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
That’s a fairly large geographic area of intervention!
Right. Because the real issue is how much these people cost?
C’mon. That’s the real nativist objection to letting in refugees?
The President wants to give $12 billion to bail out farmers who are hurt by the trade war he created. But the problem with letting in refugees is that the country can’t afford it?
Please.
First you say my comparison of your words to Putin’s is a false equivalence, and then you say we should treat Pakistan like Texas treated the Comanches. So not such a false equivalence, after all?
12 Billion is pocket lint compared to the annual cost of refugees/illegals/legal immigrants.
You keep saying how money isn’t the object.
Show us with your personal $$$$$
No, not at all the same. Al Qaeda retreating into Pakistan for refuge is not the same as Ukrainians wanting to keep Russia out of their sovereign country. Ukraine did have control of its borders, there were no terrorists scoffing at the Ukraine border to evade Russian retribution. Sure, Russia might claim it, but it’s not true.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Can’t one oppose both? Shouldn’t one oppose both?
Let’s do this: Let’s not bail out businesses and let’s also stop giving illegal immigrants free education, social security and Medicare. Now, that would be awesome.
Mike, can you tell me why you think this should be?
And what about the Commanche borders?
The Comanche did not have borders, but we did dictate to them where we would allow them to be. We changed that limit when it suited us. Such is appropriate for a group of uncivilized murdering torturing marauding stone aged people that kill as part of their culture and religion. Our only error was in not exterminating them more quickly.
Very Putinesque of you to say so!
Again you confuse moral actions. Killing murderers is moral. Invading peaceful nations is not.
Like I said, very Putinesque of you.
Moral equivocator. See, we can both sling names at each other.
To be clear: are you arguing for the extermination of Native Americans, here?
I never said that. I said the Comanches, who were pretty much wiped out as a tribe and culture, were murdering terrorists and it was necessary to kill a them in order to protect our people, much as it is necessary to kill fanatical Muslims. Not all Indians were Comanches, and not all Muslims are fanatical murderers either.
Other tribes were not so murderous, such as the Cherokee, and they suffered terrible injustices. The Comanches got much better than they deserved.
Wow…
Well, how long do you think it is right to allow murdering bands of wild people to kill, kidnap, torture, and mutilate people on a regular basis? Is it just because you don’t want to believe in evil that you don’t believe that they did these things? Or do you just think they were misunderstood? How many women should be raped to death by Comanches, how many tortured in the most hideous ways by Comanche women, how many children stolen before you get angry?
The odd thing is that the US government put the Quakers in charge of the Comanche reservation. Being pacifists, the Quakers refused to allow the army to arrest anyone even after the Comanche chiefs boasted of their murders. It’s only been about 150 years, but I guess having fools in government is nothing new.
Very, very Putinesque. Substitute Putin for you, and the Chechens for the Comanches, and nobody could tell the difference.
You keep saying that. And you keep failing to differentiate between right and wrong.
And what do Chechens have to do with the Ukraine?
Putin’s appeals to righteous anger are of one piece, from Chechnia to Georgia to Ukraine and beyond.