If the US wants these attacks to stop they should put some effort into actually trying to improve the horrible, horrible situation in Yemen. The US has basically given Saudi Arabia a blank check...
If the US wants these attacks to stop they should put some effort into actually trying to improve the horrible, horrible situation in Yemen. The US has basically given Saudi Arabia a blank check to do whatever it wants in the Middle East with devastating consequences.
Of course I'm not endorsing Houthi attacks on shipping, but the fact that the US only cares when it is convenient for them and not when it comes to the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and starvation in Yemen makes it hard to take them seriously on this issue.
[edit/clarification: of course it makes sense to try to stop the Houthis attacking ships in a major shipping lane, my point is that it would be more effective to put more effort into trying to force the Saudis and Houthis to sign a peace deal than to threaten the Houthis with rockets (given that because of the nature of shipping and insurance industries it's very hard to mitigate the harm of the Houthis even threatening to do this, let alone actually engaging in attacks as they are)].
I think regardless of whether the US is sticking their nose into a particular thorny situation or not, it should be easy to take it seriously when it tells people to stop randomly shooting at...
I think regardless of whether the US is sticking their nose into a particular thorny situation or not, it should be easy to take it seriously when it tells people to stop randomly shooting at passing ships in a vital transportation corridor.
Regardless of your opinion of the morality of their actions, they're completely capable of significant and direct explosive retribution on any non-state actors who start attacking their stuff. Is that worth taking seriously?
The US is already deeply involved in this conflict – it is backing Saudi Arabia considerably. Together with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran they've exacarbated local disagreements and grievances...
I think regardless of whether the US is sticking their nose into a particular thorny situation or not
The US is already deeply involved in this conflict – it is backing Saudi Arabia considerably. Together with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran they've exacarbated local disagreements and grievances into a humanitarian catastrophe.
"Please stop shooting at our random shipping vessels" is much easier to say if you weren't responsible for giving a friend lots of weapons and then your blessing to escalate a regional conflict and then being "well it's ok for hundreds of thousands of civilians to die" but "our shipping is the red line".
they're completely capable of significant and direct explosive retribution on any non-state actors who start attacking their stuff
I actually suspect they will struggle here – insurers are not keen on insuring ships with really obvious risks (e.g. being hit with a rocket or hijacked by Houthi special forces). It will have a negative effect on shipping to Israel.
I recognize that you're being hyperbolic for effect, but it's really frustrating to see the US government blamed for what seems like every problem in the world. The US government - like any...
"well it's ok for hundreds of thousands of civilians to die" but "our shipping is the red line".
I recognize that you're being hyperbolic for effect, but it's really frustrating to see the US government blamed for what seems like every problem in the world. The US government - like any western government - isn't just okay watching thousands of civilians die. Nobody wants that. But that doesn't make the problem easy to solve.
A large part of the justification for the US' invasion of Iraq, in 2003, was on humanitarian grounds. We don't really talk about that today, as the focus is more on oil and/or chemical weapons. But the US is consistently excoriated for that invasion. It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which a more active intervention in Yemen would see the US reviled again.
It's not like there's some easy button that the US could push to solve the Yemen crisis and they just don't want to.
In fairness to your point, I think it's legitimate to argue that rather than inaction, the US has actively made the problem worse. There, too, though, it's not like they just don't give a shit. It's a complex web of diplomatic entanglements that leads to things like military sales to Saudi Arabia (as well as most other countries in the world).
I'm not being hyperbolic – since the outbreak of the war almost 250,000 civilians have died (UN report). The Saudi government has used US-supplied military equipment to carry out direct attacks...
I recognize that you're being hyperbolic for effect, but it's really frustrating to see the US government blamed for what seems like every problem in the world. The US government - like any western government - isn't just okay watching thousands of civilians die. Nobody wants that. But that doesn't make the problem easy to solve.
I'm not being hyperbolic – since the outbreak of the war almost 250,000 civilians have died (UN report). The Saudi government has used US-supplied military equipment to carry out direct attacks intended to kill civilians.
It's not like there's some easy button that the US could push to solve the Yemen crisis and they just don't want to.
I know that the US is not great at diplomacy (I think in part because they struggle to understand people who do not have the same views and attitudes as Americans) but this is not true – they can stop delivering weapons to Saudi Arabia, they can push the Saudis to negotiate and they can stop backing the Saudis up internationally. They can try to reduce tensions with Iran (which they have inflamed and the Iranians are now quite likely to develop a nuclear weapon which will make everything much, much worse).
A large part of the justification for the US' invasion of Iraq, in 2003, was on humanitarian grounds. We don't really talk about that today, as the focus is more on oil and/or chemical weapons. But the US is consistently excoriated for that invasion.
