U.S. offers Yemen help (Inconsistency in US foreign policy)

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5861I820090907

The United States has offered to help Yemen in its "fight against terrorism" and assist the country with its reforms, the Yemeni state news agency Saba said late on Sunday.

...snip

"Yemen's security is vital to the security of the United States and the region, and America will adopt an initiative to help Yemen ... face development challenges and support reform efforts," Obama's letter said.

So, let's recap. Helping (or even strongly supporting) protesters in Iran --a no-no. Basically leaving central/eastern european allies to their own devices against Russia -- ok. Cutting aid to Honduras and trying to force it to take back a constitutionally ousted ruler -- ok. Intervening in the dispute between Iraq (an ally) and Syria (an enemy) -- a no-no. Helping Yemen fight insurgency -- ok. Is it only me, or is there some inconsistencies here?

raburrell · Sep 7, 2009

?? I'm not quite certain what's to be gained by presenting complex regional problems of diverse origins in such simplistic terms, glomming them together, and expecting a course of action to emerge, but I'm pretty sure a coherent foreign policy wouldn't be the end result...

Kurtz · Sep 7, 2009

There is an absolutely perfect video about US foreign relations with a map of the earth and america being this horrible screeching pig thing taking massive bites out of South America, mauling the middle east and then vomiting Mexico on top of China.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

I am sure you can find it within yourself either to comment on the substance or not to comment at all. To paraphrase you, "I am not quite certain what's to be gained by your initial response in this thread."

raburrell · Sep 7, 2009

dmytryp said:
I am sure you can find it within yourself either to comment on the substance or not to comment at all. To paraphrase you, "I am not quite certain what's to be gained by your initial response in this thread."

You're trying to conflate four situations, the 'substance' of which are each quite different. Consequences, risks, benefits, etc. My point was that the broad applicability you're searching for doesn't exist.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

I am not trying to conflate anything. I am trying to see any consistency in the non-meddling/meddling policy. Certainly the situations aren't the same, but there should be some consistency, no? Or had US passed entirely into the realm of realpolitic?

raburrell · Sep 7, 2009

There are a million and one factors that figure into these things. Political will, risks of doing something versus doing nothing, costs, availability of troops/agents of change, etc.

eg: Cutting aid to Nicaragua? you're risking a few pissed-off Nicaraguans who have very few bargaining chips of their own. Meddling in Iranian affairs? you're risking a Middle East that glows in the dark for the next few centuries. (of course, doing nothing could have the same result, hence the need to tread cautiously.) Yemen? They're doing a bang-up job of creating/harboring terrorists lately, so it's in our interest to get them under control, and since the government doesn't like that fact either, low risk. Iraq and Syria? Bit of a powderkeg there too.

They play all these scenarios out as war games to explore potential outcomes (which is as much of a bullshit art/science as anything else), then someone in charge makes a judgment call, and that's what gets done.

A deep understanding of the local stuff is paramount - eg when nobody in the Bush administation seemed to realize that Sunnis and Shiites didn't like each other and didn't realize they'd start offing each other when a power vacuum arose post-Saddam.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

ETA: That would be Honduras and it would be US ally (same as the Czecks, Poles and Iraqis).

At some point a support for some principles and for your allies is needed. Otherwise, you'll be left with no allies pretty fast. And your allies would choose to appease mutual enemies at your expense.

Interesting shot at the Bush admin. I am pretty much of an opinion that the current admin has absolutely no idea how ME works (or how real realpolitics work for that matter). They are just as ideological as the Bush admin (only to the other side). Fortunately, to a small degree, reality started to influence their perceptions, but only time will tell.

EDIT: Let's try and parse slightly your positions. The explosion between Iraq and Syria came after Iraqi offer to give Syria economic incentives in return for it banishing couple of hundreds terrorists responsible for bombings in Iraq (that incidently killed americans, too). Syria gave Iraq the finger and a couple of days later there was an explosion in Baghdad that killed a hundred people. Yet the Us gov tried to act as if this was nothing to US interests. Pretty pitifull.

Let's take the op now. I have been repeatedly told here that US is spent both morally and monetarily, so its allies have to fend for themselves for a while. Yet here we are, US is offering military assistance to another ME country. And if this happen? Would people who shouted that US presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia created all kinds of problems say that US presence in Yemen (if it came to be) or military aid to it created a recruiting ground for the islamists?

Iran. Yeah, Obama made sure not to appear to be meddling. US and the West were blamed for instigating the riots anyway (we are in the stage of show trials here). US maybe missed a perfect opportunity to help bring real change in the pretty extremist gov over there.

And I am still not seeing any consistensy in the policy.

raburrell · Sep 7, 2009

dmytryp said:
ETA: That would be Honduras and it would be US ally (same as the Czecks, Poles and Iraqis).

Err, yep. My bad.

And yes, we need to stand with our allies, but suicidally drawing a sword and yelling 'charge' went out with Don Quixote.

Don · Sep 7, 2009

As always, follow the money.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

raburrell said:
And yes, we need to stand with our allies, but suicidally drawing a sword and yelling 'charge' went out with Don Quixote.

???
Did I suggest anything of the sort? Siding with Zelaya against Honduras' Supreme Court and Parliment was a concious decision on US part. It even went as far as saying that it might not recognize the result of scheduled elections. I mean, wtf? US didn't utter such words with regards to Iran, but as to Honduras it is suddenly ok?

Don't get me wrong, I have very little problem with US helping Yemen to bring the situation under control. There are US interests involved, after all. Same as with Pakistan. All I am trying to see is whether there is some kind of consistent set of beliefs guiding the policy or is it just "wing it" style, depending on the time of day?

raburrell · Sep 7, 2009

dmytryp said:
???
Don't get me wrong, I have very little problem with US helping Yemen to bring the situation under control. There are US interests involved, after all. Same as with Pakistan. All I am trying to see is whether there is some kind of consistent set of beliefs guiding the policy or is it just "wing it" style, depending on the time of day?

The facts on the ground are what matters in each case. To answer the 'wing it' point, as I mentioned before, the work product of the war college, among other things, are used as starting points. There is no 'one size fits all' to be had here.

Mac H. · Sep 7, 2009

History is repeating itself:

2009 CE:

The United States has offered to help Yemen in its "fight against terrorism" and assist the country with its reforms, the Yemeni state news agency Saba said late on Sunday.

...snip

"Yemen's security is vital to the security of the United States and the region, and America will adopt an initiative to help Yemen ... face development challenges and support reform efforts," Obama's letter said.

Compare with:

63 BCE:

Rome has offered to help Jerusalem in its "fight against terrorism" and assist the country with its reforms, the Roman state news agency Vox Populi said late on Sunday.

...snip

"Hebrew security is vital to the security of the Roman and the region, and Rome will adopt an initiative to help Jerusalem ... face development challenges and support reform efforts," Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus's letter said.

Both leaders are adamant that they are just trying to help stability in the region. "We don't want to stay and tell them how to run their country", Magnus said. Obama is reported to agree with this policy.

Mac
(PS: It always surprised me how the Roman army was actually invited in to many places by the local leaders to help with disputes. Funnily enough, the leaders who invited them in suddenly found that they had won the dispute, but somehow ended up with no authority in their own country ... reduced to being a puppet state under foreign control. )

semilargeintestine · Sep 7, 2009

Um, the difference is that Rome had control over Jerusalem and gave leniency to the Jews to self rule. Seven years after your quote, they razed Jerusalem to the ground, slaughtered a million Jews, and exiled the rest to the four corners of the empire.

It's not quite the same...

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

Mac H. said:
(PS: It always surprised me how the Roman army was actually invited in to many places by the local leaders to help with disputes. Funnily enough, the leaders who invited them in suddenly found that they had won the dispute, but somehow ended up with no authority in their own country ... reduced to being a puppet state under foreign control. )

Well, Roman involvement with the Jews goes further back. One of the Hashmaite kings (Alexander Yanay, if I am not mistaken) had played their support against the threats from Egyptians and the Syrians (he also played those one against the other) in order to boost his own power.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

On a slightly related topic (Don will probably be interested to see this), here is a link to a video of Prof. Michael Oren (today the israeli ambassador to US) talking about his book about the American involvement in the ME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM3afpwAKds

clintl · Sep 7, 2009

dmytryp said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5861I820090907
So, let's recap. Helping (or even strongly supporting) protesters in Iran --a no-no.

