Why Not Yemen?

It’s pretty clear that Obama wants to make Afghanistan his war. He’s not only pledging thousands of more troops, but also is willing to use both domestic and international capital to procure as much support as possible. In other words, he’s putting a lot on the line. The justification for the increased presence emanates from the belief that Afghanistan has become a failed state, meaning that terrorists can more easily operate in the country. To fix this, it is said that America must send more troops there to both kill terrorists and train the local police. Using this logic, the necessary question to ask is why America does not commit itself to bringing stability to Yemen.

There is a consensus in the foreign policy community that Yemen warrants the title of failed state. Al Qaeda has a strong foothold there and the government cannot carry out its basic responsibilities. And more than simply being an isolated area that harbors terrorists, it has the potential to disrupt US interests in oil rich Saudi Arabia. Could you imagine the implications of terrorists interfering in the oil production of its northern neighbor?

Asking key Obama administration officials this question might provide a valuable window into the real reasons behind going into Afghanistan. Since they won’t foolishly disagree with the premise of Yemen’s increasing difficulties, the way in which they navigate the question would be interesting. Will their answer imply that the Afghanistan move is mostly about Pakistan? Might it be about increasing pressure on its other bordering country—Iran? Is the Atlantic Monthly’s Robert Kaplan onto something when he says that bringing stability to Afghanistan would allow the transference of energy from  Central Asia to India? Is that part of the equation?

In December of last year, it was very telling when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told David Gregory on Meet the Press that the US ultimately decided not to go into Darfur because it is part of a far away and complex Muslim country. She essentially used the same argument that Iraq War critics did. The comment proved the obvious; Iraq was not really about bringing freedom as was commonly said. Using ostensible parallels can help tear down some of the rhetoric that politicians employ.

At Obama’s last press conference, the media received a lot of flack for failing to elicit meaningful answers to big questions. Before the Q&A session though, Politico’s Mike Allen had a good piece on how reporters try to make news. Major Garret of Fox News said the best way to do this with Obama was  ”to push him in an explanatory direction. He loves to explain things, and sometimes in the explaining he makes news.” Therefore, effectively asking Obama, “Explain why Afghanistan and not Yemen when they share many of the same problems,” might actually give the public some clues into his foreign policy—-policies that are always much more opaque than domestic policy.