Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Nearly two years ago, Londonstani wrote his first post for this blog. It was based around an interview Londonstani conducted near one of the Palestinian camps in Lebanon with a young al-Qaeda fighter returning from Iraq. The camp itself looked like a transiting station. Londonstani saw young Arab fighters buying military clothing, handing out ammunition, testing weapons and picking up documents. During the conversation about al-Qaeda's strategic rationale when it came to deploying WMD, the fighter mentioned that al-Qaeda was re-deploying its fighters.
"When Haider first entered Iraq through Syria, there had been about 2,000 foreign fighters like himself inside the country. Now they were leaving and only about 150 remained. Most of the foreign fighters inside Iraq had always been Saudis and Yemenis, a few other nationalities, such as Turks were also present, he said. The Saudis and Turks were mainly going to Afghanistan and the Yemenis to Yemen or Somalia, where al-Qaeda was keen to establish a presence."
As the fighting picked up in Afghanistan, Londonstani often thought back to the fighter's off-hand comment about the Saudis and Turks. His off hand reference to Somalia made some sense, but Londonstani often wondered what the Yemen thing had been about. The Christmas Day airline bomb attempt snapped the months' old conversation into focus.
Now we know that al-Qaeda is operating from Yemen, a number of commentators have said the loosely controlled, troubled country is an ideal stomping ground for Osama Bin Laden's followers. In Londonstani's opinion, the retroactive attention shouldn't be limited to Yemen as a country. It's also worth looking at Western policy in countries where extremism is growing.
Yesterday, the U.S. announced a doubling of counter terrorism aid to Yemen. London has said it will work with Washington to provide counter terrorism assistance to Sanaa. But like in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the problem will not be solved by military means alone. Yemen suffers "crushing poverty" to quote the president and the state hardly functions and where it does it has a reputation for corruption mismanagement and brutality. There is also a Shia/Sunni conflict going on. All in all, it really is an AQ haven waiting to happen. But countering this situation with an immediate military response plays straight into AQ's hands.
US Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism John Brennan says AQ probably has "several hundred members". Yet, concentrating on a military response is likely to increase that in weeks. Al Jazeera English reports:
"Al-Shabab, the leading anti-government armed group in Somalia, said on Friday that it was ready to send reinforcement to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should the US carry out retaliatory strikes, and urged other Muslims to follow suit."
A military element has its place, but by looking like they are ready to support a government with questionable competence at a moment's notice, London and Washington again fit themselves neatly into the unofficial AQ public relations playbook. Presently, the strongest message AQ has states that Western powers pull the strings of dictatorships across the Muslim world that line their own pockets while serving foreign domination. The message works because none of these governments have proved very good at governing. When efforts to address the governance issue (like the Kerry Lugar bill) in Pakistan finally do appear, they are enacted too late to counter the perception. In the case of Pakistan, they are seen as another plank of the same policy.
It's not realistic to aim to be able to "fix" every country that AQ lands in. But proving the group's point is not the answer either.
Your blogs would be easier to read if you didn't refer to yourself in the third person.
Elmo likes to say Elmo when Elmo's talking about himself too.
Londonstani: From what I understand, the problem is that the difference between veteran mujahedin and actual AQ fanatics is pretty porous. It seems quite likely that a lot of the homecoming mujahedin, both from Afghan of old and of Iraq of yesteryear are quite respected folks, not all of them so much religious freaks as military veterans of up to several campaigns. And that an all out conflict with those folks might engage a lot of tribal/social unrest, because they have all sorts of live-and-let-live agreements localy. I think one of the major possible errors in Yemen is confusing the soldiers with the ideological fanatics, and equaling them all as a enemy structure, much like folks screwed up with the islam movement in Somalia.
Mark Lynch is dead on at http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/02/bad_ideas_on_yemen
ANd backgroundinfo from War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-looks-at-yemen-an-exile-classic/
PS: It just struck me, reading through the War Nerd article again: One of the main differences between Imperial Britain and Imperial NATO is that they did not do so much "targeted assassinations" as public trials and executions. And they did them with a certain style, not like Saddam. (That was horrible, anyone ever get to know the story of that IO procedure? Isnt there an army manual describing how to execute folks?)
Perhaps we could try this approach...
http://www.epicwin.net/2009/10/male-prostitute/
Good governance for Yemen. Uh Huh. Will there be anything else? They haven't had good governance since when, 200 BC? What's your plan or suggestions for getting good governance to Yemen? Aid? They'll simply steal it. Maybe we could solve the water problem by rebuilding the ancient Dam. Then we can pop over to Egypt and fire up the Pharoah's.
The best solution for us is to convince people that having AQ anything around is hazardous to the Health.
Weimar had a reputation for a weak and ineffective government in 1933. 10 years later no one cared.
F. Garvin: To paste in part of my reply to Lynchs article:
"On the whole-state approach, isnt it about time to start fiancing a real international taskforce of competents, preferrably with a lot of muslims? Is there any good-guy variant of School of Americas, where people from these countries learn irrigation, recycling, energy-conservation, how to create companies, internet and so on and so on? Or is the US still thinking with its hammer only?"
Dont tell me the west doesnt have capacity to funell some warfunds into sustainable capitalism. We obviously are very vulnerable there. Weak left chin. Achilles Heel. Etc. We need to build core competency in the world, so that they can save themselves in their own languages. I dont understand why this is not happening, it is enormously cost efficient.
Maybe it is time for a ME UN. Organization to address ME/Islamic grievances.
Other than AQ, AK and 7.62mm.
To answer: Yeah I'm sure we can funnel some funds into it. The problem is that their core competence would be to sustain their own capitalism on the Rivera, LA or London. That definitely goes for the locals, but for some of the Aidsters as well.
These parts of the world have not known just or honest govt for some time. In the case of Yemen I can't think of a time later than 200 BC - when they did, never mind Democracy.
To answer this guys question, yeah...we have USAID (flawed) the Peace Corps, NGO's...etc. But the only tool we have that seems to work (and not be hopelessly flawed) is the Hammer. That's why we keep using it. Who got the situation in our own country under control during Katrina? As I keep pointing out the rest of the govt - well it's not so much resources as being choked by Bureaucracy and Legalism. That eats the money they have. FEMA is a prime example.
[it's Elf if it wasn't obvious, sorry I needed a Fred Garvin/Male prostitute segue]
Wouldnt it be most cost-effective to just leave Yemen and ban all flights to and from Yemen and institute a naval blockade and see how long it takes the Yemeni govt to step up and try and fix things? Or the government of Abdullah Saleh will fall to fanatics which will also simplify things, since then the air and sea blockade would be even more sensible. Let Saudi Arabia try and figure out how to fix this mess since they paid for propagating this fanaticism for the last 50 years.
Fnord - if you haven't already come across it check out Dr Barnett's Development in a Box concept. Basically a tool box for developing nations, a legal system here, an irrigation system there. Designed to save developing nations time by allowing them not to re-invent the wheel but rather quickly get up to international standard.
maybe we can find DNA samples of the Queen of Sheeba the Jew, Khadija the Sugar Mommy and Rabia Adaweyah the Mystic and clone them so that part of the world can have some wise, not so violent leaders (just like Jurassic Park with those female dinosaurs, i'm sure we can find some mosquitoes stuck in some amber resinite).
I like the JP solution. It is the most practical of all. Also the most realistic of all scenarios currently on the table. Let's fund it and make it policy.
I really don't understand what AQ's end game is what is their strategic goal, I get the Talibans, to an extent and I get Hamas entirely but I've no idea what it is that AQ wants, unless its just anarchy plain and simple. I mean if their goal is to defeat the western powers then they'll never do it by causing more casualties to Muslims than they do to westerners. Is that the idea that if they kill enough of there own people we'll just give up the American dream to make it stop? I could get it if they were taking the fight to western nations like the US or even in Europe, Greece for instance is a country that would make sense for them its unstable but most westerners still view it as being somewhere on the fringe of the first world.
Does AQ think it can somehow cause a world wide Islamic revolution where by the whole world sees the error of its ways and converts? I've got news for them, the deacons killing the choir boys in the rectory isn't going to a help bring the word of god to the crack addicts and the convicts.
There was some heavy WH PR happening on the Sunday talk shows.......
John Brennan, "The system worked every other day in 09". Where do people like this come from?
