Air strikes in Yemen kill 40 al Qaeda militants in two days
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - Air strikes in southern Yemen killed about 30 suspected al Qaeda members on Sunday, local tribal sources said, in the second day of strikes against militant targets in the country.
On Saturday an air strike killed 10 al Qaeda militants and three civilians in central Yemen, a country that neighbors top oil exporter Saudi Arabia and is home to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), one of the group's most lethal wings.
The defense ministry said Sunday's early strikes targeted a remote mountainous region of the south. Its website quoted an official source on the High Security Committee as saying that they were based on information that "terrorist elements were planning to target vital civilian and military installations".
Similar wording was used to justify Saturday's strike, in which three nearby civilians were also killed.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-yemen-violence-idUSBREA3J0K420140420
Sunday's strikes are new developments. Earlier DU LBN threads:
Unsettling video shows large al Qaeda meeting in Yemen Wed Apr 16, 2014, 02:16 AM
US Drone Obliterates Civilians in Yemen - Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:48 PM
= new reply since forum marked as read
Sometimes it's good old fashioned infiltration and set ups and police raids.
Remember, ordinary COPS got this guy in his bed...
In these strikes any male between the ages of 12 and 70 are classified as "Terrorists". The only civilians admitted to are children under 12, women and men over age 70 (and if there is any doubt, the dead are assumed to be males between the ages of 12 and 70).
The problem with such killings is all their other relatives end up wanting revenge, thus they join the real terrorists. This not only includes males between the ages of 12 and 70, but women and men over the age of 70 (and some children under the age of 12, revenge is a great desire when you are the one whose relative is killed).
The thrusts of these attacks, are like the Phoenix program in Vietnam, to kill off local political leaders who oppose the US forces in the region, hoping they will be replaced by someone who is less opposed to the US forces in the area. This some times work, but more often they not even greater opponents of the US forces in the area gain control, thus forcing another killing to kill these new leaders off, hoping this time more pro US leaders get a chance to take over the local group (In Vietnam, it was the leadership of the local villages, in Afghanistan/Pakistan it appears to be control of the local Clan, or Tribe).
Remember, the Afghan area is more Tribal then national in nature. i.e. To most people in that area, what their tribe whats to do is more important then what the Afghanistan or Pakistan Government wants. Worse, these tribes are more loss language/Blood groups then the more structured tribes of Iraq and Arabia. Thus you do NOT have a true Tribal leaders, but local subgroups leaders built around blood and marriage ties (and often reinforced by having most people marry their cousins, the norm outside of the "Christian West"
.
Thus marriage, is one way to further unite various parts of one family. While most religions ban marrying one's sibling, the marriage of cousins in a common way for extended families to stay united. i.e. both spouses support group are the same people, for they share the same cousins. In Afghanistan marrying cousins concentrates the family as to who is a family member and thus must be avenged. This also brings together various males who are close relatives to each other, and thus often targets of drones. Thus we often end up recruiting more soldiers for groups that oppose US intervention by killing such people.
Side note: I use the term "Christian West" for one of the things the Catholic and Orthodox Churches did between the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (around 450 AD) and the Reformation (Around 1519), is to make the marriage of cousins a violation of Church Doctrine and STOPPED it from being the norm in most areas that were between 450 AD and 1519 AD classified as "Christian".
In the Reformation, this rule was dismissed as a creation of the Catholic Church, so among Protestants it was NEVER the rule, but while it was NOT a Religious Rule, by the time of the Reformation marrying cousins had become rare in such Protestants Countries, so rare that it never made a come back except in certain families when were noted for it. With the French Revolution and the adoption of the Napoleonic code which did NOT make it illegal to marry cousins, most of Europe and Latin American dropped any legal ban on such marriages, but the Catholic Church maintained its opposition (This dropping of the ban on marrwas followed by Russia and the most of the Communists Block nations starting in 1918).
