Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Johnsen and Stuster on Yemen
Yesterday, friend-of-the-blog Gregory Johnsen released his new report on Yemen for the Council on Foreign Relations. I am no Yemen specialist, but knowing something about both the broader region and military operations, I was one of the people gathered by the CFR a few months ago to help Greg with his recommendations. I predict Greg's paper will become one of the primary points of reference for U.S. policy-makers working on the region and am always impressed by Greg's work.
One of our research interns here at the Center for a New American Security, Dana Stuster, has been following developments in and U.S. policy toward Yemen quite closely. Dana is also a fan of Greg's work and has some constructive criticism, which is published below.
***
The commentary (mine included) on the Yemeni uprising has been focused on what is happening, and not necessarily how to proactively address it. There are reasons for this. On account of its continuing counterterrorism cooperation with the Saleh regime, including an increased tempo of drone strikes, its collaboration with Saudi Arabia to deal with the current crisis and its dogged persistence in advocating a dead-end proposal, the United States has limited credibility in Yemen and it is uncertain that it is in a position to sway the Yemeni government or the opposition. And to be fair, analysts have criticized the Gulf Coordination Council proposal for the sham that it is. Constructive criticism, though, has been lacking and I am very glad that Gregory Johnsen, whose blog Waq al-Waq is required reading for anyone serious about Yemen, has started a discussion of how the United States should change its policies with a memo for the Council on Foreign Relations titled “Resetting U.S. Policy Toward Yemen.”
Johnsen rightly identifies that the essential goal must be Saleh leaving office, and that the mechanism for this must include the removal of the commanding officers from the elite military units led by Saleh’s son and nephews that are bolstering the regime. This cannot be stressed enough. Saleh’s son Ahmed, who commands the Republican Guard, has emerged as a more powerful power broker than the Yemeni vice president, Abd Rabu Mansur Hadi, who has been delegated the authority to negotiate and sign a transition agreement on Saleh’s behalf. Even if Hadi were to sign, it is unlikely that an agreement could be enforced and legal loopholes abound for Saleh and his family to sidestep their obligations to leave office. In the memo, Johnsen outlines a strategy to remove Ahmed and his cousins from their military positions, which they are using to prevent a political transition.
Johnsen proposes that “The United States should, in conjunction with the GCC, inform Ahmed and his cousins that [U.S. financial assistance for counterterrorism to elite Yemeni military units] as well as GCC funding will be cut off and targeted UN sanctions will be applied if they do not step aside and agree to a military reshuffle and a transition council.” He continues to suggest a three-stage process in which the ultimatum is delivered in private, then in public, and if it has not yielded results, the finances will be cut and the sanctions implemented.
The problem is that the incentive structure assumes that Ahmed and the other commanders care what happens to their forces and Yemen after the implementation of an agreement that will, most likely, result in their early and luxurious retirement to another country. There is no reason to believe this and in fact, the loyalist military’s brinksmanship with protesters and the defected 1st Armored Division in recent weeks, which have risked civil war, demonstrate how little Ahmed and his cousins share the interests of their country and the units under their command. Johnsen’s proposal, as it stands, would amount to another delay in the implementation of a transition. After five months of delays waiting for the GCC deal to move forward and the recent escalation between defected and loyal military forces, I am concerned that time is running too short for that, if it is not too late already.
Cuts to CT funding will not induce Ahmed and his cousins to yield to a transition agreement. What is necessary is removing their base of support while providing positive incentives to push them in the right direction. Johnsen clearly recognizes this. The cut in funding and imposition of sanctions, he observes, will make it difficult for them “to buy the continued loyalty of their troops.” The United States should be working on increasing defections from elite units. Even as the United States delivers its ultimatum – which should be done loudly and in public, to reassure the opposition that the United States is not conspiring to maintain Saleh – it should already be working on cutting funding and imposing sanctions (a funding freeze will be necessary in the event of any transition, until a positive relationship with the incoming leadership can be assured). Throughout, the United States should be using whatever influence it has in Yemen and through its regional allies to whittle away Saleh’s base of support. These efforts should target, wherever possible, towns and tribes with significant representation in the Republican Guards and Central Security Forces. Johnsen has observed that all the major players in the three-way struggle for Sanaa (between Saleh, his defected general and a notable tribal family) belong to the Hashid Tribal Federation. The Hashid is a large association of tribes and is by no means monolithic, as the standoff demonstrates. This should be exploited to draw down Saleh’s most critical base of support.
