"Let’s Admit It: The US Is at War in Yemen, Too" Topic

"After years of sending drones and commandos into Pakistan, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week admitted the obvious: The US is "fighting a war" there. But American robots and special forces aren't just targeting militants in Pakistan. They're doing the same — with increasing frequency and increasing lethality — in Yemen. The latest drone attack happened early Wednesday in the Yemeni town of Azzan, killing nine people. It's the 23rd strike in Yemen so far this year, according to the Long War Journal. In Pakistan, there have been only 22.

Surely, if America is at war in Pakistan, it's at war in Yemen, too.

For all the about the undeclared, drone-led war in Pakistan, it's quietly been eclipsed. Yemen is the real center of the America's shadow wars in 2012. After the US killed al-Qaida second in command Abu Yahya al-Libi earlier this month, Pakistan is actually running out of significant terrorists to strike. Yemen, by contrast, is a target-rich environment — and that's why the drones are busier there these days.

The White House has declared al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen is to be the biggest terror threat to Americans today. The campaign to neutralize that threat is far-reaching — involving commandos, cruise missiles, and, of course, drone aircraft. It is also, according to some experts on the region, completely backfiring. Since the US ramped up its operations in Yemen in 2009, the ranks of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, have swelled from 300 fighters to more than 1,000.

The congressional foreign relations committees have had some briefings on the military and intelligence efforts in Yemen, Danger Room is told. But there's been scant discussion in public of the campaign's goals, or a way for measuring whether those goals have been reached. Outside of the classified arena, there's little sense of what our Yemen operations cost, nor of what the costs would be if they were discontinued. It's an odd situation, notes Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, since "it's accurate to say we are ‘at war in Yemen.'"

Full article (4 pages)here.
link

a new chance of wargaming every day… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Just how exactly is this not politics / current affairs…?

I was thinking the same Dom. Hopefully Bill will be along to move it to where it belongs.

Just how exactly is this not politics / current affairs…?

Editor's discretion: the same way some polls are personal attacks and others aren't. ;)

Clearly, Zenko knows nothing about war, and ummmmm, what is supposed to stay covert doesn't, since some people can't keep their mouths shut…..

I'd go 15mm scale, if gaming it, since there are some suitable toys available for the drones, and you can field lots of troops on a decent sized patch of terrain on the average game table.

Heh. Darth you are the man! You always say just the right thing to amuse me. 8)=

But it is politics and hence does not belong on TMP.

Tango1 gave it a gameing fig leaf……..I think…

Off to the Fez with it.

Simply adding the phrase "How would you war game this? " does not magically transform a potentially volatile, high political topic into a relevant gaming issue.

Again, this is not news – we've been there for a while now. Catch up to 2012, will you?

What's the range of those Hellfires, in 15mm scale?

From your gaming room to the one in your neighbor's house across the street.

Another front on the War on Terrorism … so to guys here … another front for more wargames …

@Mako11: What's your groundscale? Wiki says min range of 500m, max range of 8000m.

For Ambush Alley, the launcher should not be on the table.

So what? The Global War on Terror is really WWIII, just in small scale compared the first two. And exactly how many countries did we fight in then? If the enemy is in Yeman then Yeman is where you go to fight.

Gaming wise what's there to game? Drone strikes? The diplomatic front? Spinning in for citizen consumption? Spying and electronic warfare? Sounds more like a computer sim or a RPG to me. Now a special forces smash and grab… something there maybe.

I'd game it in 20mm, especially since I already have modern middle-east/US/Ally troops. I'm sure my Iraqi al-Qaida insurgents and Somali militia/pirates could pull double duty in Yemen.

David G.
gamerarchitect.blogspot.com

The war in Yemen is really the Yemeni Army vs. al-Qaeda, with a little help from the US.

Don't forget Somalia.

Apparently, the info of direct action against both by US forces was mentioned in congress today.

And yes, I imagine you will see some special forces raids on land, as well as very covert actions with boots on the ground (despite possible denials), helping provide targeting intel for the drones, etc.

I'd game it in 20mm, especially since I already have modern middle-east/US/Ally troops. I'm sure my Iraqi al-Qaida insurgents and Somali militia/pirates could pull double duty in Yemen.

Pretty much (except I'm a 15mm gamer)

For Ambush Alley, the launcher should not be on the table.

Given how it treats 2000 pound bombs, it probably would be!

:-)

The US isn't at war in Yemen.

:-)

Anyway, back OT, Sundance has it right. The U.S. is just providing precision air strikes with predators against HVTs.

It's really more of a "dirty war" between the Yemeni government, that paragon of liberty and US ally, and Al Qaeda. For wargaming purposes you're looking at small raids and such in which drone strikes are probably not relevant.

You could do special forces teams, but I don't know if it'd really feel any different from doing the same thing in any other desert country.

Drone warfare and counter measures might make for an interesting board game

Sounds like more of a solo game, as the terrorist forces seem to be limited to reacting to the other side's strikes.

Also, this could simply be considered part of Yemen's ongoing civil wars, which go back for decades.

more world war 4. The 'cold war'- was three.

Thanks for your guidance boys.
I agree with WW4.

Amicalement
Armand

For Ambush Alley, the launcher should not be on the table.

Given how it treats 2000 pound bombs, it probably would be!

Considering that most of the buildings in the middle East are strong enough to completely contain a 500lb bomb, the reduced blast area isn't too unrealistic.

Yes, I have seen the photos of a house in Iraq that was on the wrong end of a 500lb JDAM (200lbs of HE going off inside a house!). You couldn't tell that a bomb had gone off from the outside, but there was nothing left on the inside. Not even interior walls.

But what I mean is that the 500m minimum range of a Hellfire is significantly greater than the length of the game table. Medium mortars have a 24" minimum range in the game (the US M252 81mm mortar has a 93m minimum range), so that gives a rough groundscale of 1"=4m. 500/4=125" minimum range for a Hellfire.

Sundance, The war in pakistan is really the Pakistani army against Taliban & AQ aswell, unfortunately the covert help from the US there has a habit of targeting military personel & proper civilians. :/

In Yemen, al-Qaeda is actually in open control of a large portion of the country (as in they are the local government) – not the case in Pakistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are inside the ISI and other security agencies, getting a head's up anytime there's an operation against them. The US supports Yemen in their attempts to eliminate that control, and they occasionally make in-roads. Yemen is, in fact, one of the largest providers of al Qaeda fighters to other countries and causes because of their control in the region.

the US there has a habit of targeting military personel & proper civilians

Yup, you're right, the US intentionally targets friendly troops and civilians. They're such a bunch of meanies. Just like the baby food factory they bombed in Iraq in '91.

How would I wargame the drone campaign against al-Qaeda? .22 rifle vs. squirrels. Classic American tactical match-up. The squirrels have rabies, so if one gets up close and bites you, you're in trouble.

I agree, WWIII or WWIV either or … so many potential scenarios for gamers. And as Col Stone(?)[are you a real Col ?!] pointed out, in a guerilla war you can't always tell good from bad … So I was thinking, in a game you may have to subtract points for hitting civilains. Of course as long as the bad guys hide among civilains it's unavoidable .. you'd have to do a lot of die rolling. Are they civilians or terrorists ? How many points do you subtract when real civilians are hit vs. terrorists … Is it 2 to one ? For every civilian that is hit you have to hit 2 bad guys ? Or should it be 3 to one ? A lot of killing … er … die rolling … Of course it's only a game … so NUC'm (from orbit … it's the only way to be sure !)!! Don't even use drones … just NUC'm !!! Or use NUC armed drones !!! It's only a game so don't worry about the US using any restraint …

Back to one point this IS blue fez, plain and simple. Sorry Tango I like most of your posts mate.

Fatman

Legion 4,

And as Col Stone(?)[are you a real Col ?!] pointed out, in a guerilla war you can't always tell good from bad

I don't think that was his point…sounds more like to me. Of course, like so many Europeans, he's obviously an expert on US military operations.

Meh.
We're involved in military operations all over the place.
What we're doing in Yemen really doesn't seem to live up to the title of "war" to me, but is sure isn't peace either.

As an aside, I don't find Danger Room to be a particularly objective or accurate outlet.
-Kle.

unfortunately the covert help from the US there has a habit of targeting military personel & proper civilians. :/

This is an incorrect statement. The unfortunate part is that military personnel and civilians get killed because of mishaps or out of date intel. There is no intentional targeting of these people. There are accidental attacks and collateral damage in these cases. Targeting implies that these were the intended objects of attack; which has not been substantiated that I am aware of. Care to give sources that state these were intentionally targeted?

I think it would be a foolhardy person to say that the US are deliberately targeting civilians.

There is however perhaps valid concern about how bothered the US are about collateral damage/ checking the intel when hitting a red button from an office on a nice comfy air conditioned base somewhere.

Because an awful lot of civilians ARE dying due to US action and I'm betting that doesn't do the recruitment of fighters to fight you guys any harm at all.

Sundance, The war in pakistan is really the Pakistani army against Taliban & AQ aswell, unfortunately the covert help from the US there has a habit of targeting military personel & proper civilians. :/

I take it you're unaware that (some) Pakistani military personnel are in the habit of providing fire support to AQ fighters, then.

That's the root cause of Pakistan closing the border.

A group of Pakistani Army personnel were providing covering fire for some AQ that were in a firefight with the US Army, and the US Army returned fire on the Pakistanis.

So tell me, COL. Which side are the Pakistanis on, when they're shooting at uniformed US forces and not at the non-uniformed AQ forces?

So back to a gaming fig leaf, who make a 15mm model of The Dawg House ????

Lion – the Pakistani Army have also lost a lot more soldiers fighting the Taliban than the US has…

Recognising the fact wouldn't occasionally go amiss.

Got a link for that alleged incident? Because I'm pretty sure I can find incidents of uniformed US personnel shooting at British soldiers..

The relationship with Pakistan is complex, due to their links with elements of the Afghan Taliban (thanks to the CIA) and concerns about Indian influence in Afghanistan.

But it would be nice occasionally to hear some recognition of their sacrifice from American posters.

Does anyone do Pakistanis in 15mm?

To be fair, the bad guys purposefully use civvies as human shields, so not causing civilian casualties is difficult.

Still, at least we try to minimize casualties to civilians, unlike the enemy, who tries to maximize them.

I suspect a 15mm Daughaus could be easily scratch-built.

I agree it is exceptionally difficult to minimise casualties, given (if nothing else) these guys probably live with their families.

So, one has to ask whether hitting them with a bomb is the best way to neutralise them?

The number of errors made by drone attacks leads me to think a sniper team (which has the advantage of better target identification) might be a better way to do things – it's not like the US can't get SpecFor into Pakistan.

Medium mortars have a 24" minimum range in the game (the US M252 81mm mortar has a 93m minimum range), so that gives a rough groundscale of 1"=4m

Which is my point about mentioning "Force on Force" and "Ground Scale" in the same context. It doesn't have one, just like 40K and FoW (which isn't a bad thing imo…I don't bother with them either…relative distances that provide a good game are more important).

english is my second language…
habit of targeting was an unfortunate choice of words, i didn't mean to imply they do it on purpose,
which i thought was clear from the bit before, ie, covert help vs AQ etc
:/
ancientsgamer & Bangorstu have done a good job at saying what i wanted to say.

(Legion4, nope, not a real col, it's just a hint at my preferred level of gaming ;) )

BangorStu: link

But the spring of 2012 is a particularly delicate moment for that alliance. The U.S. and Pakistan have been unable to reach a deal to reopen Pakistan's ground supply lines for NATO troops in Afghanistan — lines that have been closed since U.S. troops accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in a November border disaster; a disaster apparently sparked by Pakistani soldiers providing cover fire for Afghan insurgents. (Which encapsulates much of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.) And if that wasn't arduous enough, the U.S. wants Pakistan to help forge a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Sidling up closer to India is surely a sensible long-term geopolitical move, but it might also be an impediment to the U.S.' near-term interest in wrapping up the Afghanistan war.

Emphasis mine.

Links to: link

It's also something that U.S. military commanders have warned about for months. They've noted that Pakistani border units have aided insurgents in rocketing U.S. troops on the border — either with active military assistance or by passively ignoring attacks launched near their positions. At some point during the November incident, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby clarifies, Pakistani military forces positioned on the ridge line — a position unfamiliar to the U.S. before the incident — indeed fired on U.S. troops.

You want me to find more examples?

No… but given the USA is currently killing dozens of Pakistani civilians on seemingly a weekly basis I'm not surprised.

As I said elsewhere, I'm far from convinced drones are the answer.

Good point Sundance … And Col Stone, I didn't mean to sound like my comments came out. And it was sort of meant like a little attempt at humor. Your English is very good. I was a real Infantry Captain, so I don't want to be disrespectful … if you were a Col. Yes, ancientgamer I agree with your comments … And I agree with much of what you say Bangorstu. But I'd rather risk a drone and collateral damage in many cases than my soldiers being captured by terrorists and executed on video. Until we can come up with a IFF for insurgents (like in the Ironman movie and in the comic books), anyone who is or was a Grunt, I think would like the same considerations. Soldiers just don't experience killing the enemy but put themselves in a position to get killed. And more than once when we were running patrols on the DMZ or in the jungles of Central America, we had to be careful about running into a ROK or PDF patrols in the dark(or daylight for that matter) … mistakes unfortunately do happen. The same can be said about running into civilains in the dark. Never the less in a guerilla war … with the enemy not wearing uniforms, moving and living among civilians, collateral damage in not only inevitable but unfortunately expected … The same happened in WWII also, in a village where both the uniformed enemy and civilians are present, it's going to happen too … And again as Sundance said, Europeans are all experts in US military operations … No ? LOL !

Collateral damage is a given, that's just how war works. My concern is more that the use of drones will make war more "neat" and acceptable to the voting public, and will thus cause us to get entangled in more engagements.

Legion 4 – I understand what you're saying about the possibility of capture but…

… those drone attacks are making the people of NW Frontier mad as hell – and the onl way you win a COIN war is hearts and minds.

By using drones the USA is not only not winning hearts and minds, it is stating it doesn't give a monkeys' about winning them.

It is stating that it really doesn't think the lives of the locals are worth much.

So, how many extra tribal fighters are we facing because of these attacks?

Because I reckon if you told the average tribesman that the US is fighting to make the world safer he'd laugh in your face.

The number of errors made by drone attacks leads me to think a sniper team (which has the advantage of better target identification) might be a better way to do things – it's not like the US can't get SpecFor into Pakistan.

The thing is Stu, no matter how many RPVs the enemy shoots down, they'll never kill an American by doing so.

Snipers can get killed.

We care a lot more about American soldiers getting killed than we do about foreign civilians getting killed. Not infinitely more (or we'd just rain strategic weapons on their cities from here at home), but quite a bit.
-Kle.

An understandable, but self-defeating attitude.

After all, no-one is forced to join Specfor, but no-one volunteers to live next door to any of the numerous 'AQ No.2s' you seem to be nailing.