In his speech on the threat of the Islamic State last week, President Obama compared his plan for Iraq and Syria to what the U.S. government has done to confront Islamist insurgencies and terror threats in Yemen and Somalia — a combination of air power, support for a friendly government, and limited involvement by U.S. special-forces and intelligence operatives. I explained last week, as many observed, why this was not exactly an auspicious comparison. It just got a little less flattering: Yemeni rebels called Houthis took over whole sections of the country’s capital, Sanaa, today.

The Houthis aren’t quite the Islamic State: They are kind of Islamists, but they’re pretty clearly interested in their local grievances and don’t, unlike al-Qaeda in Yemen, al-Shabaab in Somalia, or the Islamic State, have ambitions to hit Western targets. (The main international angle is that Iran appears to be aiding the group, made up of Shia Muslims, since this creates problems for the Iranians Sunni foes in the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia.) But this does reflect the fact that years of U.S. military aid and counterterrorism cooperation hasn’t produced an effective government in Yemen. Yemen has certain problems Iraq doesn’t have — it’s a lot poorer, for one — but at least there, the U.S. has been able to back two different national leaders who are generally friendly with the West, if not particularly strong or effective. In Iraq and Syria, our partners are much less appealing.

(Incidentally, the rebels who are invading Sanaa are not related to the conflict that used to split the country in two, between North and South Yemen. Rebels from formerly Communist South Yemen were the ones who opposed the country’s unification in the early 1990s and started a civil war over it. The Houthis are from North Yemen, which includes Sanaa, but still aren’t happy with the national government. The Houthis have also shut down Sanaa’s airport so, no, you can’t go visit this blessed country.)