Latest Editions

Aggressive US moves against extremists

Audio: Play | Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
The US may be helping Yemen to fight local extremists with links to al Qaeda. The World’s Matthew Bell reports on what that reveals about American anti-terrorism strategy.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: While President Obama has pursued a diplomatic path when it comes to the environment, he’s taken a more hard-nosed approach on national security.  Here’s one example: according to a recent New York Times report the Obama administration has supplied the government of Yemen with lethal firepower to fight Al Qaeda.  The World’s Matthew Bell has more.

MATTHEW BELL: The Pentagon hasn’t publicly confirmed the New York Times story, but if the US military did lend a hand to Yemen ahead of recent strikes aimed at suspected Al Qaeda strongholds, it would come as no surprise to Bruce Hoffman.  He’s a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

BRUCE HOFFMAN: The United States certainly throughout the past eight years of the war on terrorism has pursued an active policy of assisting most governments in their own local struggles against terrorists providing logistical assistance, armaments on some occasions, US forces on others, and certainly intelligence as well as an effort to, of self help in essence.  To let them tackle their own terrorist problems.

MATTHEW: Hoffman says unconfirmed reports that Al Qaeda linked militants in Yemen were planning a series of suicide attacks, might have added to a sense of urgency in Washington that more needed to be done.  The last thing the Obama administration wants to see is Yemen become another failed state where Al Qaeda can operate freely.  Whatever the US military is or isn’t doing in Yemen, Hoffman says the Obama administration has embraced some aggressive tactics when it comes to Al Qaeda.  The President appears to have expanded the use of targeted killings and drone missile strikes against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Somalia.

BRUCE: And the escalation may be a reflection of policy, it may also be a reflection of better and improved intelligence that gives us the targeting ability that we may not have had some years ago.  And it may also be a reflection of just the harsh political reality in the 21^st century, there’s no political leader anywhere in the world, least of all the United States that can appear to be at all in any sense soft on terrorism.

MATTHEW: President Obama spoke about that during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech earlier this month.  He said there are times when the use of force is not only necessary but morally justified.  And as commander in chief the President said he cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.

OBAMA: Evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism; it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

MATTHEW: That doesn’t mean the administration isn’t pursuing so-called softer approaches like engagement or diplomacy, but it does mean that aggressive tactics like drone missile attacks serve an important foreign policy function.  That’s according to Reuel Marc Gerecht.  He’s a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.

REUEL MARC GERECHT: These type of operations allow you to continue the war on terrorism though they no longer use that phrase.  It allows you to appear tough and to some extent that’s true.  Yet is doesn’t militarily engage the United States.  So it seems cost effective.  But now I don’t think that the attacks in and of themselves is sufficient to neutralize the problems that we have in Pakistan.  They are certainly a part of what we should do.

MATTHEW: Gerecht says there are big risks too.  US credibility is damaged every time innocent people are killed by one of those attacks.  Some experts say the US drone strikes along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan need to stop because they are incompatible with the kind of counterinsurgency strategy American military commanders on the ground are trying to implement.  But Georgetown’s Bruce Hoffman disagrees.

BRUCE: Counter insurgency is warfare.  I think that there’s been an inclination among certain commentators and observers to interpret counterinsurgency as exclusively hearts and minds and nation building.  But at least in my view and having studied this for 30 years counterinsurgency is first and foremost breaking the backs of your enemies first, diminishing their power to hurt you.

MATTHEW: And that’s a concept President Obama appears to have embraced as Commander In Chief.  For The World I’m Matthew Bell.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.