View Full Version : Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen
Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/03/despite-al-qaeda-threat-planning-extend-terror-fight-yemen/)
FOXNews.com
The U.S. does not plan to open a new front in Yemen in the global fight against terrorism despite closing its embassy there in the face of Al Qaeda threats, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday.
The U.S. does not plan to open a new front in Yemen in the global fight against terrorism despite closing its embassy there in the face of Al Qaeda threats, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday.
"We're not talking about that at this point at all," White House aide John Brennan told Fox News when asked whether U.S. troops would be sent to Yemen.
"The Yemeni government has demonstrated their willingness to take the fight to Al Qaeda," he said. "They're willing to accept our support. We're providing them everything that they've asked for."
The comments came in the wake of the failed Christmas Day attack against a U.S. airliner by an accused 23-year-old Nigerian who says he received training and instructions from Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.
President Obama plans to return from his holiday vacation in Hawaii for a Tuesday meeting at the White House about the airliner plot.
On Sunday, the U.S. and Britain shuttered their embassies in the Yemeni capital, San'a, citing security reasons.
"We're not going to take any chances" with the lives of American diplomats and others at the embassy in Yemen's capital, Brennan said, making the rounds of four Sunday television talk shows. "There are indications Al Qaeda is planning to carry out an attack against a target inside of San'a, possibly our embassy."
Brennan said the threat against Americans and Westerners would not ease until Yemen's government got a better handle on the threat from terrorists inside the country. He estimated there are several hundred members of Al Qaeda in Yemen. "We are very concerned about Al Qaeda's continued growth there," he said.
Brennan said the security threat "demonstrates that Al Qaeda is determined to carry out these attacks and we're determined to thwart those attacks."
"We're determined to destroy Al Qaeda whether it's in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Yemen -- and we will get there," he added.
The U.S. gave Yemen $67 million in training and support under the Pentagon's counterterrorism program last year. Only Pakistan got more, with some $112 million in aid.
Obama said the money had been well spent: "Training camps have been struck, leaders eliminated, plots disrupted. And all those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know -- you too will be held to account."
The U.S. general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan told reporters in Baghdad on Friday that U.S. counterterrorism aid to Yemen would more than double in the year ahead. Gen. David Petraeus said Yemen was struggling to overcome many challenges, including declining oil revenues and an insurgency making full use of the country's rugged terrain.
The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee called for the immediate halt of transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees back to Yemen and other countries where they can return to the battlefield as Al Qaeda affiliates.
"If we don't stop the practice of releasing Gitmo detainees to Yemen or to other countries -- and some of them came through Yemen through Saudi Arabia -- we're asking for even more trouble. I think there ought to be an immediate halt put to releases from Gitmo," Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., told Fox News.
Bond admitted that the Bush administration made a "big mistake" by transferring terrorists back to other countries. He said he hopes the Obama administration will not continue to commit the same mistake.
But Brennan said the Obama administration would continue to release detainees to Yemen on a case-by-case basis.
"The Guantanamo facility must be closed," he said. "It has served as a propaganda tool for Al Qaeda. We're determined to close it."
Brennan also weighed in on former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the president's anti-terrorism policies, saying Cheney is intentionally misstating Obama's position or is ignorant of the facts.
Last week the former vice president said Obama is "trying to pretend" the U.S. is not at war with terrorists. The result, according to Cheney, is that Americans are less safe.
Brennan said that he has worked for five administrations and that Obama is as determined as anyone to keep the nation safe.
Brennan called Cheney's comments disappointing and said they do not speak well of the former vice president.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
VooDoo6Actual
01-03-10, 16:55
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60212720100103
Britain, U.S. agree to fund Yemen police unit
Adrian Croft
LONDON
Yemen says will not tolerate "terrorist" groups
Sat, Jan 2 2010LONDON (Reuters) -
The United States and Britain have agreed to fund a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen as part of stepped-up efforts to fight terrorism, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said on Sunday.
The opposition Conservatives accused Brown of playing politics with the issue of terrorism after he conceded in a BBC interview that he had not held direct talks on Yemen with U.S. President Barack Obama and that the initiative had been in place for some time.
The failed Christmas Day attack in which a 23-year-old Nigerian is accused of trying to blow up a U.S. passenger jet as it approached Detroit has focused attention on both sides of the Atlantic on the growing threat from al Qaeda in Yemen.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with the plane attack, has told U.S. investigators he was trained by al Qaeda in Yemen.
