Replies

FYI

Attack on USS Cole exposes a fundamental failure (USA Today)
After several days of finger-pointing and a flurry of technical questions
about vessel security, the larger question about why 17 sailors died in a
terrorist attack on the USS Cole last week is getting shortchanged: Should
the destroyer even have been in the terrorist-rife Yemeni port of Aden last
Thursday?

Navy vessels have visited Yemen since 1998, as part of an effort to build
diplomatic bridges with that traditionally unfriendly Arab state. The former
commander for military operations in the Mideast, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni,
set up the refueling stop and other military ties, arguing that engagement
with such countries deters terrorism.

In the aftermath of Thursday's attack, the execution of that policy, if not
the policy itself, is a glaring failure. Either Yemen cannot be made safe
enough to justify the risk, or the military failed to prepare adequately.

Yemen is a poor country where security forces aren't good at keeping watch on
terrorists. Officials at the U.S. Embassy have said the climate is unsafe,
and the government is far less hospitable toward the United States than are,
say, the governments of neighboring Oman or Saudi Arabia.

By contrast, other forms of engagement such as joint military exercises
between the two countries or training of Yemeni officers in the U.S., pose a
far lower terrorist risk.

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger defended the Yemen refueling Sunday,
saying that the places where naval vessels can refuel are limited. But that's
a rationalization. The Cole could have refueled in friendlier Gulf ports,
including Saudi Arabia and Oman. Alternately, U.S. warships can be refueled
at sea, by supply vessels called tenders.

And even if engagement with Yemen was worth the risk, it certainly demanded
special procedures. For instance, the U.S. could have demanded tighter
control over the Yemeni refueling operation.

Instead of focusing on those issues, some at the Pentagon and State
Department were busy trying to blame each other, just when they should be
trying to find common answers to a joint failure.

For all of the danger, the U.S. doesn't appear to have gained much from its
two years of military diplomacy: The president of Yemen reacted to the
bombing by denying there are terrorists in his country. He has since amended
his comments.

Unless tough questions are asked about the use of naval vessels for
diplomatic purposes, the right lessons won't be drawn from Thursday's tragic
bombing. The situation recalls the aftermath of the 1983 bombing that killed
241 Marines in Beirut. Then, a commission asked narrow questions, and the
broader lesson -- don't send a tiny, lightly armed force to build peace in
the middle of a conflict -- was not learned. The mistake was repeated in
Somalia in 1993.

Using port calls as a tool of diplomacy is worthwhile only if the cost and
risks are acceptable. The 17 dead and 40 wounded show the cost in Yemen was
far too high.