People visit the scene of the attack on the Yemeni defense ministry that took place on December 5, following the funeral of victims of the attack in the capital, Sana'a, on December 9, 2013. (MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images)[/caption]The sudden attack on the Yemeni Ministry of Defense in the bustling heart of Sana’a on December 5, 2013, was as shocking for its brazenness as it was for its brutality.
Technically, there was little that was unusual about the attack. Its modus operandus—the building was breached by a suicide bomber, then a follow-up assault was launched—has been seen several times before, starting with an attack on Italian paramilitary police in Nasiriyyah, Iraq, in 2003, and was used in Yemen in the failed attack on the US Embassy in Sana’a in 2008, and was possibly attempted again in 2013, when 19 US Embassies across the Middle East were locked down.
The international reaction was the standard expressions of condemnation and avowal of solidarity with the Yemeni government. While the non-combatant status of the hospital that was so savagely assaulted doubtless increased the revulsion at the attack, the intensity of the outrage was, as usual, mostly governed by the number of expatriates killed or wounded, rather than by the overall body count. Thus the reaction in the Philippines, with 7 nurses murdered, was stronger than that in the UK, none of whose citizens were reported injured.
Unsurprisingly, Yemeni reactions were both more nuanced and more immediate. Initially, they mostly reflected revulsion at the assault and ensuing carnage—the violation of a sanctuary (hauta) such as a hospital is particularly abhorrent in southern Arabia. This revulsion was later increased by the Yemeni government’s release of graphic CCTV imagery of the attack. However, the attack also added to Yemenis’ geopolitical concerns about their larger neighbor to the north. The predominance of Saudi nationals among the hospital attackers was quickly picked up on, with Al-Quds Al-Arabi even reporting claims of Saudi involvement in the attack (although one Yemeni government minister also laid responsibility for the attack at the feet of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh).
The most interesting aspects of the attack, however, came from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) itself. AQAP initially proudly claimed responsibility for the attack, announcing that it had targeted the MoD building because it "accommodates drone control rooms and American experts." In itself, this is a curious claim, as AQAP has previously targeted the Al-Anad base in Lahij, where tactical US Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) may be controlled. It is well known that strategic UAVs are controlled from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada in the US. Two weeks after the assault, in the light of popular outrage after the video was released, AQAP apologized for attacking the hospital, claiming that it had been a mistake by one member. It also offered to pay blood money to victims’ families, an offer immediately rejected by the Yemeni government. The offer of compensation is actually inconsistent with Yemeni custom, which usually allows the option of paying blood money in the event of an accidental killing, not deliberate murder.
The offer of blood money may also have been a calculated attempt to contrast AQAP taking “responsibility” for their “mistakes” with the US’s perceived lack thereof. Some credence can be given to this if the timing of events is considered: one week after the assault on the MoD, missiles presumably from a US UAV struck a wedding convoy in Radda, killing 14 people and wounding 22. AQAP’s offer followed a week later, after Yemenis’ anger over the drone strike had almost drowned out their rage at AQAP.
Whether genuine or not, the offer also shows the disparate nature of Al-Qaeda, whose activities have ranged from savage beheadings in Iraq and Pakistan, to kidnap for ransom in North and West Africa, to this offer of compensation. Such disparate character of the enemy suggests that there is no single solution, no “silver bullet” (in reality, American Hellfire missiles), likely to work against all the component groups under the banner of Al-Qaeda. Each group must be dismantled in a manner befitting the local operating environment.
While this attack was notable for its barbarity, it was not the first terrorist outrage in Sana’a and, regrettably, it is unlikely to be the last. Similarly, while AQAP have expressed remorse on this occasion, it is unlikely that they will moderate their conduct in regards to innocent bystanders. Alas, once the reverberations of the explosion have died away, the senseless slaughter will commence again.
All views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, The Majalla magazine.
