Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has
launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been
killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than
a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a "suspected militant," but
Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed
in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these
recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist "most wanted" list.
This significant escalation of US attacks on Yemen coincides with Yemeni President
Hadi's meeting with President Obama in Washington earlier this month. Hadi
was installed into power with the help of the US government after a 2011
coup against its long-time ruler, President Saleh. It is in his interest
to have the US behind him, as his popularity is very low in Yemen and he
faces the constant threat of another coup.
In Washington, President Obama praised the cooperation of President Hadi in
fighting the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This was just
before the US Administration announced that a huge unspecified threat was
forcing the closure of nearly two dozen embassies in the area, including
in Yemen. According to the Administration, the embassy closings were prompted
by an NSA-intercepted conference call at which some 20 al-Qaeda leaders discussed
attacking the West. Many remain skeptical about this dramatic claim, which
was made just as some in Congress were urging greater scrutiny of NSA domestic
spying programs.
The US has been involved in Yemen for some time, and the US presence in Yemen
is much greater than we are led to believe. As the Wall Street Journal reported last
week:
"At the heart of the U.S.-Yemeni cooperation is a joint command center
in Yemen, where officials from the two countries evaluate intelligence
gathered by America and other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, say U.S.
and Yemeni officials. There, they decide when and how to launch missile
strikes against the highly secretive list of alleged al Qaeda operatives
approved by the White House for targeted killing, these people say."
Far from solving the problem of extremists in Yemen, however, this US presence
in the country seems to be creating more extremism. According to
professor Gregory Johnson of Princeton University, an expert on Yemen, the civilian "collateral
damage" from US drone strikes on al-Qaeda members actually attracts more al-Qaeda
recruits:
"There are strikes that kill civilians. There are strikes that kill
women and children. And when you kill people in Yemen, these are people who
have families. They have clans. And they have tribes. And what we're seeing
is that the United States might target a particular individual because they
see him as a member of al-Qaeda. But what's happening on the ground is that
he's being defended as a tribesman."
The US government is clearly at war in Yemen. It is claimed they are fighting
al-Qaeda, but the drone strikes are creating as many or more al-Qaeda members
as they are eliminating. Resentment over civilian casualties is building
up the danger of blowback, which is a legitimate threat to us that is unfortunately
largely ignored. Also, the US is sending mixed signals by attacking al-Qaeda
in Yemen while supporting al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria.
This cycle of intervention producing problems that require more intervention
to "solve" impoverishes us and makes us more, not less, vulnerable. Can anyone
claim this old approach is successful? Has it produced one bit of stability
in the region? Does it have one success story? There is an alternative. It
is called non-interventionism. We should try it. First step would be pulling
out of Yemen.
