Arab Spring Update: Yemen

On December 17, 2010, a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest. Four weeks later, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was gone. Protests spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Some successfully ousted their autocratic leaders, some were brutally repressed, and others are ongoing. In almost all cases, the final outcome is still up in the air. More than one year on, how have the countries of the Arab Spring fared?

Read Part 1 on Tunisia & Egypt and Part 2 on Libya & Bahrain.

Yemen

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↓ 3

Protests began in late January 2011--after Ben Ali left Tunisia--as the Yemeni Parliament considered relaxing presidential term limits. Protesters feared this would have allowed President Ali Abdullah Saleh to remain in power or hand over the reins to his son Ahmed.

The situation started to turn violent as protesters and Saleh supporters clashed on February 17. At least five were killed. 45 were killed by security forces and Saleh supporters as 100,000 marched through the streets of the capital Sana'a on March 18.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Cooperation Council attempted to broker a deal between opposition leaders and Saleh. Saleh waffled between supporting the process and vowing not to sign the deal. In late May, a breakdown in the GCC process triggered battles between Saleh loyalists and fighters under Sadiq al-Ahmar, the head of the Hashid tribe (to which Saleh belongs) who sympathized with the protesters. A cease-fire was agreed upon five days later.

The truce was short-lived. Four days later, fresh clashes erupted between Ahmar supporters and regime forces and loyalists. Simultaneously, the regime attempted to clear protesters from the city of Taiz, the heart of the protests, killing 50. And clashes erupted between security forces and al-Qaeda militants in the southern city of Zinjibar.

On June 3, a rocket attack on the presidential compound injured Saleh. Official statements initially downplayed his injuries, but two days later, Saleh was in Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. Saleh's departure brought on celebrations and a drawdown in the fighting.

Attacks on protesters re-started on September 18. Over the next six days, at least 100 people were killed. On the 23rd, Saleh returned to Yemen.

In November, Saleh accepted the GCC deal. In exchange for stepping down, Saleh was to be granted immunity for any crimes committed as president. Yemen's Parliament officially granted Saleh--and his underlings--immunity in January. The deal has been criticized by human rights groups and Yemeni protesters. Saleh's vice president Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi was elected president in February with Saleh formally ceding power on February 27. Under the GCC deal, Hadi's government has two years to rewrite Yemen's constitution with fresh elections scheduled for 2014.

Though Saleh is officially out of power, Yemen's future is still uncertain. Separatists and extremists took advantage of the instability to consolidate their holds over parts of the countries. Houthis--Shiites in the predominantly Sunni Yemen--control the northwest. Southern separatists, wishing to undo the 1990 unification of North and South Yemen, control no territory but are capable of staging attacks against the government. They were responsible for attacks on polling stations during the February elections.

Most worrisome is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and their affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. They are widespread in the south and east. U.S. drone attacks have increased; at least 35 have likely taken place over the last year. Most famously, AQAP propagandist (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki was killed on September 30. Fighting between Yemeni forces and al-Qaeda militants is ongoing; today 6 Yemeni soldiers and 27 militants were killed.

More than any other Arab Spring country, Yemen sits on a knife's edge. On one side lies continuing strife between the various tribes and factions. On the other side, if southern and Shiite separatists can be co-opted by the new government, if AQAP can be defeated ideologically (i.e. not just militarily), if protesters continue to fight peacefully for their rights, then maybe, just maybe, Saleh's ouster can lead to a more democratic Yemen.

Two Thoughts on the Death of bin Laden

1. I used to wonder how bin Laden could send young men off to their deaths and not be expected to make a similar commitment himself. What heroism was there in running to save his own skin after we invaded Afghanistan? But I realized that al-Qaeda leadership could always have argued that somebody needed to be in charge. Maybe they could've even portrayed hiding in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan/Pakistan as some heroic sacrifice.

Now we know that that would've been a lie. Osama wasn't hiding in caves, but in an expensive compound in Pakistan. He didn't die a martyr; he used his wife as a human shield, trying desperately to prolong his life that much further. Bin Laden wasn't a leader; he was a hypocrite and a coward.

2. Some are jumping on the fact that the tip originated from torturing a Gitmo detainee to argue for resuscitating enhanced interrogation and keeping Guantanamo open. But that assumes we couldn't have gleaned this information otherwise and ignores the other effects of torture. What's more, as I've said before, effectiveness is irrelevant; torture is immoral and illegal. Period.

Libya Look-alikes

In any revolution, it's important to know with whom you are dealing. For Libya right now, this is all the more necessary as the identified involved parties increase and become more convoluted.

