Unrest in Yemen Seen as Opening to Qaeda Branch

Muhammed Muheisen/Associated Press

Yemenis demonstrated Monday in Sana, Yemen's capital.

By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 4, 2011  

WASHINGTON — Counterterrorism operations in Yemen have ground to a halt, allowing Al Qaeda’s deadliest branch outside of Pakistan to operate more freely inside the country and to increase plotting for possible attacks against Europe and the United States, American diplomats, intelligence analysts and counterterrorism officials say.

In the political tumult surrounding Yemen’s embattled president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, many Yemeni troopshave abandoned their posts or have been summoned to the capital, Sana, to help support the tottering government, the officials said. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group’s affiliate, has stepped in to fill this power vacuum, and Yemeni security forces have come under increased attacks in recent weeks.

A small but steadily growing stream of Qaeda fighters and lower-level commanders from other parts of the world, including Pakistan, are making their way to Yemen to join the fight there, although American intelligence officials are divided on whether the political crisis in Yemen is drawing more insurgents than would be traveling there under normal conditions.

Taken together, these developments have raised increasing alarm in the Obama administration, which is in the delicate position of trying to ease Mr. Saleh out of power, but in a way to ensure that counterterrorism operations in Yemen will continue unimpeded. These developments may also help explain why the United States has become less willing to support Mr. Saleh, a close ally, given that his value in fighting terrorism has been diminished since demonstrations swept his country.

Some experts on Yemen who have observed Mr. Saleh’s long domination through political shrewdness speculated that he might be deliberately withdrawing his forces from pursuing Al Qaeda to worsen the sense of crisis and force the Americans to back him, rather than push him toward the exits.

But a senior American military officer with access to classified intelligence reports discounted those doubts on Monday: “This is a reflection of the turmoil in the country, not some political decision to stop.”

Mr. Saleh’s son and three nephews are in charge of four of Yemen’s main security and counterterrorism agencies, including the Republican Guard and the Central Security Forces, which are trained and equipped by the United States. If they were forced to step down as part of any deal to remove Mr. Saleh, American officials acknowledge that the country’s counterterrorism efforts would be left in the hands of untested lieutenants.

“We have had a lot of counterterrorism cooperation from President Saleh and Yemeni security services,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said March 27 on ABC’s “This Week.” “So if that government collapses or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we’ll face some additional challenges out of Yemen. There’s no question about it. It’s a real problem.”

Perhaps most worrisome, American intelligence officials have collected information from informants and electronic intercepts that Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen has increased planning discussions about another attack. This increased threat “chatter,” as intelligence officials call the reports, was first reported by The Washington Post late last month, but officials say the trend has continued since then.

The Qaeda group in Yemen is responsible for failed plots to blow up a commercial airliner as it approached Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009, and for planting printer cartridges packed with explosives on cargo planes bound for Chicago last October.

The United States now has about 75 Special Forces trainers and support personnel in Yemen, as well as an unspecified number of Central Intelligence Agency operatives. The Americans in Yemen are working closely with dozens of British special forces and intelligence officers, as well as operatives from Saudi Arabia’s spy agencies. While the Americans largely provide intelligence, the Yemeni counterterrorism troops have conducted raids and attacks on suspected terrorists in recent months.

The suspension of these Yemeni counterterrorism operations and the heightened Al Qaeda activity have prompted the United States Central Command to dust off plans to resume airstrikes against top Qaeda targets if the United States receives solid intelligence about the location of senior militants, a senior military official said.

The United States has not carried out such airstrikes in Yemen since last May, when an attack accidentally killed a deputy governor and set off a huge political dispute with Mr. Saleh. Last year, the United States quietly began patrolling Yemen with armed Predator drones.

One top insurgent on the American target list is Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American cleric who is a top propagandist for Al Qaeda. Last Wednesday, Mr. Awlaki broke his silence on the uprisings in the Arab world to speak glowingly in a new issue of the English-language Qaeda magazine Inspire about the toppling of autocratic governments.

Pentagon officials said that the chaotic security conditions in the country might embolden senior Qaeda officials in Yemen to come out of hiding. “If we have Awlaki in our sights, we’ll take a shot,” the senior American military officer said on Monday.

Over the past year, however, the American Special Forces in Yemen have shifted their focus to help the Yemeni security forces carrying out the counterterrorism missions. But those programs to train and assist the Yemenis have also been suspended in the wake of the political tumult. The American Special Forces soldiers are keeping a low profile but are maintaining ties with midlevel and senior Yemeni officers, and provide information on how the military is reacting to the upheaval.

 American officials privately concede they have only a marginal influence on Mr. Saleh’s fight for his political survival and exit from power. At best, these officials say, the Americans are looking to identify and carefully support competent lower-ranking officers and civilian officials who could take over the security agencies if Mr. Saleh’s relatives are forced to flee.

  Gregory Johnsen, a Princeton scholar who closely tracks militants in Yemen, said the United States’ narrow focus on combating Al Qaeda through military operations overseen by Mr. Saleh and his family means its position could be precarious in a post-Saleh Yemen.

“The U.S. idea of tying counterterrorism to this one family has not been the best way to approach the Al Qaeda problem,” said Mr. Johnsen, who has argued for greater focus on development aid for the impoverished country.

The Yemeni government’s already weak reach is withering by the day, as violent convulsions rack several parts of the impoverished country. American officials said they were watching unrest in Shabwa Province, a Qaeda stronghold, as well as in Jaar, a city in the southern province of Abyan where Al Qaeda is known to have set up a base.

An officer in Yemen’s counterterrorism forces said his unit had not been deployed and was on standby, even though much of the south was apparently outside government control and jihadists had apparently declared a separate emirate in Abyan. Yemeni counterterrorism officers would like to respond, but “we are only door-kickers,” he said. “We need support from the army, and the army is busy splitting.”

Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth contributed reporting from Washington, and Ravi Somaiya from London.

Saudi Police Fire On Protesters In Oil Hub

Saudi police have reportedly opened gunfire on and launched stun grenades at several hundred protesters March 10 rallying in the heavily Shiite-populated city of Qatif in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province.

The decision to employ violence in this latest crackdown comes a day before Friday prayers, after which various Saudi opposition groups were planning to rally in the streets. Unrest has been simmering in the Saudi kingdom over the past couple weeks, with mostly Sunni youth, human rights activists and intellectuals in Riyadh and Jeddah campaigning for greater political freedoms, including the call for a constitutional monarchy. A so-called “Day of Rage” of protests across the country has been called for March 11 by Facebook groups Hanyn (Nostalgia) Revolution and the Free Youth Coalition following Friday prayers.

Read more...

A 'contagious' revolt

Could Egypt happen to Pakistan?

Since January 25, 2011, the world has been captivated by developments in Egypt. One after the other, like the domino effect, major cities in Egypt erupted in protests, calling for the removal of the Mubarak regime. Reminiscent of the color revolutions that took place in Eastern Europe during the twilight of President Bush's administration, the Egyptian situation has caused consternation for a lot of international actors, and analysts are on the edges of their seats trying to determine what this sociopolitical movement means for democracy in the middle east, and for political rights in the modern Muslim world at large.

There are a lot of causal factors that point to the current turmoil in Egypt. Most believe that it was Hosni Mubarak's elongated rule that will come to 30 years in power if he continues till October 2011. Almost all of this administration has been under emergency rule, which says a lot about the democratic process in Egypt and the freedoms Egyptian citizens enjoy - despite being allied to the United States. Even though Egypt has seen two revolutions - one in 1919 and another in 1952 which brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power - the current regime is also descended from the 'revolutionary' legitimacy of the Nasser and Sadat eras. On January 21st, Ahmad Aggour wrote that Egyptians should learn a lesson from the Tunisians and send Mubarak packing, just like Zine el Abidine ben Ali.

It seems that the current revolution is designed to install a true democracy of the Egyptian people, thereby upturning the status quo established by the July 23 Revolution of 1952.