I really doubt strongly this is the case. To the extent the US is able, I am pretty sure we have agents in Iran, in contact with the opposition. There's no doubt the Obama Administration wanted Mousavi to win the election, and I believe the hands-off approach at first was to meant to avoid undermining Mousavi's credibility with those in Iran who opposed Ahmedinajed but are still skeptical of US intentions (with some justification, I might add, given prior history of US meddling in Iranian affairs).

Basically leaving central/eastern european allies to their own devices against Russia -- ok.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Unless it's Georgia last year, and Georgia bears a big part of the blame itself for that. I'd leave Georgia to its own devices, too.

Cutting aid to Honduras and trying to force it to take back a constitutionally ousted ruler -- ok.

Because it's such a great thing for democracy when a democratically elected leader wants to use a democratic process to change his country's constitution, and gets ousted in military coup because of it.

Intervening in the dispute between Iraq (an ally) and Syria (an enemy) -- a no-no.

Did Iraq want our intervention? It's time for the new Iraqi government to grow up, and giving it an opportunity to do so is a positive step.

Helping Yemen fight insurgency -- ok. Is it only me, or is there some inconsistencies here?

Nothing the US hasn't done many, many times in many, many countries. Not always a wise thing to do, but you know, I don't how this situation relates to most of those others you listed.

Also kind of interesting that you didn't list the recent Afghan elections, which appear to be every bit as blatantly rigged as the Iranian elections, the main difference being Karzai is our handpicked guy to run Afghanistan.

dmytryp · Sep 7, 2009

clintl said:
I really doubt strongly this is the case. To the extent the US is able, I am pretty sure we have agents in Iran, in contact with the opposition. There's no doubt the Obama Administration wanted Mousavi to win the election, and I believe the hands-off approach at first was to meant to avoid undermining Mousavi's credibility with those in Iran who opposed Ahmedinajed but are still skeptical of US intentions (with some justification, I might add, given prior history of US meddling in Iranian affairs).

Yeah? How's that turning out?

clintl said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Unless it's Georgia last year, and Georgia bears a big part of the blame itself for that. I'd leave Georgia to its own devices, too.

We had a thread about this.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149025
Your point about Georgia is overly simplistic, too

clintl said:
Because it's such a great thing for democracy when a democratically elected leader wants to use a democratic process to change his country's constitution, and gets ousted in military coup because of it.

You mean the Supreme court and the Parliment removed him. The military only carried it out. The temporary president is a civilian from Zelaya's own party. But other than that...

clintl said:
Did Iraq want our intervention? It's time for the new Iraqi government to grow up, and giving it an opportunity to do so is a positive step.

Does US gov need Iraqi requests to express support?

clintl said:
Nothing the US hasn't done many, many times in many, many countries. Not always a wise thing to do, but you know, I don't how this situation relates to most of those others you listed.

And as I pointed out later, I have no particular problem with this per se. Just looking for consistency

clintl said:
Also kind of interesting that you didn't list the recent Afghan elections, which appear to be every bit as blatantly rigged as the Iranian elections, the main difference being Karzai is our handpicked guy to run Afghanistan.

It is? Did I mention lots of other places? Do I need to make a comprehesive list? (And to tell the truth, I haven't followed Afghanistan all that closely)

Mac H. · Sep 8, 2009

semilargeintestine said:
Um, the difference is that Rome had control over Jerusalem and gave leniency to the Jews to self rule. Seven years after your quote, they razed Jerusalem to the ground, slaughtered a million Jews, and exiled the rest to the four corners of the empire.

It's not quite the same...

Not identical, but still a valid reminder that inviting another country's military forces to enter your country to assist doesn't always work out in the long run.

I wasn't implying that the US would do the the exact same thing as the Romans ... but the end result was that the country lost independence.

Being under the control of someone else who gives you 'leniency' for very limited self-rule isn't the outcome most countries want !

And I'm suspect your history is a little wrong, as well.

The Romans were involved at several stages, but the biggie I was referring to when the brothers Aristobulus & Hyrcanus fought over who should rule Judea after the death of their mother, and one of the brothers (Hyrcanus) invited Pompeius (a Roman General) to help.

The end result? Pompeius restored Hyrcanus to the throne, but ensured all political power was under foreign control - Herod. (Well - the Herod family. This is quite a few years before the famous 'Herod')

This bit of history happened in about 63 BCE. I suspect the 'exiled the rest to the four corners of the empire' you are referring to was the Roman response to the Bar Kokhba revolt .. which happened in about 135 CE.

This certainly isn't seven years ... closer to 200 years.

Mac

Bird of Prey · Sep 8, 2009

dmytryp said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5861I820090907

So, let's recap. Helping (or even strongly supporting) protesters in Iran --a no-no. Basically leaving central/eastern european allies to their own devices against Russia -- ok. Cutting aid to Honduras and trying to force it to take back a constitutionally ousted ruler -- ok. Intervening in the dispute between Iraq (an ally) and Syria (an enemy) -- a no-no. Helping Yemen fight insurgency -- ok. Is it only me, or is there some inconsistencies here?

How bout sending billions in aid to Israel while she settles Palestinian land, and over vociferous US objections?? How's that for "inconsistency?"

semilargeintestine · Sep 8, 2009

Check your history, my friend. The Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, ending the first Jewish revolt of 66 CE. Over a million Jews were killed, almost 100,000 were enslaved, and a large number fled.

The Bar Kokhba revolt returned Jewish sovereignty to Jerusalem for 2.5 years before the Romans were able to finally crush it in Betar, killing over 580,000 Jews.

I mourn that day every year, my friend. I am well aware of the history.

semilargeintestine · Sep 8, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
How bout sending billions in aid to Israel while she settles Palestinian land, and over vociferous US objections?? How's that for "inconsistency?"

Wow, how about the inaccuracy and audacity of that statement?

1. Read a history book rather than just accepting what the Palestinians put out in their propaganda campaigns, and

2. Israel is a sovereign country. It can run itself the way it wants. You have problems with Israel building on Jewish land (do number one and you will see why it is not Palestinian land) against the wishes of another country, but you have no problem with Iran and Syria completely ignoring the rest of the world and doing whatever it wants?

mscelina · Sep 8, 2009

I was going to respond to the OP, but then I realized that no one else was doing anything other than jumping on their personal political bandwagons or making reference to things that don't have a darn thing to do with the topic..

Oh, what the hell. Might as well dare to be different...

dmytry, the difference is that the OBAMA administration is offering aid to Yemen, not the BUSH administration. With the change in political party comes an entirely different set of diplomatic priorities, and obviously Yemen plays some role that the current US government is interested in exploiting...er...developing. *shrug* But, it's all okay. When the current administration falls out of favor and the nation elects a new leader, the policies and diplomatic priorities will change again.

One of the disadvantages of dealing with an ostensibly democratic republic with a four-year electoral procedure.

This thread can now return to rehashing ancient history or ignoring the point of the OP, whichever everyone prefers.

semilargeintestine · Sep 8, 2009

Yes, hence the promise from Bush to Israel that it would not interfere with Jews building on Jewish land is now being ignored while multiple failures on the part of the other side to make any sort of progress or effort are also being ignored.

How much longer until 2012?

dmytryp · Sep 8, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
How bout sending billions in aid to Israel while she settles Palestinian land, and over vociferous US objections?? How's that for "inconsistency?"

Are you trying to pick a fight?
The aid is a long time US policy bound by signed agreements and by no means a current admin policy. This is without even going into the more absurd parts of your point.

Are you going to bring up aid and israels actions every time i dare criticize the current admin?

I am guessing you don't have anything to say about the op. Where is your tighteous indignation about the letter from the Central European politicians? Where is your "we are not going to fight other people's wars?"
Apparently it is all ok now, since this is Obama's decision. Right?

Celina, I am not entirely with you on the assesment. There were plenty inconsistencies in Bush's policies, too. It is really hard for me to understand what guides this admin in its decisions. It seems as if it tries to preserve the status quo everywhere except the I/P conflict (where it supposedly wanted to move forward but only set it back by half a year). It tries to preserve the status quo regardless of whether it is advantageous to US or not. I don't get it. This isn't ideology (I disagree with some people in other places that asign this to some form of ideology) and it isn't realism (despite what some people try to claim).

U.S. offers Yemen help (Inconsistency in US foreign policy)

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Fix up, look sharp.

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

All Living is Local

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Board Visitor

BassGirl 5000

Represent.

Board Visitor

Benefactor Member

BassGirl 5000

BassGirl 5000

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

BassGirl 5000