Two attacks in Yemen today, onenear the US Embassy in Sana’a and another in the southern province of Abyan. As of right now, the Yemeni government doesn't see this as targeting the US Embassy, but rather as a “purely criminal incident”. To be sure, the mortars in Sana’a hit a school, some 500 meters from the Embassy. So well it could easily have been an attack on American interests, it could also have been a local matter.
Now, in the last Yemen post here, the jihadi journal “Echo of Battles” was discussed, and it was noted that the last issue directly presaged an attack. So that does lend some credence that this could have been an al-Qaeda operation, designed to co-incide with the publication of the newest issue. Possibly one could say smart money is on that, but I think it is short-sighted to think jihadism is the only problem or the sole source of violence in Yemen.
The attack in the south is a little different. It does carry the scent of Islamic militancy, but it is unsure whether it is al-Qaeda, the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army, or possible any other splinter group. While many- most, even- Islamic militant groups share the same broad aims and are driven by similar motivations, it is wrong to think of them as monolithic. It might be comforting to do so, and possibly fit a pre-conceived political viewpoint, but it does nothing to help the problem. There has no been a single movement in the history of the world that wasn't beset from conception with dissidents, schismatics, heretics. To imagine al-Qaeda, and Islamic militancy more broadly, to be any different is simply counter-productive.
