• Yemen
    Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
    Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has emerged as one of the most dangerous al-Qaeda affiliates, strengthening amid political unrest in Yemen. 
  • Yemen
    Nine Months of Coalition Air Strikes Against the Islamic State
    Today marks the nine month anniversary since the start of the U.S.-led air campaign, later named Operation Inherent Resolve, against the self-declared Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. The air war, which Secretary of State John Kerry then described as definitively not a war, but rather “a heightened level of counterterrorism operation,” shows no sign of ending. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin told the House Armed Services Committee in March, “The enemy is now in a ‘defensive crouch,’ and is unable to conduct major operations.” The Pentagon has released a series of maps that purportedly detail the loss of territory under control by IS. However, the number and competence of Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces required to ultimately defeat IS militants on the ground, and then control, secure, and administer newly freed territory, are lacking. In an unnoticed indicator found in the prepared testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, two U.S. Air Force lieutenant generals acknowledged: “These combat operations are expected to continue long-term (3+ years).”   U.S. officials have gone to great lengths to emphasize the contribution of coalition members in conducting airstrikes against IS, and, in September, even refused to expand the scope of its targets until those partners publicly committed their support.  It is no surprise, given its vastly larger and more proficient aerial capabilities, that the United States has been the primary source of all airstrikes against IS, even while the number of participating militaries has increased from nine to twelve since September. The table below breaks down coalition support for the 3,731 air strikes. One concern relayed to me from CENTCOM officials was that the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen would cause the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) coalition members to redirect their combat sorties from bombing IS toward striking Houthi militants in Yemen. It appears that this concern has not yet become a reality. Between March 25, when the GCC intervention in Yemen began, and May 7, a total of 791 airstrikes were conducted in Iraq and Syria, 74 percent by the United States and 26 percent by coalition members, according to data provided to me by the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR). This is a slightly increased contribution from non-U.S. coalition members. It is possible that the slight increase in coalition contributions since March 25 reflects Canada’s April 8 decision to expand its kinetic operations into Syria—becoming the only other country, besides the United States, to do so. As of May 5, Canada had conducted 564 sorties by CF-188 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft. However, the Canadian military does not disclose how many of those sorties resulted in the actual dropping of bombs, so the percentage of overall coalition airstrikes that it is responsible for cannot be attributed. Meanwhile, the U.S. military has documented that lots of people and things are being destroyed. For a military that often claims it does not do “body counts,” it has done so repeatedly. Most recently, General Austin declared in March that 8,500 IS militants had been killed. The Pentagon lists more than 6,000 IS targets as having been destroyed. Most notably, CENTCOM press releases indicate that more than 500 “excavators” have been destroyed—as if IS is the world’s first terrorist landscaping company. All of this destruction is coming at a direct cost to taxpayers of an estimated $2.11 billion, or $8.6 million per day. How this open-ended air war will shift when the United States begins providing close air support for trained Syrian rebels in a few months is unknowable.
  • Iraq
    Weekend Reading: Migrants and Libya?, Taking Tikrit, and Escaping Yemen
    Issandr El Amrani argues that a strong, stable Libya would not solve the migration problems in the Mediterranean. The editors at the Middle East Research and Information Project urge for a humanitarian corridor for foreign nationals and Yemenis to escape Yemen. Arash Reisinezhad discusses how recent advances in Tikrit are a victory for Iran.
  • Iraq
    Weekend Reading: Overplaying Sectarianism in Yemen, Iraqi Cinema, and Peacemaking in Oman
    Abubakr al-Shamahi’s blog post on the misuse of the terms “Sunni” and “Shia” in the context of Yemen remains as pertinent today as it was when he published it a year ago. Omar al-Jaffal finds that young film directors in Iraq are breathing new life into Iraqi cinema. Guy Taylor argues that Oman is well-suited to be the Middle East’s prime peacemaker.
