Reply
Fri 2 Mar, 2012 09:39 pm
Pentagon officials today confirmed that a “security team” of US forces came under attack from Ansar al-Sharia loyalists in the southern Yemeni city of Aden, but denied any injuries as a result of the attack. Ansar al-Sharia claimed one “CIA officer” killed in the exchange.
The difference in versions from the two sides actually misses the much more serious revelation of the report, that US ground troops are operating inside Yemen at all. There has certainly been no announcement to that effect, and indeed, several times the Obama Administration has “ruled out” sending ground troops to Yemen.
With pro-democracy protesters rallying against the US-backed dictator of Yemen virtually throughout 2011, Ansar al-Sharia seized the province of Abyan, and has made inroads in Aden, the former capital city of South Yemen. The US has repeatedly launched drone strikes against Ansar al-Sharia, claiming they are an “al-Qaeda front.”
But the drone strikes and the missile strikes and the assassination campaigns were always presented as an alternative to US boots on the ground, not a supplement to them. Talk of sending troops has always been followed up with denials that such a deployment was forthcoming, and what few “trainers” the Pentagon has previously admitted to having on the ground certainly wouldn’t be meandering through a major city just waiting to be ambushed. The administration has some serious explaining to do about how these troops came to be operating inside Yemen.
@edgarblythe,
I guess they're not troops but advisers....you know, like Vietnam.
I am gobsmacked that a president of the US should tell fibs about such a thing. Profoundly surprised.
@edgarblythe,
"Ground troops" and "boots on the ground" typically refer only to regular forces. The terms would not apply to CIA agents. They probably would not even apply to Special Forces.
i think the US should send some ground pork to Yemen, i bet they'd like that
We likely are seeing the tip of the iceberg, as usual, before some incident shows the broader scope of the situation.
US troops are skedaddling. Yemen: foreign policy failure #400532 for The Professor.
Instead of leaving sitting ducks in place like a Ronald Reagan would do, they were moved. That's doesn't mean the fight is ended, bright guy.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Instead of leaving sitting ducks in place like a Ronald Reagan would do, they were moved. That's doesn't mean the fight is ended, bright guy.
It does however mean that the fight has not been successful, and we have been at it for years. Yet another failure of our military (very expensive military) to successfully complete a mission.
@hawkeye10,
It means that Bush and Cheney destabilized that region for no telling how many years to come. It doesn't matter who the Commander in Chief is. It's a tide that will keep it up as long as we can, like Vietnam.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
It means that Bush and Cheney destabilized that region for no telling how many years to come. It doesn't matter who the Commander in Chief is. It's a tide that will keep it up as long as we can, like Vietnam.
The D/R stuff is a side show. At the end of the day our military failed. Our nation failed.
But you just keep on being diverted by the tangent so that you never get around to dealing with the reality. That is what the elite what you to do, to keep you off of wondering why they keep failing, why our nation keeps failing
You are too fucked in the head to be having a conversation like this with. I await somebody willing to debate people like you.
@hawkeye10,
The great thing with the "war on terror" is that by definition, it cannot be won. "Terror" being a tactic, a method, not an enemy.
@Olivier5,
Thanks, Oliver. I never had exactly that thought.
@roger,
It's an old idea. The US military complex needed a more permanent enemy, as they say.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:The great thing with the "war on terror" is that by definition, it cannot be won. "Terror" being a tactic, a method, not an enemy.
Nonsense. al-Qa'ida and Islamic State can very much be defeated.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:It's an old idea. The US military complex needed a more permanent enemy, as they say.
It is not the fault of the US military that we have enemies who need to be defended against.
A lot going on in Yemen, I confess I would have search hard to find it on a map, no idea where it is, but it seems once again, our fates are tied with crises and tragedies most Americans (average Americans)no know nothing about. It seems Saudis are involved, we support the Saudis but we are trying to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran who is opposed with Saudis air campaign or whatever.
This is going to sound so shallow, but I wish we could become neutral in the world, not isolationist, but not so involved with everything and take care of our own business and it seems we are stuck in a no win situation no matter what everywhere else.
Saudi-Led Airstrikes Target Rebel Strongholds In Yemen
AP | By By AHMED AL-HAJ
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace