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.
What the Hell Are We Doing in Yemen?
It’s easy to forget the ongoing war in Yemen. But a pair of news stories this week serves not only of a reminder of American involvement there but the foolishness in involving ourselves in yet another civil war.
The first story is the bombing of a school bus by Saudi warplanes that killed 29 children under the age of 15 in Saada Province. For what it’s worth (which isn’t much), the Saudis claim they didn’t intentionally target a bus full of children and that this was a “legitimate military operation.” Civil wars are usually full of atrocities, but this particular horror and the 29 dead children (and many others in this war) was made possible by generous assistance from the United States government and American taxpayers.
Yes, these were Saudi pilots flying Saudi planes (probably — this particular atrocity is credited to the “Saudi-led coalition”), but those planes and the bombs they dropped were sold to them by the United States. Now, you can argue that a seller has no moral responsibility for the atrocities committed when they provide weapons to a bestial regime. So be it, but American involvement doesn’t end when the check is cashed.
Not only does America provide the warplanes, but we provide the Saudi government targeting information and aerial refueling. The Saudis would not be able to fight their air war in Yemen without the support of the American government. And it’s long been communicated to the Saudis that they can bomb civilians and still receive that absolutely essential logistical support. Why? The Saudis are aligned with the “government” of Yemen against the Houthi rebels, which are nominally supported by Iran. The Yemen Civil War is a proxy war of sorts between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
By backing the Saudis to blow up school buses full of children, the US is able to poke a finger in the eye of Iran … or something. (It’s worth noting that the amount of support by the Iranians to the Houthis is a subject of much debate. It appears to me to be wildly overblown.) And we have to fight Iran, don’t ya know, because they support international terrorist groups … or something.
The second story was less widely reported: The Associated Press found that for the last two years the “Saudi-led coalition” has been winning battles on the ground in Yemen by making common cause with Al Qaeda, specifically the local branch, AQAP. They’ve made secret deals, letting them go free if they leave certain cities and towns. It’s a good deal for the AQAP fighters because they usually get to walk away with their guns, their gear, and the cash they looted.
How could our dear allies, the Saudis, betray America like this? Oh, Uncle Sam knows what’s going on and we’ve canceled airstrikes on certain AQAP forces after they’ve cut deals with the Saudis. The US not droning AQAP forces when they retreat with their weapons is a central requirement for these agreements to happen.
Look, I can make a case for negotiating with horrific groups. There’s academic research on how civil wars conclude and it often involves bringing parties (even horrifically violent ones) into the political process. The above is also obviously an oversimplification of the situation. For example, I haven’t even mentioned ISIS or Al-Islah. By my count, there are at least five different warring factions in Yemen (not counting the Saudi-led coalition, Iran, the Emiratis, or the US).
Lines in civil wars are both blurry and constantly shifting, and we’re talking about a part of the world where they were playing power politics 2,000 years before Christ was born. A country as young as America cannot hope to compete with the internal dynamics of a five-way civil war in a country most Americans probably still can’t find on a map.
The real folly, of course, was getting involved in someone else’s civil war in the first place. Whatever case was to be made is weaker than it ever was. But you have to wonder what we’re doing if we’re cutting deals with Al Qaeda while our “allies” bomb school buses full of children.
Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism, Military
I was with you right until here. Now I think you are watching too many Oliver Stone films.
They have been targeting civilians for years now in Yemen. We, meaning you and I as taxpayers, enable that. Our government gives them targeting information and refuels their warplanes in midair.
Do we need an ally government on the straight to keep it open? Or can we just explictly threaten anyone who dares close it with fire and brimstone?
Granted, it’s easier to threaten a government than a bunch of idealistic teenagers with guns.
A great question for <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@fred“>@fredcole. A second … would you consider the 0bama administration’s Fast and Furious Gun Running Scandal to also be “providing weapons to a bestial regime?” Asking for a friend.
That sounds like it should be a separate post, so as not to derail this one.
So it is our intent to blow up school buses full of children? That’s why we are backing them?
I’m not sure. I’d have to spend some time thinking about it. That also feels like it should be a separate post.
No…
If that’s what you got from my post, I’d invite you to reread it.
So … if I understand this correctly … as long as we preface a comment with “Now, you can argue that ….”, one could pretty much say anything we damn well please … and then later proclaim plausible deniability that we think such a thing. Good to know.
It is simple. If you come to my gun store to buy a gun, and you say “I’m gonna kill my ex-wife”, and I sell you the gun, I’m complicit. If I have reason to think you are buying the gun to commit murder, I am complicit. If I know nothing of you, and sell you the gun, and you kill you ex-wife, then I am not complicit.
I’m not smart enough about Saudi Arabia to know, but it seems to me that someone is, and should know that we oughten’t be selling them anything.
You clearly don’t understand correctly: Make this into a separate post, please.
Right. Like I said, this should probably be a separate post. Go make one.
Edit: I see an answer above will get to it
Just that one sentence. I read the whole post and generally agree with you. That sentence strikes me as you saying we intend to blow up children. If you say that’s not what you mean then I take you at your word.
I’ll also take issue with this: “We, meaning you and I as taxpayers, enable that.” No. They take my money against my will and do with it as they please despite my protestation. So I don’t enable it.
Don’t wanna…
Ok, so this is ridiculously dismissive. Iran has been on the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1984. This is not a permanent list. Countries can be added or removed from the list. Obama removed Cuba from this list. Every President from Reagan to Obama has left Iran on this list. If Iran was on this list based on garbage intelligence and us “war mongering” the Obama administration had 8 years to correct this mistake, they did not.
I guess your argument is that for the last 30+ years the US intelligence on the acts of a geopolitical foe have just been sloppy and plain wrong, or perhaps the US intelligence on this matter was dominated by politics. But if this is your answer to the actions of US intelligence, then I guess you will be backing down some on the whole Trump and Russia thing, as you admit politics and incompetence can shade our intelligence agencies.
I did. See comment #37.
This was said as part of the OP, and as such, belongs in this thread. So, I will stay on it.
Now, I do argue that if the US sells aircraft to an ally, and later that ally does something illegal with them, then it is not the fault of the US. However, in this case, was it the US doing the selling, or US Companies? If it was US Companies, then it is not Americans, but the companies engaging in the transaction. From a Free Trade standpoint, it should be OK for the companies to sell whatever to whomever they choose, right? Now, if it was the US government selling F-15’s it bought, then it is a different question. Do we know which it was?
I do think sale of military hardware ought to be monitored and vetoed by the US government. However, in a Free Trade system, on what justification would the US Government be allowed to block such a sale? I mean, Google is working with China to violate human rights. Should the US Government stop them?
Now, Fred, the other question I asked was about who should pay for refugees. It is not a hard question. You think America should bring in more. What is the road block at this juncture to stop it? Is it an immigration thing? Who pays for these refugees to enter the nation now, and who do you think should pay.
Of course, if you the government should pay one red cent, then I will pour all over you about you advocating money being taken from Americans at the point of a gun to pay for non-Americans room and board, even when said Americans don’t want the refugees here.
So, Fred, who should pay for the increased number of refugees that you think we should bring into America?
Still got one to go!
Just to signal my virtue: I would “sponsor” a refugee family if that were an option.
Good. It was meant to be.
I wasn’t dismissive of Iran’s role in supporting international terrorism, which is well documented.
I was dismissive of the idea that we have to fight Iran (via the Houthis) by giving material support to the Saudis, who are cutting deals with freakin’ Al Qaeda, with the end of opposing international terrorism.
So our proxies (the Saudis) are cutting deals with freakin’ Al Qaeda in order to defeat someone else’s proxies (the Houthis), because it might somehow wound that someone else, who is bad bc they support international terrorism.
I am glad that you can afford to support another person to cover 100% of their room and board. I don’t have that much extra income. I am worried about debt for my kids going to school soon.
I need someone to help me around the house, is what it really amounts to. ;-)
LOL. I will when the kids are gone and I am not able to “Build Character”
The barrier isn’t paying for them, as if a country with a $18 trillion dollar economy, where poor people are fat, couldn’t pay for refugees.
The barrier is the government allowing them in. It’s currently run by craven (and, yes, often racist) nativists whose antipathy towards dirty foreigners from “[expletive] hole countries” leads them to cower in fear from women and children.
Who should pay for them? Americans are exceptionally generous people, I’m sure they would happily voluntarily open their wallets to help those few who couldn’t quickly become self supporting. As Americans have always done.
I suppose not wanting to import a bunch of people who do not share our values is just racist to you. And that, at the end of the day, is the problem with talking to you about a lot of these things. You have decided that people who don’t agree with you can only disagree, not based on any good reason, but because they are racist.
Nope. Just the racists are racist. I don’t think that includes you.
But thank you for trying to derail my post.
I am sorry you see it that way. The person who said not enough refugees were coming to America was you.
I am so pleased that you can both not see me as a racist and can understand that I am not for a large mass of non-Western people from messed up nations to come here. See, I learned in the Iraq war, that a given people may not be ready for liberty or freedom. They live in crappy nations because they do not have the culture to live like we do. I don’t want to import that culture, and right now, America is doing a poor job of acculteration of immigrants.
Fred,
This has been going on for quite some time. Now that you have some really great emotional photos to show us you make your pitch which is as usual just to retreat from everything. First, it’s just a story from a Houthi television station. We’ve never seen Islamic insurgencies make false reports?! Anyway, let’s assume that everything you say in your post is true. Obviously, nothing can be done by negotiating between groups on the ground.
However, there is a solution. It is very simple. Iran withdraws support for the Houthis. The Saudi backed group wins and the killing, including the killing of children, comes to an end. I think the Iranian people aren’t the slightest bit interested in a Shite proxy war in Yemen. They are concerned about the price of food in Iran and the fact that they haven’t had a paycheck in over a year. I think we keep the pressure up and we and the Iranian people will be rid of the Mullahs and the Saudi’s will be rid of the Houthis.
Win-win.
Regards,
Jim