Posts
US warships join Saudi attack on Yemen: Source
The
United States Navy has reportedly joined Saudi Arabia’s airstrikes
against Yemen, according to a military source.
1
April, 2015
US
warships took part in an air assault against Yeminis on Monday, the
source has told a Russian media outlet.
"American
ships participated in yesterday's airstrikes on Sanaa, specifically,
they launched a cruise missile on a strengthened missile brigade,”
the source told Sputnik on Tuesday.
The
airstrike began after Saudi warplanes failed to hit weapons depots
belonging to Ansarullah revolutionaries of the Houthi movement, the
source noted.
On
Monday, the Saudi-led airstrikes targeted the Houthi’s missile site
in the southern Sana’a neighborhood of Faj Attan, according to
witnesses.
The
announcement of US participation is the first one showing a
collaboration between the US military and Saudi Arabia in the attack
on Yemen.
President
Barack Obama has expressed his support of the assault on the people
of Yemen one day after the airstrikes began on March 26.
In
the latest air raid on Wednesday, 29 people were killed and 24 more
injured. The airstrike targeted a food factory in the western Yemeni
province of Hudaydah.
Saudi
Arabia started air campaign in Yemen in a bid to restore power to
fugitive former Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, a close ally
of Riyadh.
Hadi
stepped down in January and refused to reconsider the decision
despite calls by Ansarullah revolutionaries.
He
fled Aden to the Saudi capital Riyadh after Ansarullah fighters
advanced toward the southwestern Yemeni city, where he had sought to
set up a rival power base, and where he withdrew his resignation
A
state-chartered Russian plane destined for the Yemeni capital Sanaa
had been diverted to Cairo, after the Saudi-led coalition reportedly
refused it landing permission, leaving scores of Russian expats
awaiting evacuation to languish at the airport.
19 killed as fighting breaks out in Yemen’s Aden
At
least 19 people have been killed during clashes between Popular
Committees allied with Houthi's Ansarullah movement and al-Qaeda
terrorists in the Yemeni city of Aden, officials say.
And now for commentary -
Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.org appears on Crosstalk to discuss the war in Yemen. He points out the obvious hypocrisy of US policy as it champions legitimacy of the deposed government in Yemen, while rejecting the same concept in Ukraine. Draitser examines some of the primary motivations for both Saudi Arabia and the United States in this war, as well as the failures and distortions of the western corporate media. Also, he addresses some of the regional geopolitics, demonization of Iran, and much more.
US fights ISIS...while aiding ISIS
Eric Draitser
RT,
31
March, 2015
As
the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) rages on, the US has
stepped up its air campaign, combining destructive bombs with
anti-ISIS leaflets.
But
while US propaganda efforts are ostensibly aimed at disrupting ISIS
recruitment, overall US involvement has yielded mixed results at
best.
On
the one hand, Washington is engaging in a psychological campaign
designed to dissuade potential ISIS fighters from joining up,
with leaflets depicting
grisly images of young men being sent into a meat grinder. On the
other hand however, the US continues to exacerbate the situation in
both Iraq and Syria by providing material support, both directly and
indirectly, to the very groups whom they claim to be fighting.
While
the US seems to be engaged in a psychological war against ISIS, it is
equally involved in a systematic campaign of sabotage against those
forces that are actually fighting ISIS on the ground. And so, as it
often does, Washington is playing both sides of the conflict in order
to achieve an outcome to its own political advantage, and to the
detriment of Syria, Iran, and other interested parties.
The US psychological war against ISIS
Since
the emergence of ISIS on the world stage, much has been made of the
organization’s ability to recruit fighters, produce propaganda, and
effectively get its message across to the young Muslims around the
world. There have been countless news
stories of
Muslim youths from the West eagerly joining up to fight in far flung
war zones like Syria and Iraq, seemingly translating their
disaffection with their own lives into an ideological identification
with ISIS extremism.
But
beneath the surface of such ideological explanations is the fact,
publicly acknowledged by many counter-terrorism experts, that ISIS
propaganda, coupled with the financial benefits the organization
offers, is responsible for some of the allure of joining the fight.
And so, the US has launched a full scale psychological war for
the “hearts
and minds” of
these naïve youths and poverty-stricken potential fighters.