We also don't talk about the Iraq war as a "humanitarian mission" today because the US caused at least 150,000 violent deaths and probably somewhere in the range of a million excess deaths. Even if the claim is that is was a "humanitarian" intervention, you just have to look at the results to see that the US (incredibly) managed to be more brutal than Saddam Hussein (which is quite an achievement). Under Hussein's 24 year reign HRW estimates that he killed or imprisoned around 250,000 people, and in under two years the deaths tolls from the war already exceeded this.
It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which a more active intervention in Yemen would see the US reviled again.
I am not even remotely suggesting that the US should intervene militarily in Yemen. I think it's pretty clear at this point that US ground-based military interventions are a recipe for disaster.
You may be aware (depends on whether you mean caused as "directly killed" or "because the invasion led to instability, it's the US's fault"), but I want to clarify for other readers - the US did...
We also don't talk about the Iraq war as a "humanitarian mission" today because the US caused at least 150,000 violent deaths and probably somewhere in the range of a million excess deaths.
You may be aware (depends on whether you mean caused as "directly killed" or "because the invasion led to instability, it's the US's fault"), but I want to clarify for other readers - the US did not kill 150,000 people.
As an example from the Iraq Body Count project - which is an undercount, like most sources - "According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda, director of Iraq Body Count, 150,000 people including 122,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War with U.S. and Coalition forces responsible for at least 22,668 insurgents as well as 13,807 civilians, with the rest of the civilians killed by insurgents, militias, or terrorists."
I definitely object to the assertion that the US was "more brutal than Saddam Hussein." You can lay the ultimate blame at the US's feet because they invaded and thus allowed chaos and sectarian religious conflict to proliferate, but that's not the same thing at all.
I know that the US is not great at diplomacy (I think in part because they struggle to understand people who do not have the same views and attitudes as Americans) but this is not true – they can stop delivering weapons to Saudi Arabia, they can push the Saudis to negotiate and they can stop backing the Saudis up internationally. They can try to reduce tensions with Iran (which they have inflamed and the Iranians are now quite likely to develop a nuclear weapon which will make everything much, much worse).
These are reasonable suggestions, but none of them are easy.
I'll also note that the US's President Biden froze "offensive" arms sales to Saudi Arabia in early 2021. The Houthis and the KSA have already negotiated a peace plan, which is currently with the UN peace envoy.
You've made a lot of reasonable points and good suggestions. The final thing I'll note is that with regard to Iran tensions, I'd suggest that the blame there rests more with Iran than with the US. Iran sponsored the Houthis and helped them start the Yemen civil war in the first place.
The death toll from actual combat operations which could be anywhere in the range of 150,000 people to 600,000 (from both sides). The excess deaths are far higher (because of the collapse of vital...
The death toll from actual combat operations which could be anywhere in the range of 150,000 people to 600,000 (from both sides). The excess deaths are far higher (because of the collapse of vital infrastrucutre such as clean water and sewage systems) and I am sure that the US knew with high certainty that roughly as many people as who eventually did, would die, and were happy to proceed on this basis. I find it really hard to buy that wars can be "humanitarian" (as opposed to actual humanitiarian missions which deliver e.g. food, medical supplies, etc), but I find it really hard to see how a war where the instigator has to fabricate justification (the WMDs) and knows it is beyond their capability to then administer the occupied territories can ever be "humanitarian".
You can lay the ultimate blame at the US's feet because they invaded and thus allowed chaos and sectarian religious conflict to proliferate, but that's not the same thing at all.
The US also adopted a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices, for example taking over at least one of his prisons and using it to torture civilians, including forcing them to strip, depriving them of sleep, tying them in positions which cause huge amounts of stress to the human body.
Ultimately though, if you ask an Iraqi whether they preferred being tortured by the CIA or Saddam Hussein, being killed by Saddam Hussein or the US Army, starving under Saddam Hussein (and US sanctions) or under the US attempts to administer Iraq you probably won't get many takers for the US.
You've made a lot of reasonable points and good suggestions. The final thing I'll note is that with regard to Iran tensions, I'd suggest that the blame there rests more with Iran than with the US. Iran sponsored the Houthis and helped them start the Yemen civil war in the first place.
By inflamed tensions I mean the US decision to pull out of the nuclear deal. Although backed by the Iranians the Houthis are not just a puppet of the Iranian regime (although a lot of US analysists seem to think that the Zaydis and the Twelvers have a lot in common and thus are forming some religious agreement, they don't exactly like each other). It would (a) be a good way to send a message to Iran and (b) enable peace in Yemen if they can work out a peace deal.
Dude. Come on. The US tried and convicted most of the perpetrators. Saying that Abu Ghraib equates to "the US adopt[ing] a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices" is moving way beyond reasonable...
The US also adopted a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices, for example taking over at least one of his prisons and using it to torture civilians, including forcing them to strip, depriving them of sleep, tying them in positions which cause huge amounts of stress to the human body.
Dude. Come on. The US tried and convicted most of the perpetrators. Saying that Abu Ghraib equates to "the US adopt[ing] a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices" is moving way beyond reasonable editorializing. I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just see this kind of stuff really differently and we're not going to agree.
What do you suggest America do in this situation then? If America does nothing, they will risk a valuable shipping lane falling under Iran’s control and if they go in themselves, they could risk...
What do you suggest America do in this situation then? If America does nothing, they will risk a valuable shipping lane falling under Iran’s control and if they go in themselves, they could risk provoking Iran into a larger war. Paying Saudi Arabia to deal with the problem seems to be the only way to deal with the problem without destroying the very precarious status quo in the Middle East. IMO it might be a better idea to point the finger at the saudis for doing such a poor job of eliminating the houthis and causing so much civilian suffering
The issue is that the Americans look pretty silly here; they haven't cared about this shipping lane at all as the Houthis have taken over parts of Yemen, and now they look like they've been taken...
The issue is that the Americans look pretty silly here; they haven't cared about this shipping lane at all as the Houthis have taken over parts of Yemen, and now they look like they've been taken by surprise by the fact that (surprise) the Houthis don't like them.
Now they probably can't fix this very easily, because they've waited and let a small problem (sectarian divisions in Yemen) become a big problem.
If the US wants these attacks to stop they should put some effort into actually trying to improve the horrible, horrible situation in Yemen. The US has basically given Saudi Arabia a blank check to do whatever it wants in the Middle East with devastating consequences.
Of course I'm not endorsing Houthi attacks on shipping, but the fact that the US only cares when it is convenient for them and not when it comes to the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and starvation in Yemen makes it hard to take them seriously on this issue.
[edit/clarification: of course it makes sense to try to stop the Houthis attacking ships in a major shipping lane, my point is that it would be more effective to put more effort into trying to force the Saudis and Houthis to sign a peace deal than to threaten the Houthis with rockets (given that because of the nature of shipping and insurance industries it's very hard to mitigate the harm of the Houthis even threatening to do this, let alone actually engaging in attacks as they are)].
I think regardless of whether the US is sticking their nose into a particular thorny situation or not, it should be easy to take it seriously when it tells people to stop randomly shooting at passing ships in a vital transportation corridor.
Regardless of your opinion of the morality of their actions, they're completely capable of significant and direct explosive retribution on any non-state actors who start attacking their stuff. Is that worth taking seriously?
The US is already deeply involved in this conflict – it is backing Saudi Arabia considerably. Together with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran they've exacarbated local disagreements and grievances into a humanitarian catastrophe.
"Please stop shooting at our random shipping vessels" is much easier to say if you weren't responsible for giving a friend lots of weapons and then your blessing to escalate a regional conflict and then being "well it's ok for hundreds of thousands of civilians to die" but "our shipping is the red line".
I actually suspect they will struggle here – insurers are not keen on insuring ships with really obvious risks (e.g. being hit with a rocket or hijacked by Houthi special forces). It will have a negative effect on shipping to Israel.
I recognize that you're being hyperbolic for effect, but it's really frustrating to see the US government blamed for what seems like every problem in the world. The US government - like any western government - isn't just okay watching thousands of civilians die. Nobody wants that. But that doesn't make the problem easy to solve.
A large part of the justification for the US' invasion of Iraq, in 2003, was on humanitarian grounds. We don't really talk about that today, as the focus is more on oil and/or chemical weapons. But the US is consistently excoriated for that invasion. It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which a more active intervention in Yemen would see the US reviled again.
It's not like there's some easy button that the US could push to solve the Yemen crisis and they just don't want to.
In fairness to your point, I think it's legitimate to argue that rather than inaction, the US has actively made the problem worse. There, too, though, it's not like they just don't give a shit. It's a complex web of diplomatic entanglements that leads to things like military sales to Saudi Arabia (as well as most other countries in the world).
I'm not being hyperbolic – since the outbreak of the war almost 250,000 civilians have died (UN report). The Saudi government has used US-supplied military equipment to carry out direct attacks intended to kill civilians.
I know that the US is not great at diplomacy (I think in part because they struggle to understand people who do not have the same views and attitudes as Americans) but this is not true – they can stop delivering weapons to Saudi Arabia, they can push the Saudis to negotiate and they can stop backing the Saudis up internationally. They can try to reduce tensions with Iran (which they have inflamed and the Iranians are now quite likely to develop a nuclear weapon which will make everything much, much worse).
We also don't talk about the Iraq war as a "humanitarian mission" today because the US caused at least 150,000 violent deaths and probably somewhere in the range of a million excess deaths. Even if the claim is that is was a "humanitarian" intervention, you just have to look at the results to see that the US (incredibly) managed to be more brutal than Saddam Hussein (which is quite an achievement). Under Hussein's 24 year reign HRW estimates that he killed or imprisoned around 250,000 people, and in under two years the deaths tolls from the war already exceeded this.
I am not even remotely suggesting that the US should intervene militarily in Yemen. I think it's pretty clear at this point that US ground-based military interventions are a recipe for disaster.
You may be aware (depends on whether you mean caused as "directly killed" or "because the invasion led to instability, it's the US's fault"), but I want to clarify for other readers - the US did not kill 150,000 people.
As an example from the Iraq Body Count project - which is an undercount, like most sources - "According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda, director of Iraq Body Count, 150,000 people including 122,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War with U.S. and Coalition forces responsible for at least 22,668 insurgents as well as 13,807 civilians, with the rest of the civilians killed by insurgents, militias, or terrorists."
I definitely object to the assertion that the US was "more brutal than Saddam Hussein." You can lay the ultimate blame at the US's feet because they invaded and thus allowed chaos and sectarian religious conflict to proliferate, but that's not the same thing at all.
These are reasonable suggestions, but none of them are easy.
I'll also note that the US's President Biden froze "offensive" arms sales to Saudi Arabia in early 2021. The Houthis and the KSA have already negotiated a peace plan, which is currently with the UN peace envoy.
You've made a lot of reasonable points and good suggestions. The final thing I'll note is that with regard to Iran tensions, I'd suggest that the blame there rests more with Iran than with the US. Iran sponsored the Houthis and helped them start the Yemen civil war in the first place.
The death toll from actual combat operations which could be anywhere in the range of 150,000 people to 600,000 (from both sides). The excess deaths are far higher (because of the collapse of vital infrastrucutre such as clean water and sewage systems) and I am sure that the US knew with high certainty that roughly as many people as who eventually did, would die, and were happy to proceed on this basis. I find it really hard to buy that wars can be "humanitarian" (as opposed to actual humanitiarian missions which deliver e.g. food, medical supplies, etc), but I find it really hard to see how a war where the instigator has to fabricate justification (the WMDs) and knows it is beyond their capability to then administer the occupied territories can ever be "humanitarian".
The US also adopted a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices, for example taking over at least one of his prisons and using it to torture civilians, including forcing them to strip, depriving them of sleep, tying them in positions which cause huge amounts of stress to the human body.
Ultimately though, if you ask an Iraqi whether they preferred being tortured by the CIA or Saddam Hussein, being killed by Saddam Hussein or the US Army, starving under Saddam Hussein (and US sanctions) or under the US attempts to administer Iraq you probably won't get many takers for the US.
By inflamed tensions I mean the US decision to pull out of the nuclear deal. Although backed by the Iranians the Houthis are not just a puppet of the Iranian regime (although a lot of US analysists seem to think that the Zaydis and the Twelvers have a lot in common and thus are forming some religious agreement, they don't exactly like each other). It would (a) be a good way to send a message to Iran and (b) enable peace in Yemen if they can work out a peace deal.
Dude. Come on. The US tried and convicted most of the perpetrators. Saying that Abu Ghraib equates to "the US adopt[ing] a lot of Saddam Hussein's practices" is moving way beyond reasonable editorializing. I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just see this kind of stuff really differently and we're not going to agree.
And shipping between Europe and India, North Africa and India and more.
What do you suggest America do in this situation then? If America does nothing, they will risk a valuable shipping lane falling under Iran’s control and if they go in themselves, they could risk provoking Iran into a larger war. Paying Saudi Arabia to deal with the problem seems to be the only way to deal with the problem without destroying the very precarious status quo in the Middle East. IMO it might be a better idea to point the finger at the saudis for doing such a poor job of eliminating the houthis and causing so much civilian suffering
The issue is that the Americans look pretty silly here; they haven't cared about this shipping lane at all as the Houthis have taken over parts of Yemen, and now they look like they've been taken by surprise by the fact that (surprise) the Houthis don't like them.
Now they probably can't fix this very easily, because they've waited and let a small problem (sectarian divisions in Yemen) become a big problem.