Brown's Downing Street office said Britain and the United States had agreed to intensify their joint work to tackle "the emerging terrorist threat" from both Yemen and Somalia in the wake of the failed Detroit attack.
"Amongst the initiatives the prime minister has agreed with President Obama is U.S.-UK funding for a special counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen," it said in a statement.
Britain and the United States will also support the Yemeni coastguard, it said, adding that the greater transatlantic cooperation had been discussed in a series of phone calls since the Detroit attack.
CONSERVATIVES ACCUSE BROWN
Pressed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, Brown said he had not held direct talks with Obama on the subject and the initiative was "a continuation ... but a strengthening of what we're doing."
"The truth is we've been doing this for some time," he said.
The Conservatives, favorites to beat Brown's Labour Party in an election due by June, said it was a "disgrace" for a prime minister to play politics with terrorism by re-announcing an existing initiative.
"We need a measured and sensible debate about how we respond to the threats we face -- exaggeration and spin by Downing Street has no place in that debate," Conservative security spokesman Chris Grayling said in a statement.
A spokeswoman for Brown said the initiatives were the result of ongoing work between Britain and the United States and had been under discussion since before the Detroit attack.
Funding will come from existing commitments to Yemen, she said. The Foreign Office website says British aid to Yemen will rise to 50 million pounds ($80 million) a year this year from 20 million pounds a year previously.
Brown has called an international meeting in London on January 28 to discuss how to combat radicalization in Yemen.
On Somalia, whose government is battling Islamist rebels, Brown's office said he and Obama "believe that a larger peacekeeping force is required and will support this at the U.N. Security Council."
A senior U.S. administration official said he was unaware of plans for a push for a larger U.N. peacekeeping force for Somalia.
The Somali government and the African Union (AU) have pleaded with the United Nations to send a robust peacekeeping force to take over from the 5,200 AU troops from Uganda and Burundi who have said they are incapable of stabilizing Somalia.
Petraeus: More security funds heading to Yemen, but not troops (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/09/petraeus.yemen/index.html)
Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- The U.S. military does not intend to put ground troops in Yemen, a country where al Qaeda operatives have become an increasing threat, Gen. David Petraeus told CNN in an interview to be aired Sunday.
However, the United States plans to more than double its security assistance funding to Yemen, from $70 million to more than $150 million, Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa.
Petraeus, who recently returned from his visit to the Arab nation, said Yemen's foreign minister was "quite clear that Yemen does not want to have American ground troops there. And that's a good -- good response for us to hear, certainly."
Asked on whether there were plans to send troops there, he replied, "No, of course, we would always want a host nation to deal with a problem itself. We want to help. We're providing assistance."
The United States also will provide additional economic aid to Yemen, the heel of the Arabian Peninsula that has also become known for its large ungoverned spaces that provide an oasis to terrorist groups. In addition to U.S. funds, Saudi Arabia reportedly has allocated $2 billion and the United Arab Emirates about $600 million or $700 million, all to help the Yemen government fight terror and promote development within its borders, according to Petraeus.
After the botched Christmas Day attack on a U.S.-bound airliner, Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the attack was in retaliation for U.S. cruise missile strikes on its camps.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have acknowledged providing intelligence on al Qaeda targets to Yemeni authorities, but won't say whether U.S. aircraft or ordnance played any role in the strikes.
"Again, we haven't discussed the assistance that we have provided in Yemen, and I'm afraid I won't here today," he said.
The general said the United States has been concerned about al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for several years, saying, "Without question, it has ramped up over the course of the last year or more in particular, with training camps and so forth there."
Still, in comments made off camera, Petraeus said the group "isn't industrial strength."
Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh has told the United States that Yemen rather handle al Qaeda on its own, and the United States plans to honor that, Petraeus said.
We would always want a host nation to deal with a problem itself. ... We're providing assistance.
"It threatened the embassies of various countries that are important to Yemen and, in fact, assassinated some government officials," Petraeus said, referring to the al Qaeda branch in Yemen. "So there is an enormous incentive here for President Saleh and the government of Yemen, indeed, to confront al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the growth that we have seen in its training camp structure and the other infrastructure that they've been able to establish in recent years."
Petraeus said al Qaeda's growth in Yemen became increasingly worrisome for him two years ago. Washington began to view the ancestral home of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden as a possible haven for the group as early as 2001.
As al Qaeda was pushed out of Saudi Arabia -- and under pressure in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- they took refuge in Yemen, he said.