This will have to be coupled with positive incentives. However unpalatable it will be to the protesters, the United States must be able to offer an alternative to Ahmed: retirement, probably in Saudi Arabia, with personal security and protection from international prosecution. He must be offered a reason to leave, or else he will have no reason not to try his chances of winning a civil war. I’m tempted to express this as a graph, but that just might be from reading this blog for so long – at some point, though, the value of accepting that retirement package will exceed the value of potential success as their forces diminish.
A policy like this will not be easy, and it will largely rely on the connections of U.S. allies in Yemen, especially Saudi Arabia. The Saudis maintain patronage networks to influence Yemeni tribes that would be invaluable to influencing defections from Saleh’s base of support, inside and outside of the loyalist military. I’m not as sure as Johnsen that “there is a growing realization within Riyadh that despite Salih’s return he will never be able to reunite the country.” The fact that he returned at all signifies that they are either considering allowing him to return to office or gross negligence, and say what you will about Saudi Arabia, gross negligence with regard to the governance of neighboring countries is not a Saudi trait. I truly hope they’re working with the United States to assure a transition; it’s time to put this to the test.
The rest of the memo is excellent: both thought-provoking and forward oriented; I’m looking forward to seeing Johnsen’s ideas developed and fleshed out further in the coming days. I just hope the right people are listening.
Why is it that all the
Why is it that all the solutions in the Arab and Persian world starts with removal of existing leadership and then the US pouring money into the country? That is exactly what America plans to do with Egypt and Libya.
Like pouring in money has magic stabilization power.
This is a local problem. North Africa and all the way to Turkey need to bring a solution to the table. It should be their solution purchased with their money. Every player in the region has a vested interest.
If they have enough to purchase military hardware (Egypt is buying a bunch these days), they have enough to purchase a future.
BTW. Looking at Egypt, seems to me that the Arab Spring has turned from liberty to entitlements. That is what happens when you pour money into a country. If you do not keep pouring money in, then the people get crabby again. Taking out leadership does not change what people really want. The people need to work to find their own solution. No one can give them a long lasting future, that comes from within.
All you are doing is hooking up the US with out an end game, think we heard that tune before.
How about this. It did not
How about this. It did not come from Princeton or Georgetown. No scholarship required.
Stop treating these countries separately, really. You have a Libyan, Egypt, Tunisia, and a Yemen solution. All you brainiacs specialize in countries. All these countries have something that the other needs. Egypt has the Nile (they are also in Denial), they have water. Libya has more oil than Egypt and they have a lot of desert. Saudi Arabia wants to expand their petro chemical industry beyond oil, they see the future and they need to get away from oil as an income. All the countries have that future as the world gets away from fossil fuels, Yemen is on its way quickly to losing oil revenue. Egypt is more about processing oil than it is pumping it, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have something in common. Turkey has a diverse industry. The kicker is Israel, if the neighborhood could get a long, Israel has a lot of offer in the intellectual property department.
There is a lot of synergy in the the region. If they players could see that, partnering could give these people a future. There would be a reason to listen to each other. Location, Location, Location. Why is Dubai a playground and meeting place? Asia, India, and Europe. Turn towards Africa and what do you see? Mineral resources, more water, and lots and lots of cheap labor (Obama's Libyan humanitarian war just put about 200,000 Nigerians out of work! Seems Obama is just good at unemployment, makes good voters).
Getting the players in one room and putting together a road map would not cost an American dime, maybe some sweat equity. Business trumps religion on just about every continent you just have let them see what is in it for them. The countries are already working together, just give that bond direction.
DUH?
"Johnsen rightly identifies
"Johnsen rightly identifies that the essential goal must be Saleh leaving office, and that the mechanism for this must include the removal of the commanding officers from the elite military units led by Saleh’s son and nephews that are bolstering the regime."
Hah-hah-hah. Another sorta, pseudo-ally under the "progress" bus.
Ooooookay.
I can't wait to see how this --next-- experiment turns out.
"All you brainiacs specialize
"All you brainiacs specialize in countries."
Except they don't.
You have a bunch of generalist-social science hacks posing as specialists. Hit-and-run experts.
(From someone with numerous advanced social-sciency degrees himself.)
That's one of the biggest
That's one of the biggest problems with threatening to cut off counter terror funding: Ahmed and others won't give two shakes that by stepping down they've gotten CT aid to start again because they won't be there to benefit from it. I'm not sure how well that stick would actually work.
@ The Right Stuff - check
@ The Right Stuff - check yourself before you wreck yourself.
