Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Are We Backing the Saudi Campaign in Yemen?
Two weeks ago, I ventured a prediction:
Anyway, how do I bet what little I have left on “Saudis screw this up big time within two weeks? I’ll bet it all. I need the money.
The prediction was correct–that was an easy one–but I regret the insensate tone, not least because this is now yet another humanitarian catastrophe. UN estimates suggest 100,000 people have been displaced. It’s easy to dismiss Yemen as a perennially benighted hellhole, but kids who were born in Yemen have committed no other crime:
The chaos in Yemen, now the scene of some of the most chaotic fighting in the Middle East, has left civilians — noncombatants, both locals and foreigners — caught in the crossfire.
Those trying to escape the violence, either by leaving their homes or by leaving the country altogether, have been flung into a vortex of fear, fatigue, flight and death.
Explosions shattered windows in Sanaa, the country’s capital. The fighting has killed hundreds of people in less than two weeks.
At least 74 children are known to have been killed and 44 children maimed since the fighting began on March 26, UNICEF said Monday in a statement. That did not include the children reportedly killed Tuesday in Maitam.
US policy is to deliver weapons to the Saudis:
The United States said on Tuesday that it was expediting deliveries of weapons to Saudi Arabia, a sign of the Obama administration’s deepening involvement in the Saudi military offensive against the Houthi movement in Yemen.
And Saudi policy, it seems, is to bomb relentlessly. To what end? Can you imagine achieving any desirable goal in these circumstances through air power alone? So far, and predictably, it has been serving only to create chaos, from which A.Q.A.P. is greatly profiting:
AQAP already demonstrated its reach this year with what it calls “the blessed battle of Paris,” the attack on the office of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last winter. The group trained the killers and claimed credit for financing the operation. It credited al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahri for selecting the target. The Paris attack inspired others a month later in Copenhagen against other individuals who had satirized the Prophet Muhammad.
AQAP was behind the December 2009 attempt to blow up a passenger jet flying from Amsterdam to Detroit and a series of plots to send explosives to destroy aircraft in the United States. The group has a cadre of experienced bomb-makers.
The longer the war in Yemen continues, which could be a long time, the more al-Qaeda will benefit. It will carry out terror attacks on the Zaydis and the Saudis both. It has underground cadres in the kingdom that Interior Minister Mohammed bin Nayef tries to unmask. He has been very successful in doing so, but it’s a constant battle.
Why are we backing this? The answer, it seems, is “Why not?“
“If you ask why we’re backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have been allies for a long time, the answer you’re going to get from most people—if they were being honest—is that we weren’t going to be able to stop it,” said an American defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was discussing internal government deliberations.
“If the Saudis were willing to step in, the thinking was that they should be encouraged,” the official said. “We were not going to send our military, that’s for certain.”
The unstated logic of our policy, I assume, is to reassure the Saudis that our negotiations with Teheran don’t entail a lack of commitment to Saudi defense. (That it is highly unlikely to serve even Saudi ends–and may well end up destabilizing the Kingdom–seems to be of little concern here, but it should be.) So in other words, we’re again at war without any declaration of it, with no clear statement of our aims, no strategy, and no rationale beyond, “The Saudis are stepping in, which should be encouraged.”
The United States had no plan in place for evacuating its own citizens, and is now recommending that they try to hitch a ride out with Indian citizens:
On Monday, India rescued more than 1,000 people by plane and ship, the second time in two days that such a large number have been brought out since Saudi Arabia launched air strikes against Iran-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen on March 26. India has been asked by 26 nations – including the United States – to help get their citizens out of the conflict zone.
Does our policy seem to you wise?
Published in Foreign Policy, General
Mr. Obama was dealt a bad hand, but far less bad than his predecessor’s.
How so? Two extremely unpopular wars, the threat of terrorist attacks, and a tanking economy… compared to a thriving economy, no wars and the threat of terrorist attacks?
(Your response is useful, though, Titus—thank you!)
The Saudis can’t even dream of that. Yemen is like Afghanistan: Attempts to control territory there always end up in lines like “Graveyard of the Turks” and “Graveyard of the Egyptians.”
Those wars became suddenly less unpopular once P. Obama took office. I also note that the nightly drumbeat of US causalities ceased as well. He could have done anything and it would have been praised – as it was.
Claire,
This is a propaganda catastophe so far in the Western Media. 300,000 were already displaced by the Houthi – Iranian backed civil war before the Saudi campaign began. This is not about Yemen it is about control of the Straits of Aden and nothing else. Iran while denying involvement has already sent a destroyer to the area as if there was really any question.
The Air Campaign proceeds the ground campaign as in Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe was very successful. Not going to the Surge immediately after Shock and Awe was the problem in Iraq.
It takes time to move ground forces into position. The Saudis have not yet begun to fight. The media and Iran are desperate for a quick settlement to head off the real Saudi incursion. The humanitarian supplies are a cover for military resupply.
The coverage is very biased so far. Here’s the sixteenth paragraph of a the most recent AP story. Gives you an idea of the popular nature of the Jihadist Houthi.
Shia is a minority in Yemen. The Gulf of Aden is in the Saudis and Egyptians lap. Iran has no business in the Gulf. Al Qaeda is using Yemen as its latest base for training terrorists to attack the USA.
The group’s flag reads as following: “God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam“. This motto is modeled on the motto of revolutionary Iran
With all due respect to the COC, screw the Houthi.
Regards,
Jim
A point that we need to make again, and again, and again.
It is difficult to credit our policy as a policy. At times it seems that there is someone in the basement of the State Department throwing darts at a wall map and deciding who to back and who to bash based on the results.
Someone there should be writing a book: How Not to do Diplomacy.
We are backing the Saudis, in short, because the Houthi (Shiite Fivers) are being backed by the Iranians (Shiite Twelvers) and the Saudis (Sunnis) who hate the Iranians not merely for being Shiites but also for being Persians. And for being expansionist, theocratic nutcases.
(If you are seeing “Shiite Fivers” and “Shiite Twelvers” and you are wondering “are there any “Shiite Seveners,” the answer is yes, and that is not a joke. At least it’s not my joke. I blame the Imp of the Perverse.)
Nor make sense. Nothing of our entire foreign policy makes any rational or systemic sense. It’s a hodgepodge of impulse based on any momentary Liberal sensistivity.
Jim, I’d love for you to be correct–and agree with you about the Houthi. But this is an extraordinarily optimistic understanding of what’s been happening. The Saudis have neither an appetite nor an ability successfully to prosecute a ground war. And the beneficiaries of the chaos will be AQAP and ISIL.
I think here is one reason: Mr. Obama did not face the public hatred Mr. W. Bush did. By 2004, the New Republic was publishing a Mr. Chait of the late argument that the left should not hate liberals in the P.C. mode–writing about why the president should be hated. That was the nice people, Clinton liberals & all…
Another reason, Mr. Obama had a mandate from the people not to be like his predecessor, not to fight wars, not to go around talking up security–all he had to do was manage the wars after all the casualties, after all the mistakes, after all the things learned as well, after the command structures were in place, with a past to look to in order to choose his generals & objectives. Had he decided these wars cannot or should not be won, they could have been managed in the new American mode, without talk of of victory, but without a massive collapse. The good-will of the nation was with him. The blame for the wars was with his predecessor. That’s sitting pretty, ma’am, in the circumstances.
The economy, indeed, was a terrible blight. But he learned about it before assuming office, so he was much better off than his predecessor, who faced his crisis unaware completely. Who does not want to face crisis need not pursue the highest office in the land. Therefore, no one can ask for more than to know in advance what the crisis will be. In this Mr. Obama is luckier than almost any president, with the exception of Mr. Clinton, who was reasonably sure he’d have it easy compared to his predecessors… Moreover, we were talking about the Middle East & foreign policy–& rightly so, because Commander-in-chief is the most important presidential authority.
Claire,
This is pure left wing projection of American leftist sentiments onto the middle east. The Saudis are the reason that Egypt’s Nassar lost in Yemen in the 1960s. They are very proprietary about the Arabian Peninsula. With Egypt this time as an ally and a powerful one at that, I think its time to “Give War a Chance!!”
Again at the risk of the COC, screw the Houthi and screw Iran.
Regards,
Jim
Right, but the economy matters. And whether or not Obama was given considerable leeway in managing the exits, the fact remains that the American people were anticipating a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
How did Bush enter his presidency “unaware?” It was hardly a secret that Al Qaeda was gunning for us, and even if he didn’t read newspapers, presumably he received a few briefings prior to the Inauguration? Obviously, he didn’t know that something on the scale of 9/11 would happen, but he certainly knew that he was going to have to deal with Al Qaeda, and had plenty of people around him itching to deal with Saddam in some aggressive, permanent way.
Bush should not get a pass on any of the decisions/messes made on his watch, at least, if we’re not going to extend the same courtesy to Obama. (I’m inclined to give Bush, Obama and indeed, all these characters the benefit of the doubt, if only because the issues seem so convoluted and intractable—Even given the wide latitude granted by mere feckless fantasizing, I don’t know what I want the U.S. to do in any of these countries, let alone in the region as a whole. (Maybe someone could start a thread on this?)
The exception, incidentally, is James of England, who has specific knowledge and ideas about what could have been done, and perhaps could still be done, in Iraq.
I figure if the US can exercise tax power over worldwide income it should also exercise defense and retrieval of its citizens worldwide as well.
I would also note that when the US decided to intervene in Libya it had to be prodded to rescue the US persons there.
On all this we agree. It is not what the job was or the difficulty. It is the way he has done things that matters. His ongoing failure may yet be turned around–but if it is not, this man’s reputation will be worse than Mr. Carter’s.
Did you see the interview where Mr. Clinton said, he could have had bin Laden killed, but he didn’t, so that he would not make America like the enemy?
Every president would have known about various Muslim terrorist groups. Did Reagan know about Lockerbie? Or Thatcher? They would have known some things. They had the right principles. Maybe the right priorities, too. But in these cases, that’s not what matters.
FDR knew about Japan, but that could not prevent Pearl Harbor. Wilson especially knew about Germany, but that did not prevent the Lusitania. I think you need more respect for that kind of fact.
In a fundamental sense, when it comes to grand strategy, Al Qaeda has never been important. It is derivative of other dangers. It is a sign of weaknesses in liberal democracy. But it is not itself the problem. It has to be dealt with, & sometimes more urgently than others, but terrorism was a problem before & Middle Eastern tyranny even more so, & will still be in the future.
Bush should not get a pass on any of the decisions/messes made on his watch, at least, if we’re not going to extend the same courtesy to Obama.
Some respect for the difficulties of the office is required. But no one gets passes. You do not seem to have any respect for the difference between waking up one morning to the worst Americans have faced since at least Pearl Harbor & rising in politics with an eye on the presidency & running for the office in full knowledge of the wars. Mr. Obama seems to have learned nothing. He has done nothing in the Middle East which was good. If you think otherwise, pray tell. Presidents get praise & are allowed their faults if they have done something good, because we know that the good comes at some cost…
I’d agree, so long as the US person isn’t violating a State Department travel advisory. It doesn’t seem reasonable to ask the government to bail you out if you insist upon doing something manifestly foolish.
That said, I’ve learned the hard way that State won’t be of much help in an overseas emergency even if you’re doing something entirely reasonable.
He did try to kill OBL – by shooting a weapon with a flight time measured in hours (cruise missiles) against a target who relocated on a time scale measured in minutes. It missed. Because the targeted individual moved.
In other words, he chose the wrong weapon for the job. Then again, he had testified only 3 days before to the Grand Jury and immediately after had to admit to the American public that he had lied to them.
I am certain the cruise missile strikes had absolutely nothing to do with disrupting the news cycle and blunting criticism about his “affair”.
I write in response to the comments of Spin (#6) and KB (#16) about energy independence.