The
Pentagon confirmed that they had dropped tens of thousands of
leaflets on the Syrian city of Raqqa in an attempt to dissuade
potential recruits from joining ISIS. While this may seem a
relatively harmless exercise in counter-propaganda, the reality is
that it is at best a poorly conceived, and at worst utterly
disingenuous, attempt to counteract ISIS recruitment. Were the US
serious about eradicating the cancer of ISIS in Syria, US military
officials would be coordinating with their Syrian counterparts in a
comprehensive attempt to destroy the organization. For while the US
Air Force drops leaflets, the Syrian Arab Army has been fighting ISIS
on the ground for nearly three years, paying a very high price in
blood to protect its country from the internationally constituted
terror organization.
Reuters / U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt.
Perry Aston
But,
while the US presents itself as pursuing a comprehensive
psychological war against ISIS, its military and covert actions tell
a far different story.
Fighting ISIS by arming them?
The
media has been abuzz in recent months with numerous accounts of US
weapons and other supplies falling directly into the hands of ISIS,
providing the terror group with invaluable material support at a time
when it had suffered heavy losses in both Syria and Iraq. As Naeem
al-Uboudi, the spokesman for one of the main groups fighting ISIS in
Tikrit told the NY
Times, “We
don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS... In the
past, they have targeted our security forces and dropped aid to ISIS
by mistake.”
Indeed,
these allegations are supported dozens of accounts of
airdropped US weapons being seized by ISIS. As Iraqi MP Majid
al-Ghraoui noted in
January,
“The
information that has reached us in the security and defense committee
indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and
equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the
province of Salahuddin... This incident is continuously happening and
has also occurred in some other regions.”
Whether
these incidents are simply honest mistakes by the vaunted US military
with all its precision bombing capabilities, or they are indications
of a more callous attempt to inflict casualties on all sides and
prolong the regional war, either way they represent an abject failure
of the US strategy against ISIS. But of course, the US policy failure
goes much further than just mistakes on the battlefield. Rather, the
entire policy of arming so-called “moderates” in
Syria has led directly to the growth of ISIS into a regional power.
Since
2012, the US, primarily through the CIA, has been
providing weapons and training to
terrorists in Syria under the guise of arming “moderates.” Many
of these allegedly moderate groups have in recent months been
documented as having either disbanded or
defected to ISIS, including the little publicized mass
defections of
former Free Syrian Army fighters. However it has happened, a vast
arsenal of US-supplied weapons and other military hardware are now
counted among the ISIS arsenal. So much for the US policy of ensuring
the weapons don’t “fall
into the wrong hands.”
So,
while the US has proclaimed to be fighting ISIS and the al-Qaeda
affiliated Nusra Front, they have been simultaneously arming and
supporting many of the same forces which now make up much of the
rank-and-file of these terror groups. With friends like these, who
needs enemies?
A leaflet created by the United States Department of Defense to be dropped over Syria is shown after being released to Reuters by the Pentagon in Washington March 26, 2015 (Reuters / U.S. Department of Defense
Washington: Peace broker or arms dealer?
Those
who follow US foreign policy are likely unsurprised by these
revelations of Washington providing arms and intensifying an already
dangerous conflict. In Syria, the US has consistently argued that the
Syrian government cannot be seen as a partner for peace, and so they
must provide weapons to“moderates.” In
Ukraine, where the US has a compliant and servile government that
executes its diktats, Washington still supplies the arms, talking of
peace and stability while exacerbating the war and human tragedy in
East Ukraine.
Last
week, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (348-48)
a resolution to provide military support in the form of weapons to
Ukraine. As Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the
House Foreign
Affairs Committee stated, “The
people of Ukraine are not looking for American troops. They are just
looking for the weapons to defend themselves. They don't have those
weapons. We do.”
Indeed,
it seems that US policy is to pursue “peace” at
the barrel of a US-made, US-supplied gun. As Secretary of State John
Kerry explained in
his usual self-contradictory manner “To
get peace, you have to defend your country,” a
devilishly cynical statement from the man who, entirely without
irony, explained in 2014 that “you
don’t just invade another country on a phony pretext in order to
assert your interests.”Perhaps,
rather than invading countries, the Obama administration has decided
to simply provide the weapons, training, and logistical and material
support in order to assert its own interests.
