Who, from a western liberal perspective, do we want to win the Yemeni Civil War? Ie which side will kill less people, run the country "better" from a liberal western perspective? The Houthis or Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi?
Is there a preferable regime?
Is it officially a civil war or are the Saudis just committing mass murder in the style of Assad of Syria and countless others?
I *think* it's a civil war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)
I suppose you could argue that it could become a war between nations if/when the Houthis win:
"Houthi commander Ali al-Shami boasted on 24 March 2015 that his forces would invade the larger kingdom and not stop at Mecca, but rather Riyadh."
Irrelevant to my question though, I just want to know who would be the preferable victor from a liberal Western perspective.
I have no idea and I suspect most won't either. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I'd love to see the despicable Saudis given a bloody nose but know that's impossible with all the outside support they enjoy.
I’d love to see the despicable Saudis given a bloody nose but know that’s impossible with all the outside support they [s]enjoy.[/s] buy from BAE.
At least Trump had the bollocks to say they're the bad guys but they give us $100billion in arms orders.
May just buried her head in the sand and waffled o about strategic partnerships. I'm sure strategically we could ally ourselves with anyone in the region on moral grounds if we had to pick a side, we just happen to have picked the side with the most oil and money, how convenient.
I’d love to see the despicable Saudis given a bloody nose but know that’s impossible with all the outside support they enjoy.
On another note I'd love to see the Americans and British stop supplying the Saudis with weapons.
I have no idea and I suspect most won’t either.
STW has answered far more obscure questions than this. I wouldn't be surprised if a forumite had direct experience of the Yemen, and I'd be very surprised if a forumite with better google-fu than me couldn't find a news article answering exactly this question. (It's a big story right now due to the Gulf Cooperation Council's involvement.)
We'll see, the best and most detailed article I've read on ISIS was posted on STW.
JHJ will have the answer, it'll be picture of an American circa 1983 and an invitation to make our own minds up....
JHJ will have the answer, it’ll be picture of an American circa 1983 and an invitation to make our own minds up….
If JHJ chooses to honour my thread with a theory it will have all been worthwhile, even if the question remains unanswered. 🙂
"If"?
why does the world need to conform to western standards?
why does the world need to conform to western standards?
It doesn't. But in terms of which side I want to win, I'll pick the side less likely to (for example) throw homosexuals off buildings. I fully accept that other cultures and other forumites see things differently and I deliberately chose language to avoid the whole debate about which cultural norm is 'better'. I also put better in quotes to emphasise the fact I wasn't claiming my better was the best or only better.
On another note I’d love to see the Americans and British stop supplying the Saudis with weapons.
The trouble with that is Russia and China would just step in and fill the void. Not saying it's right that we're helping the Saudis commit war crimes but cutting off the arms supply won't stop the conflict (I'm sure they've already stockpiled enough bombs etc. to tide them over until they could change weapon systems to non-NATO supplied ones).
The trouble with that is Russia and China would just step in and fill the void.
...and even if they didn't, do we really want the Houthis to win? Nobody on the thread has an clue which side are the 'better' side. If the Houthis live up to their threat and took over Saudi and the Yemen how to we know that would be a significant improvement for Saudis/Yemenis?
We've been here before with Iraq, Somalia and Libya - you depose the leadership you don't like and find the alternative is *far* worse.
Changing the status quo in the Middle East hasn't turned out well in the last couple of decades.
don't really see the need to pick a sides either.
don’t really see the need to pick a sides either.
In a two horse race you can't avoid picking a side - withdrawing support from one side *is* picking the other side, just as much as providing support is picking that side.
Unless you're 100pc sure (say) Russia or China will step in and provide the arms.
one things for sure there will be no shortage of arms.
The trouble with that is Russia and China would just step in and fill the void.
Cutting off arms supply may not necessary stop the conflict but they shouldn't have been complicit in it in the first place (imo). Our leaders never seem to learn from history and the ravages and repercussions of past conflicts.
We cannot deny our responsibility for the horrors of this war. The pro Saudi stance that the West take only seem to breed more rage towards us - not selling arms and not making draft resolutions on Yemen so one sided would help a great deal with international credibility.
We cannot deny our responsibility for the horrors of this war. The pro Saudi stance that the West take only seem to breed more rage towards us – not selling arms and not making draft resolutions on Yemen so one sided would help a great deal with international credibility.
When you say 'pro Saudi' you're being a bit misleading. Every single Arab state in the Persian Gulf except Iraq and Oman are actively fighting against the Houthis in the Yemen, and can't find evidence that Iraq or Oman are 'pro-houti', they just don't want join the war. So we're we're pro-Persian Gulf states, not pro Saudi. I can't see how supporting the side all the local nations are so terrified of they think it's worth joining a war for would help much with our international credibility.
Perhaps the original question should be:
From a Global perspective, do we really want leaders who say one thing and do another, spending tax money on arms deals and covert conflict, hastening the demise of the planet with the vast resources required for their machines of war?
So many wars come about due to dark dealings by intelligence services, be they Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Israeli, CIA or MI6.
It's worth noting the last 4 are the ones responsible for the rise of Al-Qaeda (and ISIS).
Yemen has a history of strong links to Al-Qaeda;
for more on that, check Ali Soufan (of Looming Tower fame)'s book:
The Black Banners; The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War against Al-Qaeda
It details the FBI's work (including FBI's head of counterterrorism John O Neill, who lest we forget retired after a smear campaign, before being killed in WTC7) in the wake of the Al-Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, before expanding on events surrounding 9/11 and the CIA's enhanced interrogation program.
The name comes from the vast swathes of text redacted by the CIA... take for example this page of Abu Zubaydah:
<span id="ebooksProductTitle" class="a-size-extra-large"></span>
This is intrinsically linked to not only the Jamal Khashoggi case, but Kenneth Clarke's role as head of the All-Party Parliamentary group on Extraordinary Rendition.
Questions still remain about what involvement the current UK National Security Adviser (and his recent more senior role, Cabinet Secretary) Mark Sedwill had in the Extraordinary Rendition Program.
Hang on, what's this got to do with Yemen?
Well, you may remember Keith Vaz was chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee when Mark Sedwill was questioned about the 114 missing VIP child abuse files:
<span id="ebooksProductTitle" class="a-size-extra-large"></span>
Now aside from dirty laundry, washing machines and Jim fixing it, Keith Vaz also happens to be chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Yemen
Yep, my money was on it being Keith Vaz's fault.
The trouble with that is Russia and China would just step in and fill the void.
This is blatantly untrue though.
If your Ford breaks down and you fall out with the dealer you can't just pop down to the local Trabat Lada or MG dealer for parts. Same applies to a Typhoon, only more so as you've got a matter of months before the engine needs a rebuild so even if you have stockpiles you're severely limited in how many sorties you can fly with it.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">If we stopped selling bombs it wouldn't stop the bombing (Syria and barrel bombs) but it would be months/years/decades before they had the deals and deliveries of new replacements (secondhand kit I'm sure would be easier to come by).</span>
And this assumes there isn't some laptop in Vauxhall that could ground the lot of them at the touch of a button.
Houthis or Hadi
North or South Yemen....
Aden protectorate or....
its a mess and will be for a while there is the Saudi Iran proxy war.
Taking a load of tribes and grouping them into a “country” has always worked right?
Taking a load of tribes and grouping them into a “country” has always worked right?
This.