Are we caving to AQ threats?

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Personally I doubt very much whether any portion of those audiences care very much whether the U.S. embassy in Yemen is open for business or not.

I agree, on the whole none of them (us) do give a FF. What I think is important, however, is not that it did close, but the reasons why it closed and the changes in perceptions that come from that.

Besides, the embassy is actually closed, according its own website. They're not taking appointments, either.

Yup. Which, IMHO, is too bad.

Now if CM or yourself know a good reason as to why they should remain open besides IO purposes, I suppose you'd better let the DSS know. Note that the British and French have closed their embassies as well. It might pay to remember that AQAP launched a major complex attack on our embassy in 2008 to include an attempted storming, so it's not like there isn't some history here.

Other than IO? Well, I might say "appearances", but that should, in all fairness, fall under the same general rubric. As to the history, yeah, I know there was an attempted storming. Wasn't the embassy strengthened, though?

There's a big difference between "caving" and taking sensible precaution. And what exactly are we "caving" in to? Did AQAP demand that we shut our embassy temporarily for security reasons?

I agree, there is a big difference. I suppose that what we are really talking about is where is that line drawn, and how are the decisions both arrived at and communicated.