Thus, while rare in most of the "Christian West" it ceased to be illegal starting in the early 1500s. It is still illegal in several US States. Those states states genetic reasons for the ban, but if you look at the ban it traces back to the 1800s and a desire to prevent concentration of wealth, i.e. if families marry their cousins, the family wealth stays in the family, if someone marries outside the family, the family wealth goes outside and the family. While religious doctrine was the justification of Catholics and Orthodox to adopting the rule against marrying one's cousins, the real reason for the adoption was to prevent concentration of wealth. This appears to be the reason Communist China adopted it in 1981 (and such bans have been in and out of favor in China for over 1000 years, apparently to break up concentrations of wealth). Japan and Korea seems to have adopted similar rules, but at present it is legal to marry one's cousin in both nations.
India's rule is more complex, marrying one's cousins is illegal, unless by local custom or your religion it is permitted. Pakistan seems to follow Middle Eastern Rules, but with modification to show it is different then the Hindus in Northern India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
Thus, while it is NOT illegal in most of Europe and many US States (Through it is illegal is several US States to this day), marrying one's cousins is rare in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, North and South American and even parts of Africa. The level of Cousin's marrying in the Far East, is believed to be under reported, especially in China. On the other hand it is the common for people in the Middle East.
Just like the French did NOT cause the US Revolution by supporting people who wanted to separate the American Colonies from England. Now, the French did send in people to look over the Colonies, and give estimates of Military Strength (and gave arms starting in 1775 but secretly). That French support did NOT make the American Revolution, but did help it along.
The same with the Pakistan Intelligence Service, it helped the Taliban take over Afghanistan.
The Taliban stronghold, on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border is dominated by the Pashtuns, who make up anyway from 38-53% of the population of Afghanistan (exact number is unknown, no census has been taken in decades).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_people
2/3rds of all Pashtuns live in Pakistan, with only 1/3 in Afghanistan, thus the 38-52% of Afghans who are Pashtuns, make up only 1/3 of all Pashtans. The Pashtuns are concentrated along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, reaching upto Kabul.
Now, in Pakistan the Pashtuns live along the border between these two countries, countries they do not believe they are part of. Instead the Pashtuns see their fellow Pashtuns as they fellow citizens not the members of other tribes or other citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan. This common world view is what the Pakistan Intelligence Service took advantage of when it wanted to help stabilize Afghanistan. With the assistance of Pakistan, the Talibans slowly took over all the Pashtuns trible areas in the the Afghan South, then moved onto Kabul. They tactics were simple, infiltration and concentrating on tribal connections. This was successful till they entered that part of Afghanistan with the least Pashtuns. This region become the "Northern Alliance" who kept the Taliban out with the support of Russia.
It is interesting that the Taliban offensive STOPPED when they ran into an area with very few if any Pashtuns, You can blame this on the lack of Pakistan Intelligence, but it seems to be that the Taliban ran out of Pashtuns. Thus the Pushtans were the rock the Taliban were founded on and built on. The Pakistan Intelligence service may have had a hand in the formation of the Taliban, but from all accounts it is based on the Pashtun tribal group, and that makes it a native born organization.
As to the Pashtuns in Pakistan, they loyality to Pakistan is open to debate. The border is called the "Federally Administered Tribal Areas" which continued the British policy dating to the late 1800s which was to leave the area alone. i.e. as long as whoever was in charge of the tribes in that area did not attack British and later Pakistan areas outside the Tribal area, the tribes in the area could do as they pleased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas
In the 1980s, with massive input of supplies going through the Tribal Area to Afghanistan during the Russia occupation of Afghanistan, a change started in the Tribal Area. It was NOT increased control by the Central Government of Pakistan, instead the people in control of the tribal areas shifted from the tribal elders, which had been the norm till 1980, to people having access to supplies and weapons going to Afghanistan. This increase tremendously after 2000 as the Taliban took over both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan Border.
