E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWatch Al Qaeda in Yemen on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Al-Qaida and its allies remain entrenched in parts of Yemen despite a stepped-up campaign of drone strikes and a U.S.-backed offensive to remove the Islamist militants from the country, according to a new documentary.
PBS' Frontline aired 'Al-Qaida in Yemen' on Tuesday night. It showed the militants' black flag flying over Yemeni towns that appeared to be under complete control of Ansar al-Sharia, a local branch of the terror group that formed in 2011.
Al-Qaida minders escorted journalists through the Ansar al-Sharia's strongholds of Jaar and Azzan, showing them poor and war-torn but seemingly functioning towns.
Report: Obama backs disputed definition of 'civilian' in drone wars
"Now we are in a city, it is a natural city, people are living in the city, having the normal life," journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad said in Jaar. "Yet at the same time this is al-Qaida. And they just control a whole city."
'Puppet' and 'Stooge': al-Qaida chief al-Zawahiri issues message on Yemen
The journalists also interviewed refugees who had fled fighting between militants and the army.
EPA, file
A member of militant group Ansar al-Sharia stands next to an al-Qaida flag at a checkpoint in the southern town of Azzan, Yemen, on March 31.
One woman who left her home with her family because of the clashes, wiped away tears and said: "The army and security forces made it worse instead of protecting us."
Al-Qaida-linked militants seized large swathes of territory in southern Yemen last year as then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh grappled with protesters demanding his overthrow. Saleh quit last November in favor of his deputy, Abd-Rabbu Hadi Mansour.
'Massacre': At least 90 killed as bomber targets parade rehearsal in Yemen
The United States and its Gulf Arab allies have watched with mounting alarm as security deteriorates in Yemen, home to al-Qaida's Arabian Peninsula wing (AQAP), which Washington views as a serious threat.
"We consider that al-Qaida presents a very significant challenge," U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein told Frontline.
A suicide bomber blew himself up at a military parade rehearsal in Yemen's capital, killing more than 90 soldiers. Msnbc.com's Dara Brown reports.
"For the first time we see al-Qaida trying to hold territory," which is a departure from what the militant group had done in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa, he added.
More than 30 Yemeni troops killed in militant attack
American and Yemeni pressure may be having an impact, however. The Yemeni army said on Monday it had made some progress in the fight against the militants, according to the Yemen Times. The newspaper also said that the military had rejected a ceasefire offer from Ansar al-Sharia.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Greek tragedy: Economic crisis sparks brain drain
- US expels Syria diplomat after UN finds Houla victims were 'executed'
- UN agency appoints Mugabe as a 'leader for tourism'
- Teenager allegedly held as slave in Bosnia for years
- Britain's PM eats humble pie over snack tax
- At least 16 killed in 5.8-magnitude earthquake in Italy
- Brother of doctor who worked with CIA in bin Laden hunt seeks US protection
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
These dirty terrorists must be stopped! Places like Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc DO NOT REPRESENT ISLAM! Please dont think MY religion has ANYTHING TO DO with this!
Dubai and USA forever!
How would you propose to do that?
I have an idea. How about universal respect for each other. You know, what every religion teaches. But then again that is not going to happen. But then again that's what we all, (religious or not) "pretend" to believe.
no Kidding they are in Yemen, guess we have already forgotten what happened to the Cole in 2000..
obama hasn't forgotten. He's increased military assistance to yemen to fight these guys.
Screw the drones, send in a cruise missile and take out the whole city at once. You'll have collateral damage but a lot less than they create.
"a" cruise missile? won't take out a city. you mean a bunch of them and wipe a city off the face of the earth, with every man, woman, and child?
would that be in the name of american and christian values?
By their actions you will know them
Did that headline say Yemen or Chicago? I already forgot. Chicago murders are up 50% this year. So there have been 200 murders and thousands of shootings (10 to 1 to 100 to 1). Chicago has strong gun control laws even though the Supreme Court shut them down. That means only terrorists have guns, e.g., Democrat Drug Gangs. The victims are mostly Black with some Hispanic. Same with the perps. At least one innocent child goes down to murder each week. You would think that Al Qaeda is running amok in Chicago. But know, it is not Al Qaeda. It is little Obamas, drug users who order assassinations. That wasn't fair. Most of the murderers aren't little. But they brag at their initiation killing just like Barack did. Why hasn't Jess Jackson and Al Sharpton come to Chicago to stop the terrorism? Because the only way to stop it is to take out Black drug gang members with deadly force. No Democrat wants to stop the contributions to Obama's campaign!
If Al Quada owns the city, and inhabits the city, then the solution sounds simple. Obliterate the city.
Genocide is so easy. War crimes are so easy.
Let me guess: Will you commit them, or will you allow someone else the burden of murder?
I retired from the Army in 09, but if they would let me launch the missles, I would be glad to put my uniform back on, just for the occasion. Answer your question?
D McMillen
Is that so you could “pleasure” yourself as you watched it strike or because you lost any concept of humanity during your service?