The Art of War- still can't
The Art of War- still can't understand the concept of getting satisfaction of killing.
Australian Institute of Hair Restoration
OK, so what comes after
OK, so what comes after Salih?
Johnson doesn't say. He has ideas about how to adapt elements of the Saudi experience a few years ago to delegitimize the al Qaeda types in Yemen, and has a proposal to order the provision of financial aid from the West and the Gulf States, to stabilize Yemen's economy. Johnson notes alleged Saudi concern that Salih cannot unify the country.
But he doesn't say who can, and he doesn't say what he thinks the future of Yemen's economy might be, even after a couple of years of being stabilized with foreign aid. I'm not greatly interested in whether these questions have answers, in and of themselves. My only concern about Yemen is that it not be a base for terrorists organizing attacks on us, our interests or our friends. It seems to me that preventing this -- as opposed to purchasing a postponement of it -- may require some successor to Salih able to prevent civil war and suppress terrorism, and some economic future for Yemen that goes beyond cashing aid checks from the Gulf States. Johnson never gets beyond the conclusion that "Salih must go," and various ideas for making that happen.
"Why is it that all the
"Why is it that all the solutions in the Arab and Persian world starts with removal of existing leadership and then the US pouring money into the country? That is exactly what America plans to do with Egypt and Libya."
Because ever since the Kennedy Administration (I'm looking at you, the late Mr. Diem), it's more or less their favorite. Many, profoundly different situations are approached with a variation of the same, tired ideological script. Inexplicable exceptions can be made, granted, for certain hostile regimes - the Sandinistas, Islamic Iran, Syria, various East Bloc nations. (Then we can skip removing the leadership and just start pouring money, junk loans, and promises in immediately.)
The funniest thing is that, even as they keep pulling the same Elaine Benes-esque moves on the dance floor, they often fancy themselves "pragmatists" of some sort.
Of course, at least they generally do less damage wasting their energy abroad than at home. So at least there's that.
You know who's an 'expert' on Yemen? Idiosyncrasies and all, Saleh, Ali Mohsen al-Ahmer , et. al, are experts on Yemen. They aren't there on sheltered, temporary fellowships
...Dilettantes.
Great post can make
Great post can make continuous improvement, thanks reveal, the actual build up associated with understanding would be to maintain understanding, interest is actually the start of prosperity.
"However unpalatable it will
"However unpalatable it will be to the protesters, the United States must be able to offer an alternative to Ahmed: retirement, probably in Saudi Arabia, with personal security and protection from international prosecution."
Well gee, how come Kaddafi didn't get that offer? Or Assad, or Mubarak?
Interesting. I think someone
Interesting.
I think someone just lost traction on capital punishment.
Exum, did you boo hoo about Troy Davis?
If you are against Davis, how can you be for killing another American? Without due process?
Time to pray again. Let me guess, this one is different. Educate us.
It is fun to watch the
It is fun to watch the Democrats justify the killing of American citizens without due process. Civil Rights are meaningless ?
IT'S WAR! These are really bad guys! Numero Uno, Bin Laden of the Internet! American's will sleep better tonight because the “chief of operations” for al-Qaeda in Yemen was killed. America is in eminent danger ! It was us or them. We have to discriminate between them and us.
Why? Cause someone comes up with ideas to light their own pants on fire? Darwin had it right.
With all the justification, you would think it was VJ day! NOT. Sort of makes water boarding justified and Japanese internment a day at the Hilton.
If Bush did it to the folks overseas with the Patriot Act, there is no doubt now in anyone's minds that Obama did it to Americans.
.
Fear realized. That is the true threat to America.
Lets get it right. These people's DNA might be the real WOMD, to their own cause. Considering the number of them and the population of the USofA (less a few), I do not feel threatened by a couple of guys in Yemen.
Give them all suicide bombs and let them show how much they care!!!! I will sell popcorn and soda.
Put it in perspective. Where was the justification to discontinue US Constitution and Civil Rights ? The terrorists just scored and COIN wienies are too blind to see cause you have 20 / 12 vision.
"Where was the justification
"Where was the justification to discontinue US Constitution and Civil Rights ?"
Well, moron, you pretty much give up your civil rights when you go to Yemen and make war on the United States, its government, and its people. He regarded himself as an enemy of the United States, and he was rightly treated as such.
Hey where's my stop loss
Hey where's my stop loss pay?
"The war is being fought in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, yet Washington has invested almost nothing on our side of the border and hundreds of billions of dollars on the other side. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/talk-to-not-at-pakistan/2011/09/3...
Visitor on October 1, 2011 -
Visitor on October 1, 2011 - 3:57pm
Sorry, I don't make the rules. I just live by them. Note, it is to protect the constitution, not the country.
It is because the country IS the constitution. Guess it depends on what you believe in.
Oath of Office for President
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article [VI]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article [V] No person shall
Article [V]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Court of the land.
What do you believe in? Are we as Americans losing too much in the WOT?
Are YOU safer tonight than you were a month ago? If your answer is "no" or "I don't know", then there was no eminent threat.
Item 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-of-anwar-al-aulaqi-was-cl...
THE KILLING of Anwar al-Aulaqi by a U.S. airstrike in Yemen on Friday delivered a significant blow to al Qaeda and — in spite of the cleric’s U.S. citizenship — was clearly justified, both legally and morally. Some analysts pointed out that Mr. Aulaqi was not the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or its robust operations in Yemen. But that misses the point of why he was dangerous, and why President Obama was right to place him on a target list. Considerable evidence supports the administration’s contention that Mr. Aulaqi played a direct role in attempted attacks on the United States, including the failed bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day 2009 and a plot to bring down two cargo planes with explosives placed in packages.
Item 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/assassinating-al-awlaki...
Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim cleric, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Religious Studies at Yale. He blogs at muslimmatters.org.
The accusations against him were very serious, but as a citizen, he deserved a fair trial and the chance to face his accusers in a court of law. Whether he deserved any punishment for his speech was a decision that a jury should have made, not the executive branch of our government. The killing of this American citizen is not only unconstitutional, but hypocritical and counterproductive.
The assassination is unconstitutional because the Fifth Amendment specifies that no person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A group of policy makers unilaterally deciding that a particular citizen needs to be targeted is, by no stretch of the imagination, due process.
Mr. Awlaki needed to be challenged, not assassinated. By killing him, America has once again blurred the lines between its own tactics and the tactics of its enemies. In silencing Mr. Awlaki’s voice, not only did America fail to live up to its ideals, but it gave Mr. Awlaki’s dangerous message a life and power of its own. And these two facts make the job of refuting that message now even more difficult.
GCC = Gulf Cooperation (not
GCC = Gulf Cooperation (not Coordination) Council
OK, so Ibn Yosemite Awlaki
OK, so Ibn Yosemite Awlaki should have received a trial in absentia, and may we guess a death sentence in absentia?
Think about that.
You want to give the courts, prosecutors - and it would follow eventually police - the powers that belong to soldiers and spies? Where would that end?
It wouldn't. It's called precedent. And it would apply to US Citizens.
War Powers of a State are kept separate from Normal Law enforcement powers for a reason. Because War Powers are unlimited. Nitpick and quote meaningless pieces of paper all you want, in the end there's no limits.
Don't think it would be a good idea to give our courts - of all courts - those powers. Our Courts and Federal Prosecutors
It's War. The courts should stay out of it. You want to end Liberty in the USA? Give the Judicial System those powers over US Citizens.
Obama has found something
Obama has found something good in the Bush Administration. The irony is it might get him re-elected in its application.
S.J.Res. 23
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
BTW, in the opinion, the spirit of SJ23 is to protect citizens of the US. It is up to the President to determine the use of force and to define "international terrorism" in the effort to protect US citizens. The President has also taken an oath to protect the US Constitution, above all else. That application is reflective of the President's character.
Obama is the first President to direct SJ23 inward towards not one but two American citizens with lethal force, people who he took an oath to protect. Americans will never truly know if Alwaki's guilt justified the actions taken. We really do not know the second American's involvement other than he authored a magazine. Nothing is more corrosive to liberty than its government's actions on its own people.
Capture was an option, we all know that it is possible and has been done thousands of times before, yet this President went for the spectacular and the high-five.
Isn't this the same President that wanted to bring non-US citizens from Gitmo to US courts?
A law is only as good as the person that applies it. This President has a law degree.
The reason they are hanging
The reason they are hanging on is their vast property, qat farms, business concerns and other gains of corruption which occupy much of the economy in Yemen . Isolating the mega-corporations that these military leaders and presidential relatives run may hurt them more than the cut in CT funds; for example Yahya Saleh and the al Maz corp.
Its not who comes next, but
Its not who comes next, but what comes next. The consensus in Yemen for years has been a parliamentary system and I would suggest invigorated local councils.
