Thanks to UK & US intervention, al-Qaeda now has a mini-state in Yemen. It's Iraq and Isis again

[Jefferson23]

Full title: Thanks to UK and US intervention, al-Qaeda now has a mini-state in Yemen. It's Iraq and Isis all over again

As has happened repeatedly since 9/11, the US and countries like Britain fail to combat terrorism because they give priority to retaining their alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies


Supporters of Yemen's former President Ali Abdullah Saleh climb pillars of the Unknown Soldier Monument during a rally marking one year of Saudi-led air strikes in Yemen's capital Sanaa

Patrick Cockburn

Friday 15 April 2016

They have done it again. The US, Britain and regional allies led by Saudi Arabia have come together to intervene in another country with calamitous results. Instead of achieving their aims, they have produced chaos, ruining the lives of millions of people and creating ideal conditions for salafi-jihadi movements like al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

The latest self-inflicted failure in the “war on terror” is in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Sunni states intervened on one side in a civil war in March 2015. Their aim was to defeat the Houthis - labelled somewhat inaccurately as Shia and pro-Iranian - who had seized most of the country in alliance with the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who retained the loyalty of much of the Yemeni army. Yemeni politics is exceptionally complicated and often violent, but violence has traditionally been followed by compromise between warring parties.

The Saudi intervention, supported in practice by the US and Britain, has made a bad situation far worse. A year-long campaign of air strikes was supposed to re-impose the rule of former president Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, whose dysfunctional and unelected government had fled to Saudi Arabia. Relentless bombing had some success and the forces fighting in President Hadi’s name advanced north, but were unable to retake the capital Sanaa. Over the last week there has been a shaky truce.

The real winners in this war are al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which has taken advantage of the collapse of central government to create its own mini-state. This now stretches for 340 miles – longer than the distance from London to Edinburgh – along the south coast of Yemen. AQAP, which the CIA once described as the most dangerous protagonist of “global jihad” in the world, today has an organised administration with its own tax revenues.

in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thanks-to-uk-and-us-intervention-al-qaeda-now-has-a-mini-state-in-yemen-its-iraq-and-isis-all-over-a6986086.html

[Nyan]

1. Thanks. I'm bookmarking this.

This was predictable...
I remember watching this Crosstalk episode about a year ago, and it was such a great discussion (Peter Lavelle is a bit redundant in this episode, but all the 3 guests are very good).
The young woman who's an expert on Yemen said Al Qaeda's gonna be thriving as a result of this intervention. And a year later? Yeah. That's what happened.
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen...all the states that didn't have significant terrorist element before the regime-change effort have gone down in flames.

[Jefferson23]

4. Yes, as you say..predictable. n/t

[bemildred]

2. Yeah. Nobody wants to talk about Yemen now. Add it to the list.

Like Ukraine, it is not very newsworthy these days.

But Yemen, in particular, the Sauds have created a bleeding sore on their southern flank, both IS and AQAP, all along that isolated coast facing the Indian Ocean and through the SW parts of Yemen, to the point where, as Cockburn notes, being a public official in Aden is a dangerous career move.

Meanwhile, the Young Prince is moving on to reforming the Saudi economy.

[Jefferson23]

3. I suspect we may have an opportunity via former Senator Graham who on another matter

is being a loud pain in the neck about 9/11..to also talk about how fueling the MIC/our economy while
sustaining our relationships with the Saudi rulers is long over due. Would be nice to actually
have a foreign policy that would ensure national security instead of jeopardize it. Our 60 billion
dollar arms deal is about who's security?

I refer back to Obama's commentary for the Obama Doctrine piece, and his comments
on the Saudi's...that piece keeps giving in a good way, I think.

[bemildred]

6. That does look like it might have legs.

There is an awkwardness about the way it is discussed that perks my nose up. That the administration is lobbying against it, suggests it might happen. That could bring the whole house of cards down, pieces scattered everywhere, politically speaking. The problem with the big lie as a political technique is that it is so obviously what it is, once exposed.

Obama's position is very interesting right now, he can do anything he wants, even the Republicans are focussed on their own little disputes. He's over 50%, he looks like the only adult in the room. I wonder what he will do? I don't want to put thoughts into his head, but he looks very consequential, as several OPs posted around have noted, and I wonder what he thinks about that, especially in light of the Goldberg interview. I doubt that was just academic speculation on his part, I think he has had things in mind and has pursued them. That could make an interesting book.

And the Democratic Primary seems to have, well, ... I just haven't seen anything this dramatic and vituperative since the 70s, and that is going some, in terms of drama and outrage, this is epic.

[Jefferson23]

7. Yes, I think so..one aspect is that Americans seem to want and it would be healthy to have,

an open conversation....why do we continue to have a relationship with this government? Who benefits? Is it
the only way a government/country can function is to sell weapons on such a scale that is beyond irresponsible
and hurts our national security?

I do believe the legislation is bi-partisan and indicates to me some of the cons are
taking heat all these years from their peeps back home and then you have Graham,
he won't shut up and the guy has integrity and won't go away.

I think the entire episode along with the primary..as you say, has been unique
in many ways..it has me hopeful.

As to Obama on the scope of the lawsuit legislation and the redacted documents? I don't
know what he'll do. Talk about a big fucking deal..this is one of them.

[KoKo]

8. There is more optimisim than I have with this:

"Jefferson 23" and "bemildred"...Why are you optimistic? I've never quite managed to be trusting of Obama as much as I've hoped I could be. What about this article? Gotta admit I'm so involved in this election I don't much get nuance, these days. But, I've read Obama is going to Saudi Arabia and I wonder what he would offer them to get those 28 Pages Released. Also, why not counter their charges of pulling out their assets from U.S by imposing heavy Sanctions on them to call their bluff?

---------

White House Signals Veto On Saudi 9/11 Bill
Source: The Hill

The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed … it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts.

“It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276696-white-house-signals-veto-on-saudi-9-11-bill

[bemildred]

9. There are two aspects to that question:

1.) The little boy has now pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, in public. It will therefore be discussed. And so it is with the Obama Doctrine. That is an improvement.

2.) Because of disingenuous way that politics is conducted in this country, you cannot interpret what politicans say and do as direct attempts to do something, nobody has that sort of official organic power, you have to convince people to do what you want. This is rarely done by means of reason and logic, mostly they appeal to the baser instincts and great reliance is placed on disinformation. And mostly by negative means, fending off any alternatives rather than advancing arguments for what you want. Since so many of the policies we are subjected to are contrary to the wishes of the public, this is necessary. We are sold the lesser evil, not the greater good. So to understand what is going on, you have to interpret in terms of what (probably good) things they are trying to fend off or delegitimize, and from that you can begin to infer what they are trying to do. For example, they don't want single payer, so we get told it's impractical, despite the fact that it is the norm in most advanced countries. We don't get nice things here because we have to pay for our empire, and that means feeding the banks.

So from that point of view I infer that Obama wants to put an end to the Washington consensus, and he has taken a good shot at bringing that about too. You can argue about whether that was intentional, or from some agreement with my view of the situation, but I don't care about that very much. The effect is there, and will be hard to reverse.

[KoKo]

10. Possibly.

Thanks for that insight. It does give a interesting perspective that's worth thinking further about.

Releasing the 28 pages is important, though. So, hopefully some arrangement can be made. But, hard to know what, at this point, short of a whistleblower.

The "New York Post" has an article up this a.m. with some FBI leakers' revelations about Prince Bandar's role in "9/11," and the two Saudi Embassies involvement. It was written by someone from the Hoover Institute. Bandar's possible involvement was pretty well known,in speculation, but this article seems to go a bit further than the "Truther Movement's revelations which have been so discounted. So, maybe there will be new media revelations coming forward from "sources."

from your reply:

1.) The little boy has now pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, in public. It will therefore be discussed. And so it is with the Obama Doctrine. That is an improvement.

--------------

So from that point of view I infer that Obama wants to put an end to the Washington consensus, and he has taken a good shot at bringing that about too.

--------------

The effect is there, and will be hard to reverse.

[bemildred]

11. I think they will come out now, the media tease will help publicize the contents. nt

[lark]

5. Wonder how much the Saudi's paid us and Britain to support them?

They seem to be the lynch pin for terrorism, not iran. Wonder what happened to call to release the 28 pages of informaton on the Saudis and 9/11 that the Bush administration hid from us? Why won't Obama release this critical data? Makes me wonder.