Larbi Sadiki has written an interesting opinion piece in Al Jazeera, where he labels the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions as 'bread intifadas'. Claiming that the real terror facing Muslim societies is that of political, social and economic marginalisation, Sadiki argues that these bread riots come and go but regimes stay. Countries like Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia continue to be "the fodder of chaos in the absence of social justice, culturally sensitive sustainable development and democratic mediating networks and civic channels of socio-political bargaining and inclusion". "Oppositions and dissidents have not yet learned how to infiltrate governments and build strong political identities and power bases. This is one reason why the protests that produced 'Velvet revolutions' elsewhere seem to be absent in the Arab world."

Sadiki says that bread uprisings have positive and negative outcomes: "On the positive side, they act as elections, as plebiscites on performance, as an airing of public anger, they issue verdicts on failed policies and send stress messages to rulers".

There are also concerns about the future of Egypt after Mubarak - especially for the US and Israel, who counted Mubarak's Egypt as a firm ally. Mubarak and his newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman were instrumental in the peace dealings between the Israelis and different factions of the Palestinians (Hamas and Fatah), and Suleiman was considered Israel's point-man in Egypt while he was chief of military intelligence. This has led to rumours that if Mubarak steps down, he is most likely to go into exile in Tel Aviv.

All of this points to the opposition to Mubarak's pro-West regime from the Muslim Brotherhood - the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen - which seemed to be the main force behind the January 25th protests, except for the fact that a more progressive and pluralistic constituency is out on the streets, countering the Ikhwan's "Allahu Akbar" chants with "Muslim, Christian, We're all Egyptian". Resonating patriotism and renewed inter-religious harmony is evident after the recent attacks on Egyptian Copts, and the protesters are keen to show that they are fighting for their country, and not specifically to install an Islamic government - an outcome the US is keen to avoid. The Muslim Brotherhood has also backed the consensus Opposition candidate, Mohamad ElBaradei, to negotiate with the regime - this step has led to some erosion in ElBaradei's standing as a moderate, liberal, progressive alternative to Mubarak who will be more sensitive to popular demands.

Mubarak's reactions to the uprising have not been promising; he dismissed his 'government' and replaced his prime minister, but the most important development was the appointment of a Vice President. Anwar Sadat appointed Mubarak as his Vice President in February 1981, and Sadat was assassinated in October of that year. Conspiracy theorists are also saying that if Mubarak continues, Suleiman may contemplate "bumping Mubarak off" just like Mubarak "bumped off" Sadat. Egyptians only believe this if they convince themselves of an Israeli hand behind these transformations at the top echelons of Egyptian power.

Regional and international reactions are as confused as they could be. The US doesn't want to see Mubarak leave, but at the same time, it is urging Mubarak to give concessions, restore freedom of expression and the internet, and allow democracy and human rights to flourish. However, the CIA is busy establishing Suleiman as the go-to figure in Egypt, as the new Egyptian government has prominent faces from the same regime who are also well-connected to the Armed Forces - Mubarak and his new Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik both belonged to the Air Force. Especially after Najib Mikati, a Hezbollah-backed billionaire, is poised to become Prime Minister of Lebanon, it seems that Israel will not be willing to allow another one of its Muslim neighbours to shift towards the political right.

On Day seven of the protests, the protesters have called for a million-man march in Cairo, while Alexandria, Suez and other major Egyptian cities are waking up to this new revolution. Everyone, including the Egyptians on the streets, acknowledge that the Army holds the keys to any future solution, and the Army itself realizes that an important transformation is taking place and it should not be left out of it. The Egyptian police retreated from the streets in the first few days of the Cairo protests, and the Army was called out to restore order. Egyptian policemen, especially from the feared and loathed secret services, continued to harass protesters, and some policemen in plainclothes were also caught shoplifting and were handed over to the authorities. The Egyptian Army exercised utmost restraint in the use of force, and imposed curfews despite thousands of citizens violating the curfew at Tahrir Square. One placard at the protests urged the Army to "decide between Egypt and Mubarak", summing up the predicament the Egyptian Army itself would be facing at this point in time. The lower echelons are sympathetic to the people on the streets, and the rank-and-file of the Armed Forces are both professional and patriotic, but the top brass and generals' proximity to the current regime continues to draw the ire of the protesters, who may urge the soldiers to mutiny if the generals continue to support Mubarak.

The Pakistan government first stated via the Foreign Office that Pakistani families in Cairo are safe, but on the fifth day of protests, the Foreign Office and Pakistan Air Force extricated 152 Pakistani families from Egypt. While this says a lot - or nothing at all - about the state of affairs and governance in Pakistan, many civil society activists, commentators and pundits are wondering whether a revolution along the lines of Tunisia and Egypt possible in Pakistan, or not. Some say that the Pakistani people should learn from the Egyptians and make a decisive choice. Others say that the conditions and circumstances are not conducive for a revolution the likes of which has strangled Egyptian society.

The Pakistan government has blocked Blackberry Enterprise services for foreign missions, embassies, high commissions, etc. in an apparent attempt to exercise regulatory control over the telecommunication infrastructure in Pakistan, and to keep a lid on undesirable news reaching the outside world. The PTA has allegedly denied receiving such orders, but such a denial hasn't restored the diplomats' BES services. Regulatory checks and balances of such a nature were also utilized by the judiciary when it ordered a ban on Facebook, and authorized PTA to implement the ban - however ineffectively. While Pakistani netizens developed workarounds and continue to interact with social media websites, the ban only reminded people of how difficult it will continue to be for freedoms in Pakistan - especially for free speech and the freedom of expression. One might say that an Egyptian revolution is possible in Pakistan if the government - sensing mass chaos - enforces a ban on the use of Facebook, Twitter, Google Talk, Skype, and other social media websites and connectivity systems. Such an attack on the internet use of Pakistani citizens - most of whom cannot spend a day without using the internet - will definitely bring these people out on the streets; out of sheer boredom if not incensed at the denial to use these harmless mediums of expression.

A greater revolt can be fomented if SMSes and mobile phone communications are also disrupted - while the PTA and existing PTCL infrastructure would most likely blame this on degradation of facilities, and would be partially telling the truth in doing so - it will bring out greater numbers of Pakistanis on the streets (including the religious fanatics, the extremists and the fundamentalists) because Pakistan is a country where even in 2011, 11 people are joining the national cellular network, more than 430,000 SMS are sent and approximately 160,000 calls made in every single minute. Denying Pakistanis these services will definitely leave them with nothing to do - thus giving them either option or impetus to come out on the streets and protest against whatever they want to protest against, be it corruption, misgovernance, terrorism, extremism, Americanism, liberalism, and so forth. In any case, the religious parties will have more mass support and momentum, and as the opportunistic activities of the PML-Q have shown, most liberal and secular parties will join and support the fray, not create their own momentum for other constituents to join in - despite liberal political leaders like Altaf Hussain calling for revolution in every way possible. In this way, the liberals and seculars will be politically marginalised as their politicians will run to the religious right so as to garner greater voting banks with more guarantees and more stability. This will only strengthen the religious right - and their extremist extensions - in case of a Pakistani revolution.

What would the Pakistani Army do in such circumstances? It is well known that the jihad mentality exists in the Armed Forces first and foremost, so many elements sympathetic to the religious right exist within the soldierly rank-and-file as well as in the general staff. The Army - seeing that fundamentalists are leading the revolution - will think twice about taking an overly liberal or Westernized approach, and if the liberal progressives cannot take the lead, the Army will be forced to bargain for a future with a definite role for religious fundamentalists in the corridors of power. Upon such a travesty taking place, the fundamentalists will have to decide whether they align themselves with the Taliban, or take a balanced approach and oppose the Taliban's antics in Pakistan - if they decide for the former, then Pakistan will go the way of Afghanistan, and if they decide the latter, then we can see some composite solution the likes of which Imran Khan has been harping on about for a few years now.

In conclusion, one must refer to President Kennedy's timeless quote to sum up the current boiling situation in Egypt and the Muslim world at large: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.