Zathras - you're right that
Zathras - you're right that this doesn't look ahead to what comes next, and that will be a big bridge to cross. The immediate focus right now is how to achieve a transition. What will take its place is another debate that must happen. The last comment by Jane (Jane Novak, is that you?) is a good point - the government that comes next will have to deal with the fact that the way Saleh governed combined with the past several months means that government control of the areas outside of major cities is extremely limited. Barring another strongman government (which, sadly, can't be ruled out, but that's another discussion), it will be a very decentralized system with a lot of autonomy afforded to the tribal level - local councils will have a big role. I also like Joshua Foust's idea of a new national constitutional convention to provide a social contract that includes the Houthis, the secessionist in the South, previously slighted tribes in oil regions, etc. so they will buy into a national government.
Jane - You're right about the CT funds. I don't think that alone is going to influence their decision, so moving on sanctions is essential in this as well.
And to address a good comment I got on Twitter from Will McCants, that if the U.S. gets too involved in Yemen it will own what comes next, I'm concerned that it's too late for that. The strike against al-Aulaqi seems to really demonstrate this to me - the greater threat posed by al-Wuhayshi, al-Shihri, al-Raimi, and a strong militant network in Yemen means we'll be dealing with the government - no matter who is in charge - for some time to come. This will be compounded as Yemen's economy continues to struggle and its water and oil resources collapse. The GCC needs to step up its game; they're not yet realizing the full ramifications a refugee state on the tip of the peninsula will have. That being said, the U.S. has regional interests that it is stuck with, and as long as we're stuck with interests in the region, we'll be stuck to Yemen, and it needs to make the best of it.
Putting al-Awlaki aside for a
Putting al-Awlaki aside for a moment...
Yemen's crisis seems to resemble a set of Russian dolls of varying sizes that no-one can work out how to stack.
The largest doll concerns the legitimacy and politicking of Saleh and his sons and nephews.
The next doll is the Hashid tribal confederation, of which the Saleh family is a part.
Then comes the broader tribal picture, of which Hashid is only a part.
Then the broader civil society, of which tribalism is only a part.
There's a sectarian doll, representing the tensions between Salafi Sunnism and Zaydi Shi'ism in the north.
There's a Southern doll, an Islamist doll, a commercial class doll.
Then the 'it's the economy, stupid' doll, plus one for water and another for demographics.
And so on and so forth.
The problems don't end with Saleh, but no-one seems to have a recipe for what would come next - and in particular, how to get all of those dolls to line up (Johnsen talks about a 'transition council' but not how that would be constituted - or held together). It wouldn't suprise me if deep down Saleh honestly thinks he is the only person who can hold the country together. More generally, I can't help thinking that there has to be a concrete plan for 'what next' before Saleh leaves office (sooner or later), but as it is it feels like everyone is hoping to muddle through.
Incidentally, an image of the Saudis appears on each and every doll. They may be the key players in Yemen, but significant doubts must remain about whether they can be the solution. Would they sit at a table with the Houthis (and vice versa?)?
The broader GCC has for many years failed to act in Yemen's interests, and its members can hardly be described as beacons of democratic accountability. And it is far from clear whether cash is the solution (necessary, yes; sufficient, certainly not).
The Qataris tried mediation in relation to Sa'dah, threw money at the problem, and probably got taken for a ride by all sides.
What will withdrawing US CT funding achieve against this background? I would wager that it would get nowhere - it's just not enough cash.
What would be the basis for targeted sanctions against the Sana'a regime (and would there be consensus in the UN in the first place?)? Oppressing the people? (Remember that the US backed the Saudi air campaign in support of Sana'a against the Houthis). Being undemocratic? (Don't mention Saudi). Killing civilians? (The civil war in Sana'a is at least a 3-way fight).
What Yemen needs is not more or less US love, nor the threat of UN sanctions (which would ultimately inflict yet more pain on the average impoverished Yemeni and not on Saleh and the other elites). It needs a credible mediator that can do what Yemenis have always done: bring the various competing parties together and find a consensus that allows everyone to have their say, avoids loss of face, and provides a way to move forward. A truth and reconciliation commission if you like.
The weird thing is that various parties in Yemen have been talking the talk for several years (national dialogue committees and the like), but efforts so far have really only maintained the status quo and been too amenable to Saleh's usual tricks.
So who can play the role of honest broker? In the view of this observer it's not the US. Nor Saudi, nor the GCC. It's a curve ball, but how about Turkey?
Add your comment