Concerns on Modernizing Yemen

Views in Yemen

Yemen has become a hot bed for Al Qaeda and loosely affiliated organizations and it has returned to the spotlight after the so called underwear bomber incident last Christmas (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was trained in Yemen). It is fast becoming a main focal point for our battle against terrorism. CENTCOM is proposing supplying 1.2 billion dollars in military aid so that the 50% illiterate and 35% unemployed Yemen can combat Al Qaeda. In other words, there is a proposition to modernize Yemen in hopes that is will suppress radical Islam and give the government the means to effectively fight back. We have seen a version of this story many times in past 60 years: Iran, Iraq, Libya. While I am of course not privy to all the details and do consider Yemen to be a hotbed, I am still concerned about this constant theme that continues to infiltrate American foreign policy and strategy: modernization, money, and "seeing the light" will bring developing countries in the Middle East to an understanding and agreement with the United States.

The idea that "modernizing" a country will bring stability is not a new strategy in our foreign policy though it gets touted a lot as some new counterinsurgency strategy. Does this sound familiar?

"The wave of revolutionary nationalism in the Middle East that crested with Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal helped persuade U.S. leaders that the academic experts who frequently advised them that the restless societies of the Third World were likely to become the principal battle grounds for the Cold War during the decades ahead" (Little 2008, 195).

Truman later supported connections between stability and economic aid, etc. which was encapsulated in his Point Four Program. Kennedy and others would continue on this line of thinking. However, after a good portion of Africa, Latin America, and Asia seemed to be heading in the opposite direction Kissinger noted that "Economic aid, by accelerating the erosion of traditional (frequently feudal) order, often made political stability even harder to achieve" (Little 2008, 196).


America invested significantly in Iraq during the Eisenhower era and it was the foundation to the Baghdad pact which sought to promote cooperation among Middle Eastern states and defense against Soviet aggression. It was a shock to see the prowestern government overthrown by Qassim. The US also funded the shah of Iran for years believing that Iran would be a moderate Middle Eastern state with heavy Western influence. We all know what happened in the end: the shah was seen as a tool of Western power by his people. There was plenty of available ammunition for Khomeini to build the case that the shah had betrayed traditional Islamic values. Alas, all that modernization effort produced an Islamic revolution. These are just two of several examples of a similar story. While each of these cases are different, they still carry in them a certain lesson and theme that I think the US has never really learned. Investment, economic aid, or military modernization does not automatically bring about a desired course of events and often brings about the exact opposite because we have naive and sometimes arrogant expectations.

Be careful what you wish for?

To quote Douglas Little in American Orientalism, "Why has America's quest for the Muslim equivalent of Thomas Jefferson been met so often with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Qaddafi, and Ayatollah Khomeini?"

Again, I am not suggesting that the US abandon efforts in Yemen as it is obviously a location of great concern. I only hope we are being real in our expectations and our strategy before we decide to spend another billion dollars of tax payer money during a time when are national deficit is probably the most dangerous threat to our national security. I hope we are asking ourselves many questions. Is it somewhat arrogant for the US to assume that they can control what occurs in Yemen through modernization? Has this philosophy worked for us in the past? Are we still stuck in the somewhat naive rut of thinking thinking that "enlightenment" and "modernization" will bring the people of the world to seeing our point of view and not another prospective? And if they come to this "other prospective" do we really think events will always work in our favor?