December 2011, Pages 26-27

Two Views

The Assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki, Yemen and Obama's War

By Patrick Seale

(Go Comics ©UniversalUClick.com)

On Friday, Sept. 30, Yemen announced that a Hellfire missile fired from a CIA-operated drone had killed Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, in the north of the country. His grief-stricken father, once a minister of agriculture in a Yemeni government, went to the scene to collect and bury the pieces of what remained of Anwar's body. It was the seventh U.S. strike in Yemen this year.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a virulent critic of American foreign policy in the Arab world, and a passionate advocate of al-Qaeda's form of Islamic jihad. He was also a U.S. citizen, born in New Mexico, with an engineering degree from Colorado State University. His Internet sermons, delivered in fluent English, had a devoted following, especially among young Muslims in the West.

His killing inevitably aroused a storm of controversy in the United States about its legality. In an article in The National Interest, Paul R. Pillar, a former senior CIA officer now a university professor, described it as "essentially a long-range execution without judge, jury or publicly presented evidence." This is a subject which must be left to the Americans to debate.

What are its probable consequences? The most obvious is that it is likely further to inflame some Muslims against the United States, drawing fresh recruits into the jihadist struggle. "Why kill him in this brutal, ugly way?" a member of his Awalik tribe was quoted as saying. "Killing him will not solve the Americans' problem with al-Qaeda. It will just increase its strength and sympathy in this region."

A key question, therefore, is whether al-Qaeda—including its Yemen-based offshoot, "Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula"—is an organization or a cause. If it is an organization, killing its leaders must eventually drive it out of business. But if it is a cause, assassinations may have the contrary effect. A "martyred" Awlaki may prove a more effective recruiting sergeant than he was alive. A young American Muslim cleric, Yasir Qadhi, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 3 that "Killing people does not make their ideas go away."

Awlaki's killing has inevitably been compared to that of Osama bin Laden, shot down last May in his home in Pakistan by a hit-team of U.S. Special Forces. The clandestine mission was seen by many Pakistanis as an intolerable infringement of their country's sovereignty. The assassination precipitated a grave crisis in U.S.-Pakistan relations. It played into the hands of hard-liners in the Pakistani army and military intelligence service, no doubt causing them to tighten still further their links with jihadi groups, such as the Haqqani network. America's 10-year war against the Taliban in Afghanistan will thus have been made more perilous and any outcome favorable to the United States more uncertain than ever.

In much the same way as he cheered bin Laden's death, U.S. President Barack Obama has hailed Awlaki's murder as a major blow to al-Qaeda. Many Muslims, however, will see the killing as further evidence that the American president, much like his belligerent predecessor George Bush, is at war with Islam. His slavish support for Israel as it seizes Palestinian land and denies statehood to the Palestinians has aroused great anger. His standing is already close to rock-bottom in the Arab and Muslim world. The killing of Awlaki will drive another nail in the coffin of what little remains of his reputation.

In an ironic twist of fortune, Dick Cheney, Bush's war-mongering defense secretary, said last weekend that Obama should apologize to Bush for criticizing the "enhanced interrogation techniques"—such as water-boarding—inflicted on al-Qaeda suspects, since Obama was himself now resorting to even more robust methods!

The United States is deeply unpopular in Yemen. The divide can be traced to the American-sponsored war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It will be recalled that, with the help of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the United States recruited, trained and armed tens of thousands of young Muslims from several Arab countries to fight the "godless" Russians in Afghanistan. Some 25,000 of these mujahideen—volunteer fighters in the cause of Islam—came from Yemen alone. Many thousands more came from Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere.

But when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the United States callously dropped the mujahideen. Funding for them dried up. A number of these battle-hardened and radicalized "Afghan Arabs" joined bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Thousands made their way home to Yemen, where they were treated as heroes—at least at first. Some were given jobs in the civil service and the army.

A year later, in 1990, Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait. To dislodge him, the U.S. dispatched half a million men to Saudi Arabia in what was to become the First Gulf War. Since Yemen had long had close ties with Saddam's Iraq, President Ali Abdallah Saleh refused to join the American-led coalition. Instead, he advocated an "Arab solution" to the Kuwait crisis. This angered Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states who saw Saddam as a dangerous bully who had to be cut down to size—a task they believed only the United States could do.

Saudi Arabia's response to Ali Abdallah Saleh's pro-Iraqi policies was to expel close to a million Yemeni migrant workers. Their return home deprived Yemen of indispensable remittances and added to already severe unemployment. Yemen became a failing state. This was the beginning of a long dispute between Yemen and Saudi Arabia—and also of a battle between jihadists and the United States, which continues to this day.

At first, the "Afghan Arabs" were useful to Yemen's president as he battled former Marxists in South Yemen. But when the jihadists started attacking American targets, they got him into trouble with the United States. The former heroes became terrorists.

In December 1992, jihadists bombed the Goldmur Hotel in Aden where U.S. military personnel were staying. In June 1996 they bombed the Khubar Towers in the eastern Saudi town of Dhahran, killing 19 American soldiers. In August 1998, they attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In October 2000, they blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole in Aden harbor, killing 17 U.S. sailors. In November 2002, a missile from a CIA-operated drone killed Sheikh Salim al-Harithi, one of the men involved in the Cole bombing.

By this time, the exploits of these local jihadis had been overshadowed by the devastating assault mounted by their mother organization on the U.S. heartland—the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed.

Meanwhile, the bitter struggle continues in Yemen, a country now on the verge of collapse. U.S. Special Forces are being sucked further into what looks increasingly like a civil war. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki must be seen in this context.

But is it not obvious that external force is a blunt instrument in dealing with what is essentially an internal Yemeni contest? Is it not time for Washington to rethink its policy toward the Arab and Muslim world—as the unfortunate Obama had indeed intended to do, before he was defeated by America's gung-ho militarists, rabid conservatives, pro-Israeli lobbyists and other assorted Islam-haters?

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East(Cambridge University Press). Copyright © 2011 Patrick Seale. Distributed by Agence Global.

A Dangerous Precedent

By Rep. Ron Paul

According to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient; rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.

The Sept. 30 assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the president and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a "really bad American," is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned in early October, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn't we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hasan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law. Awlaki had been outspoken against the United States, and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the U.S. attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary—not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama's National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more American citizens are on that list? They won't tell us. What are the criteria? They won't tell us. Where is the evidence? They won't tell us.

Awlaki's father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the "kill" order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.