Der Krieg in Yemen

Der Krieg in Yemen ist ein sehr alter Konflikt, bei dem es nicht um Al Kaida geht. In Yemen kaempfen die shiitische(!) Rebellen gegen die yemenitische Regierung. Die Rebellen repraesentieren die shiitische MInderheit, die im Sueden des Landes leben. Die yemenitische Diktator Regierung, aber auch die Rebellen sind zu verurteilen. Die Rebellen sind nicht ganz unschuldig. Auch wenn die Rebellen ein Problem sind, ist der Krieg in Suedyemen, ueberhaupt nicht gerechtfertig. In diesem Konflikt, sind viele unschuldige Menschen gestorben und der Tod von Unschuldigen, ist durch nichts gerechtfertigt.

Die gefallenen "Terroristen" kann man hier sehen.

Wenn es Al Qaida in Yemen geben sollte (bezweifle dass es al Kaida ueberhaupt gibt), haben die in diesem Konflikt ueberhaupt nichts zu sagen. Die Hintergruende sind meiner Meinung nach andere. Die Huthis Rebellen werden nicht nur von der yemenitischen Regierung bekaempft, sondern auch von Saudi Arabien. Beide Laender haben grosse Schwierigkeiten, gegen die Rebellen zu kaempfen. Die yemenitische Regierung hat selbst im Inneren des Landes gewaltige (nicht nur politische) Probleme und Saudi Arabien musste gewaltige Verluste hinnehmen.

"Seventy-three Saudis have been killed and 26 are missing since fighting broke out in November between Saudi forces and Yemeni rebels, Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khaled bin Sultan told reporters on Tuesday. "The confrontation on the southern border has resulted in 73 martyrs and 26 missing," said Sultan in comments broadcast on television from a media conference in Al-Khoba in southern Jizan province."



Ich bin mir sicher, dass Saudi Arabien und Yemen die USA um Hilfe gebeten haben, gegen die Rebellen zu kaempfen. Die USA machen ihre Oel-Freunde gluecklich und dabei koennen die USA auch ihr Imperium ausweiten.

more dead soldjers than last year

The number of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year has increased twofold compared with 2008.

Based on an AFP tally, foreign forces recorded 506 casualties in Afghanistan this year, 310 of which were US troops.

The second figure showed that twice as many US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in 2009 compared to 2008, when 155 US soldiers were killed.

How will it be for 2010?

investigate

Karzais favourite word:

investigate.

Karzai will mit Taliban reden "he offers talks"

"KABUL, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday described peace as the utmost demand of the Afghan people, saying he would repeat his offer for talks with the Taliban to ensure durable peace in the war-torn country"

He only wants the money.

NATO good in killing school children

"At least 10 Afghan civilians, mostly school children, have been killed in military operations by international forces in the east of the country, the office of Hamid Karzai, the president, has said."

Victims of US/Saudi Yemen war Pictures

These are the results of the american/western anti-terror war (in Yemen):

Pictures are not verified.

Hearing to recieve testimony on Afghanistan

I found some interesting quotes of some American politicians (senators, millitary & government) on Afghanistan. The quotes are taken from a transcript you can find here.

1.

Senator UDALL:— So, in an ideal world, we would get the job

done militarily in the short term; in the medium and long term, we

would have a presence in the region, economically, diplomacy, and

politically.

Secretary CLINTON: Well, as we have with so many other countries—

obviously, we have troops in a limited number of countries

around the world; some have been there for 50, 60 years, but we

have long-term economic assistance and development programs in

many others. And we think that’s a likely outcome in both Afghanistan

and Pakistan, that we would be there with a long-term commitment.

_____________________________________

Comment:
I believe that this slipped from her tounge. I mean it is easy to misunterstand her, the way she said it and many blogs interpreted that the US troops might stay for 50, 60 years. These blog writers simply ripped the connection of her statment from the question of the senator. I think this was taken out of context. The truth is that Clinton said, the more likely outcome would be a long-term economic assistance and development programms rather than having troops in Afghanistan for 50, 60 years. I mean, she is not that stupid to say this.

_____________________________________

2.

Senator HAGAN: (...)But, I do know that some of the countries have mentioned, in the

past, about starting their own withdrawals. In particular, I believe

Germany has suggested a transition by 2013, and they have 4,000

troops; Canada suggesting some pullout in 2011 in Kandahar—they

have 2500 troops; the Italian leaders, 2800 troops, leaving Herat by

December 2011; Dutch leaders suggesting they might want to pull

out by 2010. And I was just wondering if that is still a concern.

I’ll—Secretary Gates, if you have some information on that.

Secretary GATES: Well, it is a concern. The only two firm decisions

that have been made that I’m aware of are that the Dutch

will leave, next year, with their forces, and the Canadians, by the

end of 2011. These are parliamentary decisions that have been

made.

_____________________________________

Comment:
The important thins in this text is that senator Hagan believes that Gemany has suggested a transition by 2013. No German politician mentions something about this. Secretary Gates said the the only two firm decisions were made by the Dutch and the Canadians, but the question is, why does/did he believe the Germans will pull out there troops in 2013? I mean this man is an insider. I thing this is also something which slipped out of a tounge. Were did he get this information? Does he know something we don't know? He mentioned an exact year and I don't think that he just said something from his stomach.
_____________________________________

3.

Senator LEMIEUX:— Just to touch quickly on the international

partner issue, you mentioned bringing 5- to 7,000 more troops from

international partners. In the past, you have been, as you stated,

somewhat critical of those troops, and you wanted to make sure

that those troops were caveat-free. Do you believe that these troops

that are coming, hopefully the 5- to 7,000 troops will be, as you

said before, caveat-free and be able to fully engage?

Secretary GATES: One of the positive developments, I would say,

of the last year, but especially since the NATO summit last spring,

has been a fairly steady reduction in the number of caveats that

are being imposed by governments. I think they are realizing—you

heard the German Defense Minister, a couple of weeks ago, for the

first time in Germany, refer to what is going on in Afghanistan as

a ‘‘war,’’ or ‘‘warlike.’’ So, they are, I think, domestically, beginning

to deal with the realities of Afghanistan, and I think that has contributed

to a reduction in the caveats.
_____________________________________

Comment:
This part was just a little funny because there was a big debate about this in Germany.
_____________________________________

4.

Senator KIRK: (...)When—if I understand it, when General McChrystal advocated a

strategy along these lines, it wasn’t just the troops, he said, and

I’m quoting here, ‘‘A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency.

The insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This

is their war.’’ And he went on to say, any success must come,

quote, ‘‘by, with, and through the Afghan government.’’ In other

words, without a legitimate, credible, reliable Afghan governmental

partner, it sounds to me like the strategy would be flawed.

By all reports that we have, President Karzai had been installed,

basically, as a result of a flawed election, if not a fraudulent election,

by default, and that he presides over a culture of corruption

and dependent on, unfortunately, an opium economy.
_____________________________________

Comment:
Exactly how it is.
_____________________________________

5.

Senator COLLINS: Thank you.

Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates has given an excellent answer

to the question of, ‘‘Why Afghanistan?’’ My question for you is, Can

we succeed, despite the brilliance of our leaders, the courage of our

troops, the efforts of the civilian component? Is this an impossible

task? We have a corrupt and ineffective government as a partner.

We’ve seen, in the last 2 years, even with the presence of NATO

troops, the government lose control of much of the country. Can

this work, despite everybody’s best efforts?
_____________________________________

6.

Senator THUNE:— Let me ask—the President, last night, said

that we will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the

door to those Taliban who abandon violence. General Petraeus has

previously indicated that we lacked the nuanced and sophisticated

understanding of the Taliban to identify and distinguish between

reconcilable and irreconcilable elements of the Taliban. And I guess

my question is, How do we go about reliably identifying the reconcilable

elements of the Taliban?

Secretary CLINTON: Well, Senator, there are several efforts already

underway to answer the questions that General Petraeus

and others have posed. As you might know, General McChrystal

has asked General Lamb, a retired British general who was instrumental

in the work that was done in Iraq, to come to Afghanistan

to advise him. The Afghans themselves, led by President Karzai,

have a pretty good idea of who they think can, if persuaded, be reintegrated.

But, this is very much a case-by-case effort. And there are certain

aspects of it that we are very insistent on. One, that they have

to renounce any ties to al Qaeda, and they have to renounce violence,

and they have to be willing to reintegrate into Afghan society

in a peaceful way.

We know that some of the Taliban will not renounce al Qaeda;

they are too closely interconnected. We know that others, who call

themselves ‘‘Taliban’’ want to have a continuing means of, you

know, acting in a military capacity, and we want them, you know,

to have to give up their commitment to violence and, maybe, join

the army, if that’s appropriate, join one of the community defense

initiatives. But, this is very painstaking work. And we have very

high expectations for who we would support reintegrating.

Secretary GATES: Let me just add to that. I think that, here

again, there may be some parallels with Iraq.

First of all, I think that reintegration, particularly at the front

end, is going to be retail, not wholesale. And it is going to—we will

end up, as we did in Iraq, turning to local leaders that we have

confidence in who will, in turn, then vouch for these people and

who will essentially pledge their community to the reliability of

these people that are willing to come away from the Taliban.

A second point, we think that there’s a fair percentage of the foot

soldiers in the Taliban that basically do this for pay. And so, creating

economic opportunities as an alternative in order to support

their families is another vehicle for this.

And finally, to the Admiral’s point, security is essential. Somebody

who—I mean, they—there are too many examples of people

who have tried to leave the Taliban and themselves and all of their

family have been killed. And so, until—in retaliation—and so, until

we can provide a secure environment, at the local level, that gives

them some confidence they can—they will not be retaliated against,

it will be a problem.

_____________________________________

Comment:
This part of the hearing basically gives us this to know:

- Not all Taliban fighters are the same
- A fair percentage of Taliban fighters do it for money

Clinton als mentioned that Karzai is the leader of Afghans, which is quite ignorant to say after all admittings that Karzai is corrupt.
I checked the trancscript and they didn't talk much or detailed enough about the Afghan government. Some ministers of the Afghan government are warlords, corrupts and criminals. How can Karzai tackle corruption (paradox: he is not a democratic elected president, he is a puppy of the USA) when his brother is a drugdealer king?