The idea of “energy independence” has rhetorical attraction, but it is illogical as a matter of economics. The problem is not that we import oil from the Middle East. In fact, the US imports relatively little oil from the Middle East.
The problem is that events in the Middle East can have a major impact on the worldwide price of oil. This would be true even if the US doubled its oil production and became a net exporter. This will continue to be true as long as the Middle East produces a very large proportion of the world’s oil supply. And the Middle East will continue to produce a very large proportion of the world’s oil supply because a large percentage of the most easily-accessible oil is located in the Middle East. It’s a matter of geography, and not something that we can change.
FYI, in 2014, US daily oil production was about 12 million barrels, and imports were about 9 million barrels, of which about 3 million barrels comes from the Persian Gulf. Canada is our largest source (over 3 million barrels/day), and Mexico is another major source (almost 1 million barrels/day).
Thus, increased US production of oil is not going to make the Middle East less important to the global economy. The same holds for decreased US consumption of oil, whether due to lifestyle changes (e.g. driving less), or use of alternative energy sources, or use of more efficient autos.
So I’m sorry to be contrary, but there is nothing that we can do by changing US domestic policy regarding oil production or consumption that is going to somehow solve the problem in the Middle East.
I think the US should come get Citizens anywhere, with lots of force. The rule of thumb should be “I am an American Citizen” and people quake in fear to threaten us
I think that there is some logic to backing the Saudi action in Yemen. It is certainly a goal of the Obama administration to get the regional powers in the Middle East, including the Saudis and Egyptians, to take the leading role in policing regional problems. In principle, this seems to be a sensible idea.
“Leading from behind” is easy to criticize, and may sometimes fail, but I don’t see anything wrong, in principle, with the idea that international problems should often be addressed by the relevant regional powers, whose interests are directly involved, and who therefore have an incentive to work toward resolution. Churchill’s idea for the United Nations involved three regional councils at which most problems would be initially addressed, with the world council only becoming involved: (1) in matters of grave import (say where a Security Council member was directly involved) or (2) after the regional council had failed to resolve the problem.
This approach has the advantage that it involves substantially less burden on the US and its forces. It has the disadvantages that: (1) the regional powers may not act as we would wish and (2) the regional powers may employ ineffectual military measures.
At this relatively early stage in the Yemeni conflict, I’m inclined to see how the Saudis and other regional powers can do, and to offer our advice and support.
Of course, the conflict in Yemen presents a dreadful humanitarian crisis, but that is the nature of war, and it seems to me that the alternative is to let the Iranian-backed “bad guys” win.
Concur.
This is one of the best things that ancient Rome did.
Absolutely correct, thanks for making this point.
Maybe the right should start thinking about undoing the insanities that led to this situation. America effectively created the international Wahabbi problem by turning the sect’s ally, the House of Saud, from nomads to oil billionaires. America furthered effectively bankrolled killing Americans & Jews worldwide by allowing the Ayatollahs to take over Iran. America put up with the blackmail of the oil shocks instead of invading. & these days, America does not threaten these Middle Eastern fickle tyrants dancing atop rather unstable regimes with blocking their access to spare parts to keep their oil going. In short, American foreign policy is the problem. Americans cannot count on their own resources, apparently, but insist on giving resources to enemies…
I agree that it would be better to take evacuating our own citizens as seriously as India does.
Say what you mean. Would you have us conquer the oilfields?
There is some attraction to the idea, but I see two big problems. The smaller (though still big) problem is that we risk losing all moral authority in opposing other land grabs by major powers, including China and Russia. The even bigger problem is that we risk undermining one of the key promises of the current international system — that nations are to be free from this type of resource-grabbing invasion — which is the basis for our unprecedented worldwide prosperity.
It might be useful as an extreme sanction. We could call it the “Walker Doctrine” — formulated something like “major violations of the peace of the world shall be grounds for permanent seizure of natural resources by the United States and its allies.”
Thus, for example, part of Iraq’s punishment for Saddam’s malfeasance could have been the permanent loss of some or all of its oil fields. Perhaps this doctrine could be implemented by a new administration in making an example of Iran (though, as Claire pointed out on another post, a war with Iran could be quite a dreadful thing).
I like the name “Walker Doctrine” because it is ambiguous — are we talking about our favorite Wisconsin governor, or our favorite Chuck Norris character?
Claire I typically love your stuff, particularly regarding foreign policy, but you are slightly wrong on this one. Yes, we are in fact expediting weapons deals with Saudi Arabia, but, if I am not mistaken, those were deals already agreed upon. All we are doing is fast-tracking the delivery of the order.
Also, aside from the weapons deal, our participation in the operations of the GCC coalition is nearly non-existent. Sure we have ships in the area, but that is only because we also have a Carrier Strike Group in the area. We are also sharing intelligence and target packages for airstrikes to the best of our ability. That is the extent of our involvement. We are not participating in air strikes in a kinetic manner. We are certainly not going to involve ground troops. And our Navy has yet to launch strikes with T-LAMBs (sorry for the jargon folks). I would hardly say that we are “once again at war without declaring it.”
As to our policy, I have to answer in a way that reflects the current situation in the Middle East and in DC. I think it is very wise, if we are going to continue with our withdrawal from the region in terms of military presence, then there needs to be a power in the region that can handle security missions there and isn’t necessarily overtly hostile to the US and our interests. Say what you want about the people in the individual states of the GCC, but the governments of those states are more than willing to advance our interests. From a realism perspective, you couldn’t ask for much more than that.
Finally, is it ever going to be possible again to view warfare in any other light than humanitarian? I mean for crying out loud name me a war that hasn’t had a humanitarian disaster attached to it. Did WWII not displace millions? Should we have toned it down a bit because of that?
Your sentiment about AQAP is correct, for now. The issue is that KSA is attempting to find another Arab partner that will be willing to field much of the ground force that they want to send into Yemen. So far the two biggest allies they would need, Egypt and Pakistan, have been rather reluctant in making that commitment. KSA WANTS to do a ground offensive, but they don’t want to be the primary force. Part of this is because the MoD headed by Mo bin Salman knows that the ground forces are ill prepared and the equipment is woefully maintained.
I have said what I meant. I’m not adverse to thinking about this as well–but it’s really other people’s problem–surely, the Ricochetti should care about this more, if there is any sense to the suggestion.
No. Neither Iran nor anyone else is capable of providing even their own spare parts. By the by, this is not some kind of brilliant thinking on my part–I’m just telling you what Mr. Codevilla said. Prevent them from buying spare parts unless they comply with American rules.
I’m not sure that’s so or even that problematic. Worry first about the old Westphalia doctrine of sovereignty being threatened. Presumably, American interests might deal with that. Then, this moral authority business–let’s not overdo American moral authority. It does a lot of damage. American defense, however, is far better. Moral authority without power is useless. Nothing is worse than the spectacle of justice without the sword… A foreign policy of helping regimes that hurt you is making you weak. Bringing American interests back into foreign policy is the beginning of wisdom.
America & Britain had all this prosperity without any of this no invasion business. They are more prosperous now partly because there is less war, partly because commerce & technology have had that much more time to improve. Both depend on the hell America unleashed in her hour of wrath & the disarming of enemies. Not in promises about no invasions.
Further, the mess America created in the middle East happened after the great wars, completely unnecessarily. There was neither moral imperative nor grand strategy in giving Saudi Arabia wealth beyond measure & Iran to similar but different gangster fanatics.
That’s far more bloodless than you seem to think. Death is what people fear. ‘Major violation of world peace’ is a melancholy phrase, all things considered. At any rate, this is not a doctrine you can proclaim. It is a reputation you acquire by exterminating tyrants & gangsters who refuse to comply with your interests. It takes blood & it takes time.
No. Remember that politics is more important than economics. Kill the tyrant; divide the country among whoever wants it, can hold it, & complies with the minimum rules America’s interests require–destroy terrorists on sight included–& share the oil with the inhabitants in a way that gives America advantage. You can no longer afford to bribe peoples to live with your peace like you did after 1945. It bought you a lot of ingratitude within a generation, too, & now Europe cannot decide whether it hates or contemns you.