For rebels and protesters in Libya, figuring out who shape-shifter-dictator-name-changer Muammar Gaddafi is a real challenge. The Huffington Post and the Daily Show, however, lend some expertise that might help to decipher this Colonel (although why a crazy, fugly, oil-rich dictator chose to be a colonel over a higher rank is beyond me).The Daily Show also sheds light on Muammar and the Libyan situation in their series "Mess-of-the-whole-Potamia."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mess O' The Whole Potamia Region - Libya Uprising
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

On the other hand, figuring out who the protesters and rebels are isn't easy for Muammar. In the past week, he has made several different guesses and statements, each more interesting than the one prior.

Here, we have "stray dog reporters:"

Now, we have kids on hallucinogenic pills, which are put into their coffee and milk. Oh, and these criminal kids get their directions from Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

The United Nations Security Council passed sanctions unanimously on Gaddafi today. I wonder who he thinks really did that. Perhaps a bunch of cat-dog-pill-taking diplomats who are finally doing something about a brutal dictator. Keep watching Al-Jazeera for more updates on Libya and ridiculous statements by the Crazy Colonel.

Why Building the Mosque is Important

"Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say." ~Jimi Hendrix

The "war on terror" has been compared to the Cold War, and while I think historical comparisons can obscure important nuances, the comparison makes sense in at least two ways. First, invading a country and imposing a government on it is going to be seen as imperialist, even if it's well-intentioned. And second, both wars are fundamentally wars of ideas.

Al-Qaeda's idea is obvious: Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Islam and must be fought. Looking at our history, our idea is also obvious: Islam and liberal democracy are compatible.

There are those who would cede the first point to al-Qaeda, who believe that our idea should be, 'Yes, democracy and Islam are incompatible, but it is Islam that must be fought.' But a war of ideas can not be won by force; it can only be won by persuasion. And the more we act like we are at war with Islam, the more Muslims will be at war with us.

A war on Islam is not a war that we can win, nor should it be a war that we want to fight. No, we win the war on terror by encouraging moderate Muslims to say and say it loudly, "Al-Qaeda, you are wrong. We do not need to fight democracy but to foster it. We reject your ideas, and you are not the true face of Islam." But if we continue to lump in our moderate friends with our extremist enemies, we undermine our allies and we lose the war.

War and or Peace?

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

~James Madison

A lot of people lately have been arguing that the United States is not (and should not be) engaged in a 'war on terror' and that the phrase itself is counterproductive. Three arguments for ditching the 'war on terror' mindset:

1. The Semantic Argument: Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, H.W. Bush to Panama, Reagan to Grenada, yet these engagements were never really considered to be wars by the public. Why? Because unlike World War II, the general public wasn't asked to make sacrifices, there was no draft, and the casus belli was not a grave, existential threat. (The threats of communism and terrorism have largely been overblown. Al-Qaeda and other likeminded terrorists "are fighting modernity itself." They will continue to be a small group, and they will never attain their goal of a re-established caliphate.)
2. The Constitutional Argument: Everything changes in a period of active war. Murder becomes legal. The executive is allowed to assume expansive powers. But because the threat of terrorism can never be completely eliminated, a war on terror would never end, and the powers the president assumes would be permanent.
3. The Pragmatic Argument: Restraint is a valuable asset in counterterrorism. Overreaction has largely fueled terrorist movements. Terrorism has been reduced almost everywhere, but two noticeable exceptions are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we should fight terrorists. But it is just that, a fight, not a war. The 'war on terror' is counterproductive.

Anti-Obamaism: From the Almost Legitimate to the Scurrilous

Look what arrived in my inbox this morning: an email forwarded by my Italian grandfather, Nonno to us grandkids, mostly containing this article by Ken Blackwell. I love Nonno dearly, but the email angered me so much that I had to respond to it. What follows is excerpts of Blackwell's article (in italics for clarity) and a slightly edited and reformatted version of my reply.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

It's true that the National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, but I challenge this on two counts: (1) Liberalism is not a bad thing, in my opinion. I understand if somebody disagrees with that, which brings me to my second point: (2) The ranking is nonsense. Two votes that the National Journal considered "liberal," he voted against Sen. Clinton and with such conservatives as Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel.

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

What Obama actually said about Pakistan:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

I fail to understand the neoconservatives: We shouldn't go into Pakistan (where al-Qaeda is), but we should go into Iraq (where al-Qaeda isn't).