@"the dead", neither. A similar question could be asked about the bombing of Japan in WW II. Too many of ours have died because of these people, including those in a couple of buildings in New York that you all seem to have forgotten about. I would consider it an honor to take out an entire town of Al Queda. What do you think, they are just going to leave us alone if we leave? Times have changed my friend. And I can tell that you have never been in a combat zone when you joke about masturbating during a missle strike. Only a young homo would even envision that.
D McMillen
Actually a similar question was asked about WW2, and the strategic bombing, and I also find it fitting that the people who did suffer strategic bombing and atrocities on their civilians tend to take the view of "never again" whereas the people who didn't (mostly Americans) take the view that it's ok. Of course what makes that really funny is people like you then have the nerve of accusing others of being barbaric animals. As for what I think about what they will do well, I think that we should respond with restraint, and intelligence, that by bombing a city of hundreds of people (as you have said you'd do) will do nothing but cause more bloodshed in the long run. I also think that if we are truly to hurt Al-Qaeda then we need to attack their wallets and attack them in the "moral realm" and show the world that A their arguments are false (one of their arguments being that the US is out to destroy Islam, so bombing a city full of Muslims like you advocate would just give their arguments weight) B show that they are not a group to be feared (something America has failed to do) and C show people that we offer a better way of living (So democracy/capitalism vs Islamic fundamentalism)
Finally you are right I have never been in a combat zone but I have family members (and family friends who have) and have seen the pictures and statistics of all kinds of things like Hiroshima and Dresden I guess unlike you I took the lesson that they are not things to be repeated.
Ps Young Homo? Lol that's funny, as in fact a person masturbating over pictures of death, destruction and suffering would more defined as a sexual sadist as opposed to a homo, and when people come out with statements like "Obliterate the city" and "if they would let me launch the missiles, I would be glad to" I tend to view that as an admittance to being a sexual sadist after all its surly not logic, or compassion that's motivating you there is it?
Kid, I'm not even gonna debate with you. You seem to think it's like a video game or movie, and it's not. It's because we have men and women with the guts to do the hard things and make the tough choices that you get to sit in your safe little liberal hideaway and make moral judgements. And your restraint and intelligence, that worked wonders for dealing with Hitler didn't it? It's called appeasement, and it's what appeals to people like you, because you can walk away and feel all giddy about yourselves. Reality isn't fun, and it isn't a safe college philosophy class room. Your opinion is yours, but if you got around a group of servicepeople, you would definitely be told to "sit down and shut the F**K up"
D McMillen
Dam straight you won’t debate with me because you will lose. Your advocating total war, which is something that all civilized countries have wanted to avoid since 1945, and I’m not advocating appeasement (although I can see how someone with your mind-set would think it I am) I’m advocating intelligence and restraint as this whole “kill em all” attitude you have will do nothing but win you more enemies in a generation or two (oh but you don’t care about that, huh?) so maybe you and the group of “service people” you know would be better in “sitting down and shutting the F*#K up” and letting those of us who care about long term results get on with the dealing with the problem
That's just it, you have no solution. Just a bunch of feel good bull@!$%#. And you don't try to win more enemies with the muslims. They have a religious doctrine to do this for you. I know, you want to sit down with Al Queda and have some rational discussion, maybe chat about things at home, and growing up. Like I said kid, this isn't college.
Lol I thought you wasn’t going to debate? Ha and I never said I was against military force against Al-Qaeda, nor do I want to negotiate with them, I just don’t believe this very gun ho (video game/movie) mentality of “let’s kill a city full of people just because Al-Qaeda is there” is A rational nor B helpful in solving the problem. As for your point about Muslims well congratulations you have just given Bin-Laden what he wanted, Al-Qaeda wants Americans to advocate suspicion and extreme action against Muslims as it will help unify Muslims against the US after all nothing brings people together then the idea that someone else is trying to wipe them all out (just ask Israel) As for my solution well you’ll have to forgive me if it’s not perfect but I am just a student, but I say to use force only when necessary and to temper such force with restraint and intelligence, bombing cites indiscriminately (as you advocated) does nothing but further fuel the conflict and as such is counter-productive. Therefore it would be much better to engage in A Targeted killings (with either drones or spec ops) B supplying foreign governments with the intelligence and means to combat Al-Qaeda at home without taking credit for it (and by “means” I mean weapons and training whilst being verified) but not to pressure (at least overtly) said countries to engage such militant groups if it’s not in their best interests to do so, and C doing more in the technological, financial and social realms to combat Al-Qaeda (so freezing the assets of the Bin-laden group, Hacking Al-Qaeda websites that kind of thing) which I know won’t be as camera friendly as blowing up a city full of people but will most likely have better long term results.
So there’s my take. What’s your solution besides the indiscriminate bombing of cites?
I never said indiscriminate. The target is a city that is basically all Al Aqueda. Surgical strikes sound good in movies and video games, but are much harder to pull off in practice. The can't operate with impunity, and rely, at least spec ops, on having a significant force on ground. Most Special Forces troops operate more on trying to set up a resistance movement within a population. That is not very possible in that environment. The Seal Team Six type exploit is kind of a rare mission. Drone strikes rely on a physical presence to ascertain targets and for logistical reasons, and they are nowhere near as surgical as you are led to believe. your plan B is already happening and has for decades. You can't do it without taking credit because of a little thing called a congressional oversight committee, which prevents the Executive Branch from doing things too much on their own, and even harder now because of transparency issues. C. Bin Laden's assets have been frozen here for some time, he relys on sympathetic governments whom we also cater to, and to private individuals. Because of the climate of "no discrimination" here, there is a major crap storm every time we shut down a muslim "benevolent fund" here, even though many end up showing ties to sending money to known terrorist affiliated organizations. If we are going to stay in Afghanistan, which I don't think we should because Pakistan is double agenting us, hard hits on any great encampment of known or suspected terrorists is the most effective way to go. There will be civilian casualties, even your drone strikes cause those, but it will make cities think twice about becoming safe harbours. As far as uniting Muslims against us, that has been going on for a long time already. You can't do anything about that. It used to not be such a big issue, there weren't too many on American soil, but now there are a significant number of them, and they are using our reluctance to discriminate against us. And that is my take.
D McMillen
Never said indiscriminate? Well “obliterate the city” sounds pretty indiscriminative to me, and just because surgical strikes are difficult doesn’t mean we should favour a simpler “bomb em all approach” after all we do have the time to do plan (so gather resources, intelligence and so on) in this conflict as both sides are pretty much preparing for a long war (after all the Cold War took over 40 years to win) plus whilst I know a big part of Spec Ops missions involve setting ups resistance movements (something not really needed in Yemen as the government is resisting Al-Qaeda there) it is also used to carry raids and assassinations (well England’s SAS is and I’m sure the US has a spec ops team that can do the same) which is more the policy I favour. As for taking credit I don’t mean taking credit for sending them weapons, or other materials of war I mean taking credit by saying that “we are protecting them” or “they’d be under the rule of a tyrant if it wasn’t for US” or other bulls#*t the media and many of its readers come up with on here, you know taking the credit for the actual fighting done by them just because they did it with US weapons.
Also when I talk about Bin-Laden’s assets I didn’t just mean his, I meant the Bin-Laden Group (so his entire extended family) which I admit would never happen as George Bush was/is a close friend of the family, but still it was more of an example, as the idea would be to freeze the assets of organisations that we can prove (in a court of law)are providing money to terrorists, that groups like CAIR would kick up is not really a problem as they will only resist if there is any doubt about whether or not said organisation is providing funding, furthermore this policy would need to be integrated with almost every law enforcement agency (so FBI, DEA, State Police, ect) as many terrorist cells make large amounts of their money from crime too (drugs and prostitution from Mexico ect)we also need to hack their websites and other such things to prevent them from spreading their message and call to extremism (or even just to help locate where the websites handlers are so they can be investigated).
“Hard hits against cities” as you put it I don’t think would be that effective in making anyone think twice after all look at how these terrorist groups come into these cities, they usually do it during a time of chaos (like Hamas did) proceed to win some gratitude by providing some form of stability (again Hamas and even Al-Qaeda in this article) and security and then set themselves up as a form of government (so Hamas, tribal areas of Pakistan, these cities in Yemen) now I’m willing to bet that most people in these cities don’t care about politics, they just want some stability so they can continue with their lives (just like every place) as such by hitting their city and killing large numbers of them in air raids you don’t convince them to rebel, you just convince them that they need the protection of the group that is in charge (after all 9/11 didn’t convince the US public to get rid of the US government did it?) so in this case we’d be better of helping the Yemeni military re-establish a presence in those cities by providing them with intelligence and other materialistic aid as needed. Oh and if you still need convincing that hard hits against cities won’t work just look at WW2 as both British and German cities were bombed to rubble yet both sides continued fighting, and most of the evidence indicates that the bombing of civilian centres just increased the desire to fight back as opposed to breaking their will to fight.
Finally in regards to Muslims, if you truly believe that all Muslims are against us then that is up to you but from my own experience with them (my city has about 60,000 of a pop of 172,000 living here last time I heard) I haven’t experienced anything to convince me that A they are all unified in their ideas, B, all want to conquer or destroy the west or C consider the US an enemy, however I will say that many of them (or at least the consensus I got) are tired of the suspicion, tired of all the “lets nuke em all” attitude and tired of being told that their religion (which is a fundamental part of their identity) is evil and that hey should go back to their own country (that part really annoys the younger ones as many of them were born here) so it occurs to me that we can do something about it but it’ll take time, maybe even generations indeed going back to the cold war I’m sure people were saying, “ahh but those eastern Europeans (so not Russians but states in the USSR) hate us and will never want peace with us” yet now most of them are (to different degrees) capitalist democracies.