Pentagon Takes Indirect Approach to Combating Al Qaeda in Yemen

That Defense Secretary Robert Gates is thoroughly shaking up a military bureaucracy desperately in need of a good shaking is a given. When I talk to Pentagon policy folks another name comes up again-and-again as somebody who has also done much to drag the military into a new era: Mike Vickers, assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict; one of the few Bush administration DOD holdovers.

Vickers, who most readers probably recognize via Charlie Wilson’s War (less well known is his advisory experience in El Salvador during the 1980s), is a big proponent of the “indirect approach” to combating terrorists and insurgencies: providing advisors and money to work with and improve foreign militaries rather than sending in large ground forces to pull constabulary duty on foreign soil. He talks of “counter network warfare” and using a “network to fight a network”; building small teams of special operators across the globe to battle al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups.

News that the Pentagon is boosting aid to Yemen to build out its special operations forces bears the Vickers imprimatur. Al Qaeda has long used Yemen as a staging ground for attacks inside Saudi Arabia and to support Somali affiliate Al Shabaab. The report says $34 million will go for “tactical assistance” to Yemeni special forces and another $38 million for airlift. American special operators and intelligence agents are known to be in Yemen in an advise and assist capacity.

Gates wrote another policy piece for Foreign Affairs, this time laying out the indirect approach, called “building partner capacity,” to aiding “fractured or failing states.” In the piece, Gates writes of the critical importance of the military’s advisory missions, and echoing another Vickers initiative, putting the best personnel in those assignments. Interestingly, he singles out the Air Force as making the most progress in institutionalizing partner capacity building.

Gates proposes creating a pool, with the State Department, of capacity building funds. Dipping into that pool to fund foreign military assistance would require the approval of both agencies, as the Yemeni initiative does. He writes:

“What I find compelling about this approach is tha it would create incentives for collaboration between different agencies of the government, unlike the existing structures and processes left over from the Cold War, which often conspire to hinder true whole-of-government approaches.”

— Greg

14 Comments on "Pentagon Takes Indirect Approach to Combating Al Qaeda in Yemen"

  1. Was it not the indirect approach used in the Soviet-Afghan conflict that precipitated the Afghanistan we have today?

  2. Sounds like the pentagon is fed up with losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military is woefully under trained,undermanned,and out performed by even the least trained insurgent group or terrorist organization.We spend billions on gee wizz weaponry that does not work,under man our ground and air force to the point to where combined arms is a thing of the past, and to top every thing off, we post trivial dribble about the next new tactic to come out of Gate'e mouth and some no name general who could not even lead a dog on a leash, let alone a division sized unit. Our country is pathetic, washed up and just down right defeated by our own ignorance and stupidity.

  3. So in closing…why not throw lots of money into a future Afghanistan like country that eventually will be ended up being invaded to clear out Al-Qaeda and spawn a new groupof terrorists to finally defeat this and of pathetic losers whose only thing is to run the mouth and spout hype about nothing.

  4. WJS…Afghanistan's lack of identity as a country? WTH? Seems to me they have always had a lack of national identity…first the British tried to give them one…then came the Russians…and now us, the nation of bumbling fools. And in respects to what is going on in Yemen, we are making the same mistake over. And we will continue to make the same mistake over again until some one wakes up gets a different idea. The only way to destroy these world wide terrorists cells that are hell bent to destroy the USA is to go after them directly. Direct action by special operations forces, including civil affairs and psyops. And as a last resort, invade the place and destroy the enemy. We seem to forget tap dancing around a enemy that has no place to call home,breeds nations with no identity. And what happened in Afghanistan in the past,and now the present is going to happen again in Yemen, Qatar, and other south west Asia countries.

  5. You cannot fight a war by throwing money into failing national governments, expecting a desirable out come. Especially when you are losing wars else where.

  6. with what money!?!?!

    I'm sorry, I love the military as much as anyone else…But as a country we are flat broke, were trillions in the hole…how about we stop giving the money were borrowing from countries, too other countries!

    All foreign aid must stop.

  7. 7thwave,

    Huh? 420 was yesterday buddy. Put the bong down.

  8. Low-intensity conflict is the warfare of the future. Maybe, when he was a Cadet, Vickers picked up a book by Col. David Hackworth titled, "About Face." It's amazing how we fail, continuously, to learn from the Vietam War since more than 30 of our top commanders today, are graduates of the US Military Academy's (USMA) Class of 1976.

  9. Low intensity conflict maybe the tunnel vision view of how we fight wars in the future. How ever with the history of the U.S. military beings one of the lamest militaries on the planet, its hard to get a mind set to actually fight a war.
    War is war. No matter what you call it. When you go to war,you fight to win. Whats happening today, and ever since WWII, is we have too many hands in the soup so to speak. Our military commanders have their hands tied. Continuously at the mercy of some blow hard politician like Rumsfeld, Gates, and others.
    Today, we have a problem with the soup example. We are not committing our forces wisely. We are too focused on paying some under equipped military from a country that is falling apart. We are not focused on winning. Period. And when you go up against the likes of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, you cannot afford to be making huge mistakes like we are, period.

  10. This problem in Yemen is not going to go away with just pouring money into their military and providing half-arsed training to support them. We need boots on the ground. Covertly if the overt options fail.We need to hunt these creeps like pigs, and kill them.

  11. In todays news the Green Berets will utilise their skills that have existed since 1960 to counter AQ in Yemen.

  12. Of course, for people who wear mbt men's, is a good spirit of enjoyment.ghd hair straighteners Not only enjoying the comfort, but also maintain the perfect body,ghd staighteners this really can be said to serve two purposes.cheap ghd staighteners

  13. Of course, for people who wear mbt men's, is a good spirit of enjoyment.ghd hair straighteners Not only enjoying the comfort, but also maintain the perfect body,ghd staighteners this really can be said to serve two purposes.cheap ghd staighteners

  14. Congrats! Here’s your reward promo code: YLEJZ5.
    You must have this in the future. It happens to be for a
    one-of-a-kind opt-in promotion to acquire a product at zero cost.
    We’re going to use our software application to surf webpages all over the internet to search for our champion in 30 days time!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*