As for diplomacy without preconditions, when the Bush Administration refuses to talk with people with whom they have disagreements, nothing constructive is accomplished. In fact, refusing to talk with people in Iran or in Palestine bolsters the hardliners in those areas. They can take our actions and say that we're out to get them, that we're on a crusade against Islam, etc. In fact, the major success of the Iraq War--getting al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) out of al-Anbar province--was achieved by working with former Sunni insurgents. And even the Bush administration has met with Kim Jong Il.

And I don't understand how you could use a nuclear missile against an organization. I can understand how it can be used to annihilate a city, to end a conventional war against a state, but how can it be used against a group of individuals?

Furthermore, Obama is not out of the mainstream on foreign policy.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction.

To some extent, haven't Christian leaders hijacked Christianity? Haven't some far-right Christian leaders made outrageous statements in the name of Christianity? I don't think most Christians would identify with these statements:

• Pat Robertson: "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
• "[John] Hagee has argued that Hurricane Katrina 'was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans' for hosting a gay-pride parade."

I could go on, I'm sure.

Just because Obama agrees with Margaret Sanger on one issue doesn't mean that he agrees with that person on all issues. This is another scurrilous attack that has defined the Republican/conservative machine since at least 2000, when the Bush campaign implied that the girl John McCain adopted from Bangladesh was his illegitimate, black daughter.

And why shouldn't gay people receive equal treatment with straight people? Surely, allowing gay people to marry would be less of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than two-day, celebrity marriages.

Ken Blackwell's moral outrage is particularly hypocritical, considering that during the Ohio gubernatorial race, he implied that his opponent was having a homosexual affair with a man convicted of public exposure. The Courier, an Ohio newspaper, thought his actions so egregious that they took the unusual step of un-endorsing him.

What's worse than Blackwell's actual editorial is the statements that succeed it, statements so vile that I think even Blackwell would be appalled by it:

According to The Book of Revelation the anti-christ...will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

First, the Book of Revelation does not say this, nor could it have, because Islam wasn't even founded until centuries after Revelations was written. Second, Obama is not a Muslim. Finally, just as Blackwell rightly says that eloquence and race should not be criteria by which we elect a president, neither should his religion. Even if he were a Muslim, why should that matter?

Osama's Corner Office

Apparently the infamously decentralized structure of al-Qaeda "coexisted with the bureaucratic mentality of the chiefs," as evidenced by recently declassified memos seen by the LA Times. Memo 1:

I was very upset by what you did. I obtained 75,000 rupees for you and your family's trip to Egypt. I learned that you did not submit the voucher to the accountant, and that you made reservations for 40,000 rupees and kept the remainder claiming you have a right to do so. . . . Also with respect to the air-conditioning unit, . . . furniture used by brothers in Al Qaeda is not considered private property. . . . I would like to remind you and myself of the punishment for any violation.

Memo 2:

Peace and God's mercy and blessings. . . praise to the Lord and salvation to his prophet. . . I have not received my salary in three months and I am six months behind in paying my rent. . . . You also told me to remind you, and this is a reminder.

The Times also has a 43-page memo that takes up 11 pages in transcribed, PDF format. All bureaucracies, even al-Qaeda, waste paper.

Another Obama Speech

I'm so glad J-Mad covered Barack Obama's speech on race in America because the one he delivered today about Iraq in Fayetteville, North Carolina, caught my eye. Some excerpts:

If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss – tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue – as he did last year – that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer...

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan...It is precisely this kind of political point-scoring that has opened up the security gap in this country. We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually goes. What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3AM phone calls. What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances, and renewing our engagement with the world's people.

Amen.

TIME's Joe Klein reminds us, among other things, that, while presiding over the division and reconstruction of the post-World War I Ottoman Empire, Winston Churchill wrote to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, "We are paying 8 millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

The transcript of Obama's speech can be found here.

John McCain Says the Darnedest Things

In his victory speech last night, John McCain came out swinging against Barack Obama, calling his appeal for change "eloquent, but empty." (For which, McCain received a full thirty seconds of applause.) He also attacked the Democratic Party and liberalism in general, calling it "a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people." Interesting words from a man who co-sponsored a law regulating campaign finance and wants to triple the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

But perhaps the most unusual quote of the night is this:

Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?

McCain was referencing this quote made by Barack Obama:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

This doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. Furthermore, al-Qaeda leader Abu Laith al-Libi was killed by an American bomb in Pakistan. Taken together, McCain seems to be saying that he wouldn't go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan and that President Bush is "confused" and "inexperienced," altogether odd for a man who typically disagrees with Bush's war policy for not being drastic enough and once joked that we should "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Time magazine's Joe Klein on the subject

Clips from McCain's speech: