Sheiks differ on legitimacy of Nov. 3 hit that killed 6 Yemenis Attack reaction [Archives:2002/46/Front Page]

The Nov. 3 missile attack that killed six suspected al-Qaeda in a car near Marib has raised the ire of tribes in Yemen, says a local tribal leader.
Meanwhile, Yemeni authorities have taken the dead bodies for DNA tests to know the identity of the killed men and verify whether the other al-Qaeda suspect Mohammed Al-Ahdal is not among them.
But another prominent sheik in Marib says the US had the right to carry out the bold attack because the Yemeni authorities were unable to arrest one of the dead who is Abu Ali, also known as al-Harethi, suspected of being linked with the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
“The tribe’s reaction is that the attacks are unsuitable,” said one sheik, named Mabkhoot.
Shiekh Mohammed Abdullah Saleh al-Qarda’ee, a prominent sheiks in Marib governorate, has a different view.
“The US has its ultimate goals to track their enemies. There is only one enemy Qaed Salem Senyan al-Harethi, a prime suspect of destroying the USS Cole destroyer in Aden. During two years the Yemeni authorities have been incapable of arresting him.
The US has the right to kill their enemies whenever they are and that the US has the right to defend itself,” he said.
Concerning the silence of the government, Sheikh Mohammed al Qarda’ee said: “There is a confusion on the part of the Yemen’s policy. They don’t have a fixed policy whether external or internal, and this will lead to conducting further operations.”
He also said, “If our government along with other governments have declared the war against terror hand in hand with the US, it is undoubtedly that these governments have been remiss of their sovereignty and independence,” he said.
“The authority has given the green light to the US to conduct such an operation against Yemeni citizens and on the Yemeni lands,” he further added.
Concerning the tribes’ reactions in Marib, al-Qarda’ee said that he couldn’t judge because the issue according to him is still unknown.
“Generally speaking, Yemenis are so furious of the penetrations whether against the Yemeni citizen or against the country. Taking revenge against innocent citizens accompanied al-Harethi by some tribesmen is perhaps true,” he concluded.
Sheikh Mabkhoot Hathal’s view
Mabkhoot Hathal however takes a stronger stance against the missile attack. He said that the tribes had no objections to hand Abu Ali over to the state if he was involved in any sabotage acts.
“The judiciary system has been created for every one, for Abu Ali and others,” he said.
Concerning the tribes’ protection to Abu Ali and the state’s incapability to arrest him, Mabkhoot said that it is customary for tribes to protect any person who seek refuge with them.
“As a result of this, tribes will protect anybody in case he is content to hand himself over along with providing guarantees to a fair trial,” he noted.
Tribal conventions play a vital role in this respect. A tribal community has the right to protect any body even if he is a Jew, said Mabkhoot, who is also a member of the local council.
“We have watched TV channels and reports of Abu Ali rooming around throughout the desert. He protected himself and not the tribes,” he further highlighted.
Concerning the tribes’ expectations of the US conducting further killings of al-Qaeda suspects, Mabkhoot said: “The way the six people were killed will turn against the state itself. The door that has been closed in front of Abu Ali will cause another to be opened,” he said.
Tribes & weapons
Tribes and weapons are considered to be one of the greatest blessings that are endowed to tribesmen, Mabkhoot said. “We sometimes fall prey to some officials in the state, so we have to defend ourselves and dignity.
The weapon the tribesman carries resembles the brother of the soul,” he commented.
The long-term tribal disputes have made tribes fight against each other and that is why the majority of the tribes have been maintaining their weapons.
It is true that the government has made every effort to put an end to the tribal clashes, to disunite the tribes’ unity and to weaken its power, but this according to Mabkhoot, “that’s a wrong policy”.
As for the tribes and their links to the Saudi Arabia Mabkhoot said:
“People sometimes have attributed the tribe-Saudi relationships to the borderlines. But now relations have deepened and enhanced for the better,” he said.
Despite of being a very prominent member at the local council, he and his tribal members choose not to engage in partisan politics. Tribal relations are stronger than the party, and the state’s central support is weak.
American debate over
Meanwhile, the debate raged within the American CIA for years: Should the United States hunt down and kill its terrorist foes, or would Israeli-style “targeted killings” only invite retribution and feed an endless cycle of violence?
But it now appears the debate is over, and operations have begun.
Even those who applauded the strike said that it is sure to inflame militants, including those belonging to the Al Qaeda network, and expose U.S. diplomats and other overseas officials to possible retaliation.
The attack triggered outrage in some quarters of the Arab world and forced U.S. officials into the difficult position of defending a tactic it has criticized Israel for using.
But Bush administration officials made it clear that they see those risks and diplomatic discomforts as worth enduring when confronted with an opportunity to kill a high-ranking Al Qaeda figure linked to previous attacks and considered likely to be planning more.
In fact, U.S. officials and top Pentagon advisers said Tuesday that Al Qaeda should expect more of the same.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called the strike a very successful tactical operation.”
“We’ve got to keep the pressure on everywhere we’re able to,” he said on CNN.
“We’ve got to deny the sanctuaries everywhere we’re able to, and we’ve got to put pressure on every government that is giving these people support to get out of that business.”
The Nov. 3 attack was in keeping with the so-called Bush doctrine that, among other things, commits the nation to preemptive military strikes in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism. It was carried out by an unmanned CIA surveillance plane armed with laser-guided missiles. The Predator drones had been patrolling Yemen in recent months, tracking the movements of dozens of Al Qaeda figures who have been operating in the country’s barren northern territory.

First hit outside Afghanistan
Until Nov. 3, U.S. strikes on suspected Al Qaeda members had been confined to the war theatre in Afghanistan.
Elsewhere, the CIA’s activities had appeared to consist mainly of assisting in raids and other operations conducted jointly with foreign intelligence services.
At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher refused to discuss the attack in Yemen and trod carefully around questions on whether U.S. involvement in the strike contradicts long-standing U.S. disapproval of so-called targeted killings. The State Department has repeatedly criticized Israel for using such tactics against Palestinians.
Asked whether the United States has altered its opinion, Boucher replied, “Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed.”
He went on to say that the U.S. position reflects concern that such killings harm prospects for peace negotiations.
Those reasons, he said, “do not necessarily apply in other circumstances.”
Israeli scholars rejected such distinctions and said the attack in Yemen is tantamount to a U.S. endorsement of the Israeli policy of pre-emptive attacks on militant foes.
The U.S. shift, the scholars said, shows that the Bush administration has rejected the long-held American view that refraining from violence offers at least some protection from retaliation.
“Israel knows that it’s going to be attacked no matter what it does,” said Barry Rubin, head of the Global Research and International Affairs Centre.
“The U.S. situation has become more like the Israeli situation. It is the impact of September 11.”
Current and former intelligence officials said reprisals are possible, if not inevitable.
“Not everybody has been gung-ho about going out and doing this,” said a former CIA official previously involved in high-level comissions.
“It may be the right policy, but it’s not going to be without consequences.”
Others, however, said September 11 showed that U.S. restraint earned it no protection from Al Qaeda and that the show of force in Yemen was long overdue.
“Maybe they’ll try to do something else to us,” another former senior CIA official said.
“The fact is, we’ve been getting shot at for the last 30 to 40 years. The weaker they think you are, the more they’ll go after us.”
Israeli style?
The attack in Yemen prompted criticism from some in the Arab world. The London-based Arab newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi carried an editorial Tuesday condemning the attack.
“We believe the Americans are adopting the Israeli style of bombing – it is appaling,” editor Abdebari Atwan wrote.
“This is not the work of a civilised democratic power but in the style of Osama bin Laden.” Atwan predicted that the attack will antagonise Arabs and “will encourage membership (in) Al Qaeda .”
But Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, issued a statement Tuesday timed for the start of Ramadan urging Al Qaeda members to “repent” and “renounce all means of violence.”
The official Yemeni news agency cited reports from local tribesman near the scene of the attack, about 150km east of Sanaa, confirming that Al Harthi was among those killed. Al Harthi had been under U.S. surveillance for months.
A onetime bodyguard to Bin Laden, he was believed to be Al Qaida’s operational leader in Yemen, where many Al Qaeda members have fled from war-torn Afghanistan.
Some former intelligence officials said the strike is certain to deliver a psychological blow to Al Qaeda, perhaps explaining why word of U.S. involvement in the attack leaked so quickly from the Bush White House on Monday.
“You want to take credit for this operation,” said one former CIA official.
It sends a message that Al Qaeda “is not even safe in North Yemen. That’s the back of the beyond. Al Qaeda owns that lawless border area, and I’m sure they’ve been wandering around there with impunity.”
Others were sceptical that militants would be cowed even by an impressive display of U.S. weaponry. “I’m not sure you can frighten them,” another former CIA operative said.

——
[archive-e:46-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-11-11-p:./2002/iss46/front.htm]