The Council of Foreign Affairs is less upbeat about the Federally Administered Tribal Areas then is Wilipedia:
http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/pakistans-tribal-areas/p11973#p5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas
One survey indicated that 90% of the people of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and 60% support attacks on the US for the drone strikes:
http://pakistansurvey.org/
The intensity of opposition to the American military is high. While only one in ten of FATA residents think suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified against the Pakistani military and police, almost six in ten believe these attacks are justified against the U.S. military. (The United Nations has determined that many of the suicide attackers in Afghanistan hail from the Pakistani tribal regions.)
More than three-quarters of FATA residents oppose American drone strikes. Indeed, only 16 percent think these strikes accurately target militants; 48 percent think they largely kill civilians and another 33 percent feel they kill both civilians and militants. Directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, missiles are launched from unmanned drone aircraft in the FATA region of Pakistan.
http://pakistansurvey.org/
The same survey shows little support for the Taliban or Al Queda, but that is NOT how the people are acting, i.e. they seem to provide food, ammo and other support to the Taliban, but then claim they do not. Typical of people who are unsure of how they should answer that question, in fear of retaliation. Opposition to US Drone Strikes is fairly safe, every one in Pakistan is saying they oppose them, even the soldiers guarding the bases where the drones are flown out of. It is safe to support suicide attacks, for they are RARE in Pakistan, they want to support the Pakistan Military, again a safe answer. Support for suicide attacks on Americans is high, again a safe answer, for such attacks are RARE in Pakistan and unheard of in the Tribal Areas (Where Americans do NOT go to).
Remember these are in areas where the Taliban control is view their tribe, which can also protect them from the Taliban (For often they are one and the same). On the other hand the Pakistan Army is an arm of the Pakistan Government, something they reject for their put their tribe above whatever Nation-State they happen to be in.
2005 paper on the History of the Afghanistan and the "Federally Administered Tribal Areas":
http://ipripak.org/papers/federally.shtml
Map of the Tribal Area:
http://www.understandingfata.org/about-u-fata.php
Once you understand the significance of the Pashtuns, and that they are the single largest "segmentary lineage" tribe in the world (i.e. a tribe, made up of sub tribes, which in turn is made up of clans, which in turn is made up of extended families, which in turn is made up of nuclear families, which is turn is made up of individuals).
More on Pashtun's Tribal rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali
http://www.economist.com/node/8345531
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/phmen/My%20Documents/Downloads/ADA502894.pdf
http://afghanland.com/culture/pashtunwali.html
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ilsp/research/kakar.pdf
More on the nature of their tribe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmentary_lineage
The significance of being a Pashtun is that the nature of being a Pashtun who lives in the traditional Pashtun areas rules HOW you live and WHO you follow. It is the classic, myself against my brother, my brothers against my cousins, my cousins against my clan, my clam against my sub-tribe, my sub-tribe against my Tribe and my Tribe against the World. That is Pashtun society. When they are NOT fighting each other, they are fighting anyone who tries to move into the area that they control.
Thus when the Communist Government of Afghanistan collapsed in 1992, and the various War Lords took over and then started to fight each other over the remains, the Pashtuns finally said enough was enough and either formed up the Taliban (which the Pakistan Intelligence Service quickly decided also to support) or became the main force behind the Taliban, as it was formed up by the Pakistan intelligence service. The best answer is probably both happened, the the Pakistan Intelligence Service saw an opportunity to become the main ally to whoever was in power in Kabul and thus helped the create the Taliban, AND the Pashtuns decided enough was enough formed the Taliban themselves with the aid of the the Pakistan Intelligence Service.
The problem is HOW the Taliban was created is of minor concern, the key is what is the base of support for the Taliban in Afghanistan (and in Pakistan), and the base for the Taliban in the Pashtun Tribe NOT the Pakistan Intelligence Service. The key to the Taliban is that Tribal support NOT anything else.
- And you actually believe this shit? Straight from the NSA, huh?
- Don't remind me.....
God, we're stupid......