It might not be "what can they offer us" but a more Pakistan style "there could potentially be serious damage to the US if Yemen falls into a civil war". Yemen is a terroristic hotspot right behind Af-Pak.

Agreed.

Both strategic issues and the different geo-political issues for each country in the Middle East that come into play, as much or more than "what they can offer us."

So what you are saying is that the US will be calling for the leaderships ouster or resignation and then bombing soon after they decline?
Color me skeptical.

That is not what I said at all.

We have been bombing al Queda targets in Yemen for the last two years, but that is not really issue regarding the current crisis over the removal of Saleh.

The US strategic interest as well as the geo-politics in Yemen should guide our further actions. Yemen is the poorest and probably the most tribal country in the region, where we have little influence.

Our strategic interest is that the popular movement in Yemen not become just a front for al Queda, which many indicators suggest is the case.

As to removing Saleh, it is in the US interest to let Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council lead in that effort in a way that does not threaten the region. It is in their interest that al Queda does not gain a greater foothold, something they dont want to see either.

Sand?

exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.

See post #19 for confirmation.

Or we could be more aggresive in forcing the president of Yemen out of office and strengthen al Queda, which already has considerable influence in the "populist" movement, in which the US is not very popular. :rolleyes:

I find it rather interesting that the situation in Libya has gotten virtually ZERO press as of late.

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).

While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.

All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.

Not necessarily. One would hope so, but less coverage doesn't necessarily equal fewer massacres.
I dunno - A stalemate doesn't seem ideal to anyone.
didn't see that anywhere.
Agreed

No press also means very important and necessary actions are taking place among Libya's future leaders. They are learning what is necessary to create a democratic type government. And to respect legitimate authority.

Many Libya rebel units had no leadership. Or had multiple leaders who gave contradictory orders. The previous supreme military commander (a former Libyan general and American college professor) has been replaced by a civilian equivalent of a Secretary of Defense.

As stated earlier, a long and tortuous rebellion is one the best things that could happen to the rebels. So that necessary respect and structures so important for 'planning for the peace' can be established and appreciated. So that so many factions that once only had one thing in common (a hate for Kaddafi), will now have respect for their current allies and once former adversaries.

A year long war could be a good thing for long term Libyan health. Those important accomplishments (ie nation building) would not be front page stories.

or they might be pissed at those who may have offered assistance "behind closed doors" they didn't deliver... Who knows. certainly none of us. Fun postulating though.

It has been interesting following the national conservative response to US policy and actions in Libya.

For the most part, Obama has either done too little (the McCain,William Kristol camp) and the US should always take the lead with a greater military presence rather than ceding it to NATO and we should be bombing more aggressively or we should never have gotten into Libya in the first place (the Scarborough, George Will camp).

The few who support the policy (Romney camp) do so but question Obama's leadership. Evidently, leadership requires greater personal visibility rather than a more nuanced behind the scenes approach by influencing both the military and political response by remaining in the background and letting NATO lead the military response and the Arab League and African Union lead the political response.

Maybe they will form a unified Pirate Navy, then they may have our ships.

:lol: Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?