When you start believing your own BS, it is time to get out.........WH admin get top honors.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Brennan_system_worked_ev...
If I can believe, IF I CAN BELIEVE, IF I CAN BELIEVE maybe it will be true?,
For your morning enjoyment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17Terror-t.html?hp
And (IMO) AM's and Fick's reasoned, but wrong, argument on limiting drone strikes is quashed in there too. They work. They sell.
And interesting to see how US CT policy is being followed world wide, even in South American news shows while watching this weekend. Interesting to see long snippets of Brennan where you wouldn't think they'd have as deep an interest in this. Guess not.
Becoming a globalized economy.....can lead anyone to drink?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/10/04/gps.ak47.cnn
Met Mikhail Kalashnikov, really a pretty nice guy. There is a biography, "Mikhail Kalashnikov, From a Stranger's Doorstep To the Kremlin Gates". It is an inside view of a person deep in the defense industry. Kalashnikov is proud to have served his country's defenses, but it hurts him to see his rifle design used by thugs. Never received much from his small arms work, is currently living a very modest life in Russia. He never was really comfortable with Soviet life.
Ezell, the curator of small arms at the Smithsonian, put together a meeting of Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner (inventor of the M16 gas system) at Camp David in the early 1990's. During the meeting Kalashnikov turned to Stoner and indicated that Russia had honored him with with medals for his contibutions in small arms. Stoner, looked at Kalashnikov and did not have the heart to tell him that he received millions of dollars in royalties. Later in life, Stoner still worked with small arms, but would rather talk about aviation. Told me, "guns get old after awhile".
Kalashnikov recently turned 90, has Parkinson's disease. Both Ed Ezell ('93) and Gene Stoner('97) have passed away.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/photos/4.jpg Kalashnikov on the left, Stoner on the right (Photographer is not known to me).
C'mon, Londonstani. You can do better than this.
You make the point that neither Option A (unquestioning military support for a regime of dubious competence) nor Option B (a massive effort to bring Yemen into, say, the 19th Century) is viable or scalable. Fine. So what's Option C look like?
I think we can all be agreed that Yemen makes Afghanistan look easy. We can't afford to finance or staff a massive pop-centric COIN approach within the country, nor is it clear that such an approach would succeed. The existing government hardly inspires confidence. If we support it, we bolster the opposition narrative. If we work around it, we undercut the only cohesive forces remaining in the country. And if we overthrow it, we do both. So what's left?
Frankly, I think we've started to do the smart thing. Media reports are filtering in of US military support for present Yemeni operations, which have yielded some notable successes. This is more FID than COIN, and it appears to have a suitably low profile. We can't push AQ out of Yemen, but we can make it extremely uncomfortable and dangerous, removing its status as a haven.
Which is not to say that longterm development efforts aren't important. They are. But the solution to Yemen as a haven for international terror is probably FID and CT - not COIN or development aid.
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/02/bad_ideas_on_yemen
Londonstani: Well said.
Elf: I would still say that organizing a contractor service funded through the west where we give mid-level functionaries a three-year education is not a bad idea. The family of your terps could apply, to put it that way, and we could teach them competence. Should be a contract like the army, their family will recieve pensions for 5 years service, etc. It shouldnt be so hard to make up a core-competency civilian course ("water purification #101"), get it translated and fckin DVD it, even. But I dont see that shit happening, education efforts. Its frustrating, because it is a lowcost possible highyield way of building foundations of legitimacy.
PS: On the building of a task force: Jesus, let the scandinavians focus on that. We still have some credibility.
(Did anyone else notice that the first Taleb/resistance group flared up in Maymaneh this christmas? 3 or 4 heavy fire exchanges for the norwegians. Several kills, no damage.)
Good idea Fnord, especially the part where the Scandinavian's focus on that....so you won't mind paying as well I assume? Oil is at 81$ and probably rising, so Norway should have the funds. Europe can pay -we never did get the development and policing support from Europe we were promised for Astan, now did we?
Mind you, it's a good idea, if you understand the limits.