War is a dreadful thing; the question is, what is the alternative? If your new president will be able to thwack America’s enemies credibly, maybe regimes that have as much to lose as Iran’s will learn from fear. Otherwise, destroying the regime of the Atomic Ayatollahs. Things will get worse; people will listen; now is the time to tell them, so they can remember later. This is what is meant by free gov’t. Heroes are tolerated in awful times, if they prepare in previous…
I’m glad you have a sense of humor about these things. Myself, I rather liked the contemptuous European mockery of Mr. W. Bush–he was a cowboy. Yeah, John Wayne is the face America should show the world. He ain’t pretty, but he gets the job done, the girl, & has some fun when he can…
Claire came back to remind me why I finally swore off paying attention to the news from the Middle East. I thin it is all covered in the preceding comments. It becomes harder for me with each exposure to construct any rationale for putting American forces in harm’s way under the worst Commander in Chief in American history. Rules of Engagement that require withholding return fire until you have three new gunshot wounds verified by two commissioned officers have had a predictable effect on an armed forces run ragged since W famously upped the percentage of time deployed while nailing the exits shut for active and reserve military.
International order comes at a cost of blood and treasure. Bumbling Barry is a historical spendthrift in both categories.
Who will America become in 2017?
Second to both Robert and Titus – just in case you were wondering.
I think your opinion is the one to which all those of us who pretend to know international affairs–& not all who make this claim are as ignorant as I am–should pay most attention. This is the natural opinion, so to speak, of civilized people in a world America has saved from the worst things powerful races could do.
I think talk of foreign affairs needs to achieve three things: To show plainly the basic motions & important events to people who have neither the time nor the inclination to look at foreign affairs in depth; to show politicians what they need to prove to the people, if they want popular support for their policies; & to keep some interest & competence alive, because in the future it will be needed, as it was in the past.
I do not say this as a rule-book for Ricochet or anyone else except myself. But whoever sees sense in this suggestion should consider what a difficult thing it is to do. I take it for granted that people see how needful it is, given the disasters to which America has been witness since 9/11.
An interesting comment that got my attention because it made me realize I might look at things very differently than you do–and perhaps differently than many on Ricochet do–and to wonder why. Perhaps understanding this could be a key to explaining my views better and to understanding why, at times, I’m not able to persuade others of the merits of my view. Perhaps it’s a key to seeing why I might be wrong.
I would not naturally reach for the vocabulary you use here. I’m trying to understand what words, exactly, sound strange to me. It’s the talk of “foreign affairs” and international affairs” as if they’re radically different from “domestic” and “American affairs.” Somehow, in the time that I’ve been living overseas (most of my adult life), I’ve stopped seeing these as fundamentally separate. I see America as–at the very least–a massively significant a global power. But that’s the minimal view. My natural assumption really is American exceptionalism: I see the United States as a historically unique superpower with a mission; I truly do believe it is unlike any other imperial power in history, and must play a global role.
I’m groping here–I don’t know why I noticed this, or what it means–but I feel that if I could understand why your paragraph caught my eye, I’d either make progress in understanding myself (which is uninteresting to anyone else) or possibly (and potentially more interestingly) make progress in explaining something something I don’t yet feel good at explaining: why “foreign policy” not only matters, but matters more than any other policy issue–although I don’t see it as entirely distinct from other policy issues, either.
I’m always caught short when asked, “Why should I care?”–because the answer seems self-evident to me. I suspect there’s a world of assumptions underneath my sense of it being self-evident that need careful examination. Some of them may be good arguments that are worth making clearly; some of them may not be. And these arguments are so deeply bound up with my own sense of who I am–an American–that they well be unexamined in a way that’s not useful. (“Useful” in the sense of: I’m not making the suppressed premises of my argument clear, and therefore others can’t decide whether I’m correct.)
Any thoughts come to mind? I can see I’ll be spending the day thinking about this.