Last Sunday, the United States decided to briefly close its embassy in Yemen after intelligence suggested that four al Qaeda operatives may be planning an attack on the compound. The embassy reopened Tuesday. Britain, too, closed its embassy Sunday, citing security concerns, while other foreign embassies beefed up security or closed to the public.
Yet, Petraeus said Yemen is not the most important locale in the U.S. war on terror. "That would likely still be the western Pakistan-Afghanistan border area," he said.
"We have not devoted the kind of resources to it that is necessary. I know what it takes. We built an intelligence structure, we built an entire organization overall in Iraq to conduct counterinsurgency operations. And it requires a significant commitment.
"We are now making that kind of commitment to Afghanistan, but we had not before."
The general added that strides have been made in the fight against terrorists.
"I think there's been progress overall over the course of the last year against al Qaeda," Petraeus said. "I think that in general its capability has diminished, but that's only, again, a relative judgment ... Al Qaeda does still have an ability there to carry out periodic horrific attacks, and so we must maintain the pressure on Al Qaeda wherever it is found."
CharlieKilo
01-11-10, 12:00
Be afraid, be very afraid!!!
Be afraid, be very afraid!!!
Why? According to you, terrorism isn't a real threat. It's just a conspiracy theory, right? :rolleyes:
CarlosDJackal
01-11-10, 13:49
This is like Deja Vu all over again. Didn't we take the same course-of-action after the USS Cole attack? Oh wait, we launched a few million dollars' worth of missiles at some milk factory and the desert. :rolleyes:
Iraq Ninja
01-11-10, 15:26
Deja Vu of what people were saying about Iraq in 2006. They were wrong.
The troop surge may work in A Stan.
Belmont31R
01-11-10, 16:26
One the benefits of the way AQ operates. Its like playing whack-a-mole just with AQ being the moles and their holes being ME countries.
I suspect we'll be playing this 'game' for a long time to come. But doing little when a new mole pops up isn't going to solve anything.
CharlieKilo
01-11-10, 16:40
Al Qaeda is a CIA supported organization. Anytime I see the word Al Qaeda used, I simpy replace it with CIA or Pakistani ISI if that is your flavor.
Sure, there are some copy cat wannabe's out there. However, they don't have the means, funding, or organization to accomplish jack shit. Let alone present a real threat to the American mainland.
Do you think the sole reason there has not been another attack since 9/11 is because we have stopped all the attempts? You must be on some really good drugs to believe that to be the case.
Conspiracy isn't a theory, it is a crime. So enough with the Conspiracy theory BS...its a cop out term used by those who don't have a clue what they are talking about, and can only parrot what the talking heads told them on TV last night.
Al Qaeda is a CIA supported organization. Anytime I see the word Al Qaeda used, I simpy replace it with CIA or Pakistani ISI if that is your flavor.
Sure, there are some copy cat wannabe's out there. However, they don't have the means, funding, or organization to accomplish jack shit. Let alone present a real threat to the American mainland.
Do you think the sole reason there has not been another attack since 9/11 is because we have stopped all the attempts? You must be on some really good drugs to believe that to be the case.
Conspiracy isn't a theory, it is a crime. So enough with the Conspiracy theory BS...its a cop out term used by those who don't have a clue what they are talking about, and can only parrot what the talking heads told them on TV last night.
WOW! And how is it you know what your talking about, any proof of your claim? Please
Conspiracy theory BS
Wow! We actually agree on three words! :rolleyes:
Good, the last thing we need is a 3rd front.
Good, the last thing we need is a 3rd front.
A terrorist group should not be able to get away with attacking Americans. A failed attack is still an attack. Those behind the bomber must be dealt with.
A terrorist group should not be able to get away with attacking Americans. A failed attack is still an attack. Those behind the bomber must be dealt with.
Like weve dealt with OBL? We cant afford the 2 fronts we have now. Unless were doing it Entebbe style but I dont see that happening very much if at all. When does it stop? When we have entanglements in every country in the ME? Also, I would be willing to put money that Saudi Arabia puts more into terrorism than Yemen ($$$ which makes all their plots viable) why arent we rooting them out over there?
As AQ did not exist during the Afghan war, and the CIA, via the ISI, did not support Bin Laden, as they did seven groups during that war, the above poster is thoroughly full of shit.
As AQ did not exist during the Afghan war, and the CIA, via the ISI, did not support Bin Laden, as they did seven groups during that war, the above poster is thoroughly full of shit.