As far as all that....Fnord; the most educated, Westernized, Liberal -to the point of probably having a nicer house than most Europeans or American's in Europe or America- and going to nicer schools than most of us, and having a more party or at least affluent lifestyle than most of us are the self same corrupt people OR and/or likely to be terrorists. Fuggn mudda!! Why would you give up a playboy lifestyle for ideals? Especially when you'd be very foolish to think the peasant you elevate wouldn't do the same to you?
And BTW what was the argument for the raging rampaging jihad's prior to America, the Cold War or colonialism? The Haj conquests? The Slave raiding of the Berber nearly to extinction? The Turks rampaging? Tamerlane (or Temur the Lame if you like)? Hulagu Khan?
The educated people know that the "grievances" are part pretext. Or convenient excuses for their louche behavior and kleptomania. Or they are getting the Hell out for nation's that function.
But go for it if you like. Just be advised you may have practically administer it yourselves for years.
Yes, this kinda reminds me of when ISF specialists were given EOD training in a Western country and came back...to make extra nasty IED's.
The funniest quote on Lawfare today:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2010&bas...
"Next we will have the lawyers running ads for these guys in other countries. Caught causing terror, know your rights. First you have the right to be silent and use the American legal system to protect your friends at home. Yes, good work Andie. Posted by: kabookey | January 4, 2010 4:04 PM"
What's funny is I'll bet the Lawyers do start running ads in other countries....
Londonstani:
Thank you for that reply - it's important enough that it ought to be an update to your original post, and not merely buried in the comments.
I take your points, but I think that your critiques of American policies continue to be more compelling than your prescriptive solutions. I think the Marc Lynch article - to which you link approvingly - actually comes closer to the mark. You suggest using military and economic aid to leverage political change. Lynch is less sanguine. He argues that this is pointless - wasted like water in the ocean. We can work around the edges to develop capacity for governance, and strike directly at AQ using FID and CT, as I suggested above.
Yemen, in other words, is not a problem we're going to solve. The most we can hope for is to deny AQ sanctuary, and to avoid entangling ourselves in a manner that damages our broader interests, in the fashions that you outline above.
Snark:
In response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to: [U]se all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, §§ 1-2, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18,
2001).
Please note this specific portion of the authorization: "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided . . ." In other words, the President in his complete discretion decides. The problem with this language is that there are no definitions of "planned", "authorized", "committed", or "harbored". This is not much of a problem as far as "nations" or "organizations." But as far as "persons" are concerned, this can potentially include every "person" in the world.
Initially such "persons" were described by the Administration as "enemy combatants." However, this term wasn't defined either. It wasn't until 2008 in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, 583 F. Supp. 2d 133, 133 (D.D.C. 2008) that "enemy combatant" was defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." While this is an improvement, it still can potentially include every "person" in the world.
The problem with this grant of power to President Bush is that it is passed on to all succeeding presidents, including ones who have not yet made their first run for public office or for that matter have even been born yet. As citizens we must be comfortable with any president, regardless of name or party, having this power. As Bush and Obama are the only presidents to date who have used this power, a good litmus test can be whether you're uncomfortable with either having this power. If you're uncomfortable with one or the other, then the power needs to be refined and/or limited.
Congress could do this, but for all of the usual reasons won't. But most importantly, even if Congress tried, the whole process would be obscured by speechifying and weasel language to protect all of their re-election chances.
Courts are perfectly capable and willing to do so. Moreover the decisions are published and accessible to anyone with internet access. Additionally the Scotuswiki provides free online access to all of the petitions, briefs, orders, and underlying decisions from the lower courts. You don't have to have the decisions interpreted by the MSM or some partisan blogger. You can make up your own mind.
Comments upthread to the effect that Londonstani's diagnoses are better than his prescriptions here are, I think, correct.
I understand the narrative problem, in Yemen and elsewhere. Western military aid, let alone direct military action, against locally sympathetic terrorists confirms the narrative that the West is attacking Islam. Public statements in the West about the terrorist threat from Yemen confirm a narrative that people in this desperately poor, backward country have found the way to gain the attention of the world's most powerful countries. Support of corrupt and ineffectual local government identifies the West with local political grievances, even more than it would be anyway -- and it would be, anyway. But non-support of corrupt local governments and tolerance of Yemeni territory being used as a terrorist sanctuary confirms a narrative that Islamist terrorists are winning, at least locally, and raises the risk that terrorist operations organized there may eventually succeed.
I'd be more than happy for America to have as little to do with a place like Yemen as possible. There is nothing of value for us there, and while transforming the local culture and economy would doubtless be a good thing I doubt our capacity to do this. There remains the terrorist problem, though. There just aren't many Americans willing to accept open terrorist activity just to weaken a narrative, and if that plane had blown up over Detroit there wouldn't be any. I can think of ways to address the situation in Yemen that involve things besides hitting terrorists there as we find them, but none consisting only of alternatives to this.
"There just aren't many Americans willing to accept open terrorist activity just to weaken a narrative, and if that plane had blown up over Detroit there wouldn't be any"
That gives the enemy a major advantage, in that you virtualy hand him the initiative in the conflict. All he needs to do is set up international cells with limited strike-capacity, and through a couple of low-cost ops he can change your area of focus at will. Dont forget that the overarching strategy of AQ is to bleed the west through attrition and war-fatigue. From a red-hat perspective, a US engagement in Yemen would be very nice right about now, lessening the pressure on Pakistan, engaging neutral mujahedins in Yemen and even quite possibly lending AQ yemenite popular support even among the socialists in the south.
@Visitor 1103,
"Please note this specific portion of the authorization: "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided . . ." In other words, the President in his complete discretion decides. The problem with this language is that there are no definitions of "planned", "authorized", "committed", or "harbored". This is not much of a problem as far as "nations" or "organizations." But as far as "persons" are concerned, this can potentially include every "person" in the world."
Yeah, I suppose it could be extended to include every person in the world, if you are an American Lawyer...or insane. But I repeat myself. Power to wage war has always been in the political branches, until now. It's going to catastrophically fail. But the courts unchallengeable powers - as they cannot be elected or thrown out - will be increased. Which is the point of the exercise. That and defense lawyers get off on getting their clients off. Defense Lawyers like the ones who now run DOJ. The more outrageous the crime, the more outrageous the grounds for release, the better a prank it is and the harder the lawyers laugh that night at the bar. They seriously think it's quite funny. Eric Holder will be creaming in his jeans when the Federal Judges begin to release the GITMO prisoners. Which they will. That's the entire point of getting them into the civilian system.
The Law is a lying contest, AQ is getting the best liars - to include the staff of DOJ - pro bono. Treason of the High Born.
"You don't have to have the decisions interpreted by the MSM or some partisan blogger. You can make up your own mind."
No, it's going to be made up for us, regardless of how we vote.
Boumediene v. Bush; no, it was Boumediene v. the United States. And the Scumbags of the United States (SCOTUS) sided against their own.
Elf on Lawfare:
Thank you for your response. I recommend you visit www.scotusblog.com and its companion site www.scotuswiki.com. Although they are focused on the Supreme Court, they have followed all of the terrorism/detention/Gitmo cases in the lower courts, particularly the DC Circuit. Yesterday they posted a link to the Fourth Circuit's opinion in the Moussaoui case.
This is not a partisan blog. Yes, you will detect some political bias from time to time. But the purpose of the blog is not to herd the sheep, but to provide nearly real time nuts and bolts information to lawyers to use in their day to day practices. Additionally the blog links to the original documents, opinions, petitions, briefs, orders, underlying decisions, which can be downloaded as PDFs and read at your leisure. Moreover these documents are original historical documents that will be preserved essentially forever, unlike MSM and partisan blog posts that vanish into the ether almost immediately.
It will not take you much time to read all of the analysis on the terrorism/detention/Gitmo cases: some leisurely reading over a week or so should do it. Obviously if you read some of the original documents on the wiki, it can take a lot longer.
But if you do take the time, you will see no material difference between the arguements and vigor of the Obama DOJ and the Bush DOJ. In fact, you will see that the Obama DOJ has followed the Bush position and on occassion has even been more aggressive.
As to specifics, you will also find that it is a legal impossibility for separatiion of powers reasons for a Federal judge to release Gitmo detainees into the US, regardless if the case is in civilian or military court. The executive branch has unfettered non-reviewable power to determine who gets physically admitted to the US. The Uighurs were ordered released in 2008. Four have resettled in Bermuda. The rest are still in Gitmo. You will also find that notwithstanding Obama's promise to close Gitmo, Congress has passed laws making it exceeding difficult for any president to do so. Also you will find that the Boumediene v. Bush case I referenced in my post at 11:03 was the DC Circuit decision, not the Supreme Court decision.