  • United States
    Yemen: The Worst Reason for War
    The excellent New York Times journalists David K. Kirkpatrick and Kareem Fahim have an article tacking stock of the nine-day old Saudi-led air campaign against Houthi and Houthi-affiliated fighting forces in Yemen. On the evening of the first airstrikes, the White House revealed that the United States was aiding this intervention: “President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]-led military operations.” Unclear as to why the Obama administration hastily and enthusiastically endorsed and supported the air campaign, I wrote a piece analyzing the justifications that U.S. officials were offering (I counted seven). Most disturbing were two acknowledgments by Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command—the geographic region containing the Persian Gulf. First, he said, “I don’t currently know the specific goals and objectives of the Saudi campaign, and I would have to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success.” Austin also admitted when asked when he learned of the intervention, “I had a conversation with the CHOD [the Saudi Chief of Defense] right before they took action, so it was shortly before.” So the military commander responsible for providing the logistical and intelligence support to the intervention did not know its goals or objectives, and only learned of it right before it began. It was with this background and understanding of the air campaign so far that I then came across this passage in Kirkpatrick and Fahim’s article this morning: American officials said they supported the Saudi campaign mainly because of a lack of alternatives. “If you ask why we’re backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have been allies for a long time, the answer you’re going to get from most people—if they were being honest—is that we weren’t going to be able to stop it,” said an American defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was discussing internal government deliberations. “If the Saudis were willing to step in, the thinking was that they should be encouraged,” the official said. “We were not going to send our military, that’s for certain.” So if the United States cannot stop a misguided intervention by its partners into a proxy civil war ten thousand kilometers away, the only alternative is to join them? Surely the unnamed Pentagon official is aware that the intervention is directly at odds with other, allegedly more pressing, U.S. foreign policy interests in the region: making Yemen an even more unstable country, as evidenced by the prison break that included members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and assuredly diverting the already meager GCC air assets participating in the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Rather, since the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen was inevitable, America’s support for it was predetermined. This is especially puzzling since none of the countries bombing Yemen are mutual defense treaty allies with the United States, so there is no obligation, even under the most tortured self-defense justification, to support them. Moreover, even when allies undertake foreign military misadventures, that should not mean that U.S. support is mandatory. In 1974, when Turkey invaded Cyprus, President Richard Nixon was surprised but provided no support and, in 1982,  when the United Kingdom went to war with Argentina over the Falklands Islands, President Ronald Reagan remained neutral. Quotes by anonymous officials are not formal policy declarations, but they often accurately capture the honest thinking of those who work to develop and implement foreign policy. Recall the “presidential advisor” who, in the New Yorker, admiringly described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” The defense official quoted above has articulated a far more troubling doctrine of America being led into war by a nervous Gulf monarchy, and the White House lacking the agency to do anything about it, other than to climb on board and offer the unmatched U.S. military enabling support for this war. Finally, this intervention is going terribly based upon all of the courageous reporting from those in the country. Per usual, the victims of the war will be innocent non-combatants. Just this morning, UN under secretary-general for humanitarian affairs Valerie Amos released a statement warning: “Reports from humanitarian partners in different parts of the country indicate that some 519 people have been killed and nearly 1,700 injured in the past two weeks–over 90 of them children.” Why did the White House so eagerly sign up to back the Saudi-led intervention that has such unclear goals and is causing such obvious destruction and death?
  • Yemen
    Weekend Reading: Wahhabism and ISIS, the Yemeni State, and the State of Yemen
    Lorenzo Kamel examines how the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia attempts to differentiate itself from the ideology of ISIS. Jay Ulfelder finds that recent events in Yemen challenges traditional conceptions of the state and the international system. Jadaliyya interviews Yemeni activist Hisham al-Omeisy about the unfolding situation in Yemen.
  • Yemen
    Who Are Yemen’s Houthis?
    The Houthi movement’s rapid ascent has created opportunities for al-Qaeda to expand and intensified the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, adding a sectarian dimension to Yemen’s turbulence, says expert April Longley Alley.
  • Iraq
    Weekend Reading: Kurds in ISIS, Houthis in Sanaa, and Netanyahu in Washington
    Rebecca Collard reports on Kurdish men who have joined ISIS and attacked their own people. Nabeel Khoury looks at who the Houthis are, their ambitions, and the options before them. Michael Koplow reflects on U.S.-Israeli relations in light of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress.
  • Global
    The World Next Week: February 5, 2015
    Podcast
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel visits the United States; the UN Security Council takes up Yemen's future; and the G20 finance ministers meet in Istanbul.
  • Yemen
    Weekend Reading: After the Uprisings, Egypt’s Despotism, and Yemen’s Meltdown
    Karl Sharro presents a satirically “simple” diagram of the Arab uprisings and their aftermath. Amro Ali looks at how the citizen contributes to the sustainability of despotism in Egypt. Susanne Dahlgren investigates the Yemeni hirak, the movement seeking to restore independence to southern Yemen.
  • Terrorism and Counterterrorism
    Weekend Reading: The Classics And The Middle East, ISIS vs. AQAP, and How Jihadi Groups Make Law
    Andrew Gilmour argues that the study of classics is useful to understanding contemporary power struggles in the modern Middle East. Cole Bunzel discusses the rivalry between ISIS and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) playing out in Yemen. Mara Revkin explores lawmaking among jihadi groups.
  • Algeria
    Weekend Reading: Algeria’s Police Protest, Yemen’s Houthis Move In, and Egypt’s Liberals Explained
    Thomas Serres suggests that the recent police protests in Algeria demonstrate how Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s regime is “being inundated from all sides.” Fernando Carvajal reflects on the new power balance established by the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Nervana Mahmoud explores what makes Egypt’s liberals so seemingly illiberal.
  • Yemen
    Weekend Reading: Houthi Rebels, Orthodox Intelligence, and Combative Kurdish Women
    Abdul-Ghani Al-Iryani finds that Yemen is becoming polarized between the Shia Houthi rebels and the Sunni Islah Islamist party. J. J. Goldberg looks at the rising influence of the right in Israel’s security and intelligence agencies. Bilal Ahmed explores the media’s fascination with the female soldiers of the Kurdish Peshmerga.
  • Iraq
    Weekend Reading: On Being Jewish in Egypt, Iraq’s Militias, and What Just Happened in Yemen?
    An old one from Eric Rouleau, who reflects on his experiences as an Egyptian-Jewish journalist. Omar el-Jaffal examines the phenomenon of militias in Iraq and its implications on the Iraqi state. Atiaf Alwazir summarizes reactions to the recent takeover of the Yemeni capital Sanaa by Houthi fighters.
  • Yemen
    Countering Terrorism: An Institution-Building Approach for Yemen
    President Barack Obama's decision to resume repatriation efforts for Yemeni detainees held in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay presents a significant opportunity to strengthen the counterterrorism relationship between the United States and Yemen. As part of the repatriation effort, the United States should fund the establishment of a permanent terrorist rehabilitation institution in Yemen, providing a critical counterterrorism partner with a needed strategic capability to counter al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and forming the cornerstone of a strengthened intelligence-sharing relationship. While the center would initially be used to reduce the significant political and security risks of returning Guantanamo detainees, it could then serve to rehabilitate other Yemeni terrorism detainees, undermining AQAP and other militant groups threatening the security of the United States and Yemen. The Yemeni Dilemma Over 600 Guantanamo detainees have been repatriated or released, but 155 remain. The Guantanamo Periodic Review Board (PRB) determined that there is no longer a basis to hold fifty-five of the detainees from Yemen as enemy combatants and cleared them for release. Of the fifty-five detainees, there are thirty in "conditional detention." Statute prevents their transfer until the president certifies the security situation in Yemen is adequately stabilized, appropriate third-country resettlement options have been arranged, or a suitable rehabilitation program has been established. These detainees are not considered high-value detainees for intelligence purposes. The youngest Yemeni detainee is thirty-two, making indefinite detention a forty- to fifty-year proposition. The PRB determination strengthens the possibility of these detainees eventually prevailing in federal courts, forcing their release or transfer under potentially less-than-ideal terms. Resettling the Yemeni detainees in third countries would complicate reintegration and raise the risk of recidivism, which the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) assessed to be more than 25 percent for released Guantanamo detainees. Resettlement would shift this security risk to those countries—a risk few are likely to accept. The continued detention of the Yemeni detainees is straining the relationship with Yemen and is allowing al-Qaeda to delegitimize the Unites States' counterterrorism efforts. However, the recidivism risk involved with their repatriation is particularly acute in Yemen, home of AQAP, al-Qaeda's most active affiliate. The failed "underwear bomber" in 2009 and two subsequent attempted attacks on U.S.-bound cargo flights highlight AQAP's desire to strike the U.S. homeland. AQAP also radicalizes extremists in English-speaking countries through its online magazine, Inspire. Different Approaches to Risk Mitigation This recidivism risk could be reduced through different mitigation strategies, including rehabilitation, parole, and post-release monitoring. Some terrorist rehabilitation programs have focused on deradicalization, a process designed to change individuals' political or religious beliefs through dialog as a means to convince them to abandon terrorism. Other programs emphasize demobilization, a system of incentives and disincentives to convince subjects to abandon violence. Deradicalization and demobilization are not mutually exclusive rehabilitative approaches and are often used simultaneously. Parole places various conditions on the subject as a condition for release with the consequence of incarceration for violating them. Post-release monitoring can include overt meetings and clandestine surveillance to determine if the subject is meeting the terms of parole, recommits terrorist acts, or associates with terrorists. Various countries employed combinations of risk-mitigation approaches in a variety of settings, including prisons, halfway houses, military detention centers, and noncustodial settings. For example, the Pakistani military ran a deradicalization program in the Swat Valley to counter the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Indonesia's police-run deradicalization approach includes sentence reduction and financial assistance. In Yemen, the Political Security Office (PSO) used religious scholars in a prison-based program to deradicalize detainees. Post-release, the National Security Bureau (NSB) monitored the detainees, typically for only about a year. Saudi Arabia uses a model similar to halfway houses in criminal justice systems. The center encourages parolees to publicly renounce al-Qaeda, placing them at odds with the terrorist groups and keeping the detainees dependent on the security services, making them easier to monitor when released. The Early Release Scheme (ERS) in Northern Ireland was a group demobilization approach in which imprisoned terrorists were paroled on the condition that all paroled members would be reincarcerated if their group carried out a terrorist attack. Colombia's reincorporation program operated in a noncustodial setting and allowed individual paramilitaries to leave the conflict with amnesty and financial incentives. Assessing the recidivism rate for rehabilitation programs is difficult. Yemen asserted a 2 percent recidivism rate for the 364 detainees who went through its deradicalization program. Despite its claimed success, the program has not been active since 2005. Similarly, Saudi Arabia claims its program has a recidivism rate of 2 to 3 percent, but concedes that the recidivism rate for Saudi former Guantanamo detainees was about 8 percent. This outcome still compares favorably to the recidivism rate experienced with other Guantanamo detainees. These claims are hard to verify, as they are self-reported by the government agencies running the programs and based on intelligence with significant gaps. However, the ERS is independently monitored. Of the 450 prisoners who participated, only 16 were rearrested for terrorism-related activity. Recommendations The only viable option for the Yemeni detainees who have been cleared for release is to repatriate them; however, this process should be done in a manner that minimizes the risk to the United States and Yemen. While reducing the recidivism risk to zero is impossible, the most promising risk-mitigation program would include rehabilitation, strict post-release parole, and a rigorous post-release monitoring plan. The State Department should allocate International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funds to establish and operate a permanent rehabilitation institution in Yemen. Based on the cost of the Saudi program, the estimated cost for initial build-out and three years of operating funds is roughly $26 million. In comparison, the United States spends over $454 million annually to run the Guantanamo detention center. An effective risk-mitigation initiative would include the following features: A permanent institution. The objective of rehabilitation should be to transition the detainees from long-term detention at Guantanamo into Yemeni society, making the halfway house model the most apt. The PSO should establish and administer a terrorist rehabilitation center that utilizes both deradicalization and individual demobilization approaches. Although security will be the PSO's responsibility, the center should be staffed with religious, psychological, and social-services experts from outside of government. As in the Saudi center, religious scholars should be used to deradicalize detainees. As part of the demobilization effort, the center would provide financial payments, family counseling, mental health services, basic education, and job assistance. Detainees would stay at the center for a minimum of three months prior to being paroled. After the Guantanamo detainees complete the program, Yemen would then use the center to rehabilitate and reintegrate its other Yemeni terrorism detainees, hundreds of whom are in custody. Measureable outcomes. Prior to being paroled from the rehabilitation center, PSO officials would have to certify the detainee successfully met standards measuring the likelihood of violence and of successful reintegration into society. Detainees' public renouncement of terrorism would be one such factor and should be used as part of Yemen's strategic-messaging campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. ODNI would produce an annual report using qualitative and quantitative measures assessing the recidivism of the former detainees including those in rehabilitation or on parole. The classified report should include an unclassified annex for public dissemination. Rigorous post-release monitoring and parole procedures. Yemen should closely monitor the detainees via physical surveillance, home visits, and meetings with security services. The duration of the monitoring would be based on a risk assessment conducted jointly by the NSB and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As a form of group demobilization, the detainees' tribal elders would be required to sign parole agreements acknowledging the parolees' obligation not to commit terrorist acts or join militant groups. The PSO would provide funds to tribal leaders to encourage compliance and provide intelligence. A detainee's failure to meet the terms of the parole would result in the cessation of financial assistance to the accountable elders and would subject the former detainee to incarceration or military action by Yemen or the United States. An ongoing intelligence-sharing relationship. The CIA should bolster Yemen's counterterrorism capabilities by providing the PSO and NSB with technical and paramilitary assistance (if required). In return, the PSO and NSB should regularly share intelligence on former detainees, including their status in the program, the level of monitoring, and any indications of terrorist activity. In addition, human intelligence gathered from former detainees, tribal elders, and family members would aid Yemen and the United States in undermining AQAP and other militant groups. A Significant Opportunity AQAP poses a significant security threat to the United States. While it is in the United States' interest to repatriate the Yemeni detainees who have already been cleared for release, it must do so in a manner that does not strengthen AQAP, and ideally weakens it. Critics may argue that the security risks of repatriation outweigh the gains, but there are no viable alternatives. The most promising strategy to reduce the risk of recidivism is for Yemen to combine multiple risk-reduction approaches utilized by other countries. By repatriating Yemeni nationals while aiding in the efforts to minimize the risk they pose, the Unites States has the opportunity to strengthen the counterterrorism relationship between the two countries by providing funding and security assistance in return for human intelligence.