What the hell are you talking about? Whos talking about the Afghan war (I assume you mean the 80's vintage)? I meant how we are "dealing" with OBL now, and if we were to widen the GWOT to Yemen why we wouldnt still be there searching for those that backed the attacks almost 10 years later like we are still searching for that bastard.
GMZ, I was referring to CharlieKilo, not you. By the time I read the rest of the replies and wrote my piece I'd forgotten his name and just mentioned him being above me.
Belmont31R
01-11-10, 21:27
Like weve dealt with OBL? We cant afford the 2 fronts we have now. Unless were doing it Entebbe style but I dont see that happening very much if at all. When does it stop? When we have entanglements in every country in the ME? Also, I would be willing to put money that Saudi Arabia puts more into terrorism than Yemen ($$$ which makes all their plots viable) why arent we rooting them out over there?
We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.
Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.
Sending troops to fight AQ in Yemen would have no effect at all. Sure, we may kill a few but our mere presence would generate more jihadis than we could eliminate. We have to get past the notion we are fighting a force that can be beaten on a battlefield, we aren't, we are fighting an idea. It is going to take much more more than a few sporadic and ineffective troop deployments to defeat an idea because we are not prepared to go to the lengths required to defeat this belief system militarily.
GMZ, I was referring to CharlieKilo, not you. By the time I read the rest of the replies and wrote my piece I'd forgotten his name and just mentioned him being above me.
No sweat, you had me scratching my head for a minute there.
We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.
Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.
I wouldnt say 10 (dont think our mil could handle it, not on the scale of Iraq/A-Stan)but I agree we could afford more than 2, but we wont cut social programs to fund more fronts. I think we should cut both to avoid squandering a generation worth of wealth but thats another thread.
Sending troops to fight AQ in Yemen would have no effect at all. Sure, we may kill a few but our mere presence would generate more jihadis than we could eliminate. We have to get past the notion we are fighting a force that can be beaten on a battlefield, we aren't, we are fighting an idea. It is going to take much more more than a few sporadic and ineffective troop deployments to defeat an idea because we are not prepared to go to the lengths required to defeat this belief system militarily.
Precisely, Israel has been dealing with this for how long?
CharlieKilo
01-12-10, 10:23
As AQ did not exist during the Afghan war, and the CIA, via the ISI, did not support Bin Laden, as they did seven groups during that war, the above poster is thoroughly full of shit.
You are right about Al Qaeda not existing during the Afghan war with the Russians. At that time it was the Mujahideen. It is that overall group that morphed in to what everyone believes is AQ. That said, the Mujahideen were trained by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission). His intelligence ties run deep.
That said, OBL is absolutely a CIA asset, at this point I don't see how anyone can question that.
Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 (http://freedomforthepeople.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/former-fbi-translator-bin-laden-worked-for-u-s-right-up-until-911/)
You can believe whatever the hell you want...the facts are not dependent on your understanding of them.
CharlieKilo
01-12-10, 10:30
We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.
Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.
What? You can't be serious. I mean sure, we can borrow money infinitely from the FED as long as they allow us, but that is far from affording shit.
The Bush Admin spent $1+ Trillion (More money than all other administrations previously combined) during its term...I can assure you this is not because Social Security payments went up.
The Obama Admin has probably already spent that and then some.
Fuzzy math?
rickrock305
01-12-10, 12:03
We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.
Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.
WRONG
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama had requested. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40-50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Off topic, but is anyone else bothered that we spend our largest percentage of federal funds on health care? Are we really that sickly as a nation?
Seems to me it's only going to get worse. :(
WRONG
Uhh, you just proved your self wrong there buddy. He said SS vs Iraq, not SS vs the entire defense budget. I lump Medicare/Medicaid along with SS as a social program, add in interest and it is 54% and thus a majority.
Off topic, but is anyone else bothered that we spend our largest percentage of federal funds on health care? Are we really that sickly as a nation?
Seems to me it's only going to get worse. :(
Not really sick, we are attempting to halt nature's way by trying to keep old people from dying. People get old, they get sick, and then die. Trying to keep the boomers alive may just about bankrupt us, which is why they want the healthy youths to subsidize the boomers care by paying the same premiums.
CharlieKilo
01-12-10, 15:14
A White House spokesman said the Iraq war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007 and could potentially reach $3 Trillion including factors such as future disability payments for injured veterans, interest payments on money borrowed to finance the war, and the costs resulting from disrupted oil markets.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.