The reason I referenced the DC Circuit decision is that it is not "insane' to be concerned about essentially limitless presidential power to detain "persons." Both sides submitted to the Court their definition of "enemy combatant." After five years of the GWOT, this was the first time the Administration publicly defined the term. Up to this point, it was whoever the president wanted to designate. The Court adopted the administration definition. You may find interesting that in the Ginco case in 2009 the Obama DOJ, while abandoning the "enemy combatant" term, advanced what many consider a more pro-prosecution position.
Regretfully the GWOT will continue long after we're both dead and will be prosecuted by presidents whose names we don't know under conditions we can at best only imagine. With the internet and an investment of a little bit of time, any person can make up their own mind based on reliable information, not MSM and partisan blog comments, whether "Eric Holder will be creaming in his jeans" or whether "The Law is a lying contest, AQ is getting the best liars - to include the staff of DOJ - pro bono. Treason of the High Born" or whether the "the Scumbags of the United States (SCOTUS) sided against their own."
To Fnord's comment upthread, what he's describing isn't a matter of initiative in the conflict. This is the conflict.
The enemy's objective is to kill large numbers of Americans, Westerners, Muslims they consider insufficiently Islamic for any of a fairly large number of reasons and miscellaneous others who get in the way. There would be no conflict if the enemy were not trying to do this. Seeking to establish a sanctuary in Yemen is simply a means to the objective.
Believe me, I followed the Iraq war. I know that the people we're fighting, if allowed to attain local political power, are likely to make themselves so unpopular that it will eventually be possible to fight them using effective local proxies. The question is what happens in the meantime.
I take it for granted here that most of those arguing against American "engagement" in Yemen are thinking in terms of a ground combat force there; they are not advocating doing nothing about an active terrorist sanctuary. To that extent, they will get no argument from me. I'd just as soon send American infantry to occupy South Georgia as South Yemen. Nor am I enthusiastic about American involvement, intentional or not, in local tribal politics. Finally, I recognize that blowing up terrorists or enabling local forces to do so risks alienating local opinion (which is sympathetic to terrorism anyway, or Yemen wouldn't be in the news the way it is. I'm just saying I understand the downside of hitting the enemy where the enemy is, and the desirability of what the military calls "non-kinetic" steps to the extent it may be productive to take them).
My difficulty with Londonstani's analysis in the main post is he's a lot clearer about the downside of the steps he thinks we ought to avoid than he is about what he thinks we should do. I think he has a lot of good advice on the former subject; all I meant to say in my post upthread is that what America will do is not going to involve waiting for the next airliner to get blown up or the next embassy to be bombed before we take shots at the people trying to do this stuff.
@Visitor 1244,
I was actually bi-partisan in my opposition to Lawfare, and have been. I can't really go back and capture all the times I railed against it. It's a tragic mistake. It's in the running for Bush's worst mistake along with TARP. Somewhere in the ether are the comments, or in the blog readerships memory. I don't think any would gainsay me...
Thank you for your temperate tone. I find it quite impossible on this subject. So apologies.
And mark my words. We have taken the Law into Battle, and we lost the Battle, next we'll lose the Law.
It is folly.
Elf at 7:54
No apologies necessary, as no offense was taken. I have been reading this blog since before its affliation with CNAS and am familiar with your blend of humor, anger, and opinion.
I understand Lawfare in the traditional litigation context to be the unrelenting imposition of transaction costs on an opponent in order to win a problematic case. I do not understand what you mean by that term in a national security context.
Here is a link to the scotusblog which reported on today's DC Circuit's first post-Boumediene decision. The judge who wrote the majority opinion in a separate concurring opinion wrote: “War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust.”
Reminds me of the closing point in your 7:54 comment.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wide-detention-power-upheld/#more-14394
There is less than (200) what called Al-QAEDA in Yemen , 170 of them just released from jail last year , they had (70) guns , and they are well monitored , they allowed to be active within a known lines as needed
Add your comment