Thursday, November 4, 2010 - 12:21 PM

By David Bender and Jonathan Tepperman
Since last Friday's near-miss terror attack, when a Saudi tip-off revealed the presence of two bombs making their way by air freight from Yemen to the United States, much nervous speculation has focused on two issues. The first is the supposed sophistication of the sender, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the two year old Yemen-based franchise of the international terror group. Second is the likelihood that Yemen may be quickly collapsing into a Somalia-style failed state, which would allow AQAP to operate there unchecked.
Reports on the technical complexity of the bombs themselves -- which were disguised as printer cartridges and made it past (admittedly insufficient) cargo shipment screening -- bolster the first point. Much of the conversation has also focused on Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), the malleable military-grade high explosive used in these most recent attempts, as well as in the aborted 2009 Christmas Day underwear bombing (also attributed to AQAP in Yemen). Such components mean that "these bombs have the hallmark of a higher degree of professionalism that we've ever seen come out of al Qaeda before," according to Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer in the Middle East.
Is Yemen the next Somalia? The debate over Yemen's fragility is framed by the severe challenges facing the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh: tribal rebellion in the north, secessionist pressures in the south, and a dysfunctional economy marred by rampant corruption and dwindling oil and water resources. On top of all that is AQAP, which is now aiming its guns on the government: the group has killed 70 police officers and soldiers in the past four weeks.
Taking a closer look at both of these concerns -- in Baer's words a "new, more dangerous wave of terrorism" in the United States and impending disintegration in Yemen -- reveals that both are overstated. It's not that AQAP isn't worth worrying about. But the danger is not quite on the level of catastrophe.
For example, while AQAP has made several attempts at striking targets abroad -- printer cartridges, explosive underwear, and in one case, a bomb stuffed inside the bomber himself -- so far, all of these plans have failed.
While all of these attacks could have had devastating consequences if they actually succeeded, they pale in comparison to the sort of mega-strikes al Qaeda central has pulled off. The Pakistan-based major league outfit is known for meticulous planning, simultaneous strikes (like the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania), and monumental targets (such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon). The Yemeni team, judging by its track record, relies on eager but untrained volunteers and luck to hit its much smaller objectives. This scattershot approach may make future attacks more difficult to uncover and stop. But it also means the organization is unlikely to succeed -- and that even if it does, the attacks won't have anywhere near the international impact of 9/11.
While Washington may not yet understand AQAP very well or its place in Yemen's complex political and tribal matrix, Saudi intelligence seems to have effectively penetrated the organization. The Saudis have been watching the group carefully since the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al Qaeda merged and started targeting Riyadh. And the Saudi efforts have paid off. The key role the Saudis played in disrupting the recent bomb attempts suggests that the kingdom's intelligence either has human assets in AQAP or at least has gained the ability to monitor its communications. As a result, Western and allied intelligence organizations have far more insight into this branch than they do into its Pakistan-based sponsor.
As for Yemen, there are good reasons not to count it out quite yet. Yes, the country's long-term prognosis is grim. But Saleh is a wily operator who has stayed in power for 32 years by relying on bribes, tribal manipulations, kidnappings, and military force. For the next few years, at least, Washington and Riyadh -- both acutely aware of the risks the country's collapse would pose -- will not abandon him. On the contrary, they'll keep supporting Yemen with generous financial and military aid. Of course, Sanaa must be careful how it proceeds. The United States and Saudi Arabia are the object of much hostility among Yemeni public. Public exposure of U.S. military counterterrorism operations killing Yemenis (as when the Bush administration leaked a U.S .operation in Yemen in 2002) could end up weakening Saleh's position and boosting AQAP's popularity.
AQAP is plenty dangerous and a failed Yemeni state is a big risk -- eventually. But Yemen is not yet in crisis and this is not the worst terrorist threat the United States has faced.
David Bender is an analyst in Eurasia Group's Middle East practice. Jonathan Tepperman is Eurasia Group's Managing Editor and a columnist at TheAtlantic.com.
MOHAMMAD HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images
Mr. Bender and Mr. Tepperman,
The situation in Yemen brings up some interesting discussion points. I believe this failed attack provides a great example of the threat the al Qaeda central poses to the international community as a whole not just the United States. Which leads me to believe that the problem of terrorism is an ever-present danger in our world today that we as Americans must learn about and understand as we attempt to combat such a difficult threat. The use of PETN by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula presents an increased sophistication that x-ray and sniffer dogs are unable to detect, which creates a growing threat for national security. In the article you reason that AQAP's failed attempts are proof that the group "isn't worth worrying about," but is this not the same failure of imagination that the 9/11 Commission Report warned about? After all, this is the first successful attempt to smuggle primed explosive devices into the cargo of a comercil aircraft since 1988. Al Qaeda central had numerous failed attacks prior to 9/11, but one successful attack can have devastating consequences not matter the perceived threat and it appears that the Yemeni team is learning quickly. As you point out, reliance upon the Saudi GIP brings some comfort but improvement of U.S. capabilities to respond to such a threat is necessary.
Dependence upon Saleh to keep AQAP under control seems problematic at best, but support from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia should be helpful. It seems though, that improved action now will let the threat posed by AQAP grow and perhaps lead to increased capabilities and improved attacks. If the situation constitutes a threat now, as I believe it does, or eventually worsens with the failure of the government, do you believe that it will be in the U.S.'s best interest to intervene in Yemen? In discussing public exposure to U.S. counterterrorism operation in the past, there is mention that the Yemeni's may side with AQAP rather than Saleh. Do you think the Yemeni's see the increased security that AQAP provides and is it possible for them to understand the danger that could exist in supporting AQAP if it means that the U.S. will become involved? Thank you for your thoughts on the situation, hopefully I get an answer to my inquiries!
The Call, from Ian Bremmer, uses cutting-edge political science to predict the political future -- and how it will shape the global economy.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE