinful” activities, while still supporting AQ. What a woman wears (or doesn't wear!) under the Hijab does not tell you her views on AQ, and the number of Russian prostitutes a man has slept with does not tell you his view on Sharia Law.

This is a complicated point and deserves a thorough answer. You're getting the short version, at least for now. 1) You're right, some hard-line terrorists engage in "sinful" behavior. On the other hand, far more muslims engage in "sinful" behavior than do in terrorism. 2) Yes, many Muslims have sympathies towards AQ's cause. My point was never that we have these Muslims in our pocket. Rather, it was that these people, with some AQ sympathies, are the very people we're competing for. Their TV viewing habits might not show their loyalty, but it does show their interest.

That is because you view total Islamic domination as “chaos in the desert”. That statement reveals a lot about your perception of the Islamic mindset. To the Muslim, Sharia is the perfect systematic governance of society given to Muhammad by Allah. Muslim religious leaders mourn the fact that there are no fully Islamic governments, including Saudi Arabia.

To the contrary, I view Yemen's future as "chaos in the desert." I actually think that Sharia could save Yemen; if implemented perfectly. However, Sharia may be the perfect system of governance in Islam, but the history of Islamic society is the history of debating exactly what Sharia is and who gets to decide it. Yemen is far too divided to be dominated by what remains of AQ: its future is that of intense tribal warfare over a dying and over-crowded land.

I disagree. Islam is submission to Allah – no room for discussion. I have never met a Muslim, and certainly not a religious leader, who would disagree with that. I’m curious how much time you spent in religious circles while you were in the Arab world. Your descriptions of your experiences sound very much like an observer – not like an immersed (and aware) student of the culture and religion.

Submission is, of course, the very definition of Islam. Derived, not coincidently, from the same root as Salaam, or peace. However, the thing about Allah is this; it is really tricky to figure out what he wants, especially in the modern world. Is Allah pro or anti-democracy? That's really tough to say, considering it was never addressed. The Qur'an is a notoriously...tricky... document. English translations barely begin to do justice to the ambiguities and the poetry of the language in it. It's easy to demand submission to god, but beyond the 5 pillars of Islam, it's really hard to know what God wants out of his devotees.

I challenge you to find a single Middle-Eastern trained Imam who would even deny that physical Jihad is mandated by Allah. The only room for discussion there is in what order the three calls to Jihad take precedent (Physical, Societal, Spiritual).

Perhaps this is correct, but there is still a lot of room for grey area. Instead of your three distinctions of Jihad, I would use two groups of two: Inner (greater) vs outer (lesser) and defensive vs offensive. It would be EXTREMELY rare to find an Imam advocating offensive Jihad. Said Qutb is generally cited as an intellectual architect of radical Islam, yet even in his most influential work (Milestones) it is far from clear that the Umma is ready for any Jihad outside of correcting its own behavior. Like the punishment for adultery, some of Islam's most sever precepts are deliberately built on impossible standards (the punishment for adultery is death, but only if 4 witnesses can perceive the actual act in progress.)

If you find one who claims physical Jihad is not mandated, do a search on these forums for “Taqiyya”. There have been many great discussions here on the subject of authorized lies in Islam. A cab driver once explained to me that there are three circumstances under which a Muslim can lie:

1) Speaking to his wife
2) In time of war
3) To further the cause of Islam (i.e. to protect a Muslim)

Take that into consideration the next time you engage in a discussion with a Muslim about terrorism, Sharia, or AQAP.

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is this- nothing is ever as it seems. The Islamic world is no exception.

When I travel, I neither give nor expect complete truth. I lived in two pretty conservative Muslim neighborhoods, and I found the actions of people to be far more instructive than their words. Bottom line is this: they eat, work, fuck, raise families, and fight like any other human beings. Their religion is a strong source of identity, but it is not the only one. Even if you're completely right about the demands of Islam on its believers, the vast majority of Muslims would not answer the call to arms against the west unless they believed they literally had no other choice (this was a common source of frustration amongst Arab politicians who found themselves long on constituents demanding war with Israel and short on recruits willing to fight Israel).

But don't take my words for it:

I like that quote. It has been my experience that most people are capable of extraordinary things.

Finally, in-between you and Pete, strong criticisms of my understanding of Islam have been launched on this board. Like I said earlier, no problem, I appreciate the discussion and will gladly concede many points. However, I do ask this: do these critiques fundamentally change the points made in my earlier post in response to MtnGoats question? If Islam demands Jihad, do we concede 1.5 billion people to the terrorists? Do we poison the sea to kill the sharks, to use Pete's analogy? Or do the four main points I listed still apply? Isolate and neuter the radicals, support those who deserve it, and accept some degree of risk? If the Islam as diametrically opposed to Western society hypothesis is right, what can we do? Kill them all? What would happen to us in such a scenario?