While
Syria and Iraq face an existential struggle against the wildfire that
is the Islamic State, the United States arrives, gas can in hand, to
make peace. As Ukraine slides deeper into civil war, the US provides
all the ingredients for a witches’ brew of violence and bloodshed.
For
all its talk of psychological war against ISIS, Washington has
embraced an aggressive, multi-pronged approach that leaves little
doubt as to the thinking of its strategic planners: the enemy of my
enemy is both friend and enemy. As Tacitus famously said of the
Romans, “They
make a desert and call it peace.”So
too do the Americans in the blood-soaked deserts of Syria and Iraq.
Strategy
of Using Gulf Monarchies to Project US Power in Mideast is Unraveling
the
Real News
Glen
Ford says US-backed Saudi-led air attacks on the Houthis, who are
dedicated fighters against al-Qaeda, are making al-Qaeda the real
winners in this war
Make
No Mistake — the United States Is at War in Yemen
The
White House just doesn’t want to admit it.
30
March, 2015
The
Obama administration revealed that the United States was
participating in yet another Middle East military intervention via a
press release from the spokesperson of the National Security Council
(NSC). This time, it’s Yemen. Late Wednesday evening, March 25, the
White House posted a statement declaring: “President Obama has
authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to
GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]-led military operations.”
There
was no prime-time address by the president or secretary of defense --
the only two people in the national command authority who can
lawfully direct the U.S. military to engage in hostilities. There was
no statement from the Department of Defense, the federal agency
responsible for those armed forces providing the support to the GCC,
or comment from U.S. Central Command, the combatant command whose
geographic area of responsibility includes the GCC members and Yemen
itself. Rather, the NSC spokesperson simply let us know.
U.S.
officials subsequently emphasized that aiding partner countries in
their intervention into Yemen is simply “providing enabling
support,” as Brig. Gen. Michael Fantini, Middle East principal
director of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs, told a House hearing last week. And
the NSC made it clear that “U.S. forces are not taking direct
military action in Yemen.”
Yet,
make no mistake, the United States is a combatant in this
intervention.
The
United States is providing targeting intelligence, as the Wall
Street Journal reported:
“American military planners are using live intelligence feeds from
surveillance flights over Yemen to help Saudi Arabia decide what and
where to bomb, U.S. officials said.” These video feeds are being
provided via U.S. drones, because American manned aircraft are
reportedly not presently flying over Yemeni airspace. (One needs to
ask: Did U.S.-supplied video feeds help to direct the airstrikes that
have caused civilian casualties?) Either way, the aid is clearly
above and beyond “logistics” and “intelligence”: The Saudi
Defense Ministry announced a U.S. search-and-rescue mission by a
HH-60 helicopter flying from Djibouti of two Saudi pilots who ejected
from their F-15SA over the Gulf of Aden. Oh, and the United States is
also reportedly providing aerial refueling for Saudi fighter
aircraft.
This
has become a routine pattern for a president who declared in his 2013
inaugural address, “a decade of war is now ending.” The Obama
administration has initiated (in Libya and Syria/Iraq) and extended
(in Afghanistan) military operations with virtually no public debate
or formal role for Congress -- a situation that the American people
and their elected representatives have tacitly accepted in repeated
interventions and in the war on terrorism more generally.
But
even though Code Pink isn’t marching on the Mall against the
“enabling” of the Yemen campaign, it’s probably still worth
trying to understand and evaluate the logic and objectives of the
U.S. military support for the Saudi-led intervention.
A
military operation that lacks clear courses of action, coherent
objectives, or an intended end state is nothing more than the random,
purposeless application of force against some enemy.
A
military operation that lacks clear courses of action, coherent
objectives, or an intended end state is nothing more than the random,
purposeless application of force against some enemy.
Like
all military interventions, there have been many -- at times
contradictory -- justifications offered by U.S. officials. The NSC
claimed the purpose was to “defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to
protect Yemen’s legitimate government.” The State Department
suggested that the intent was “to promote a peaceful political
transition and share their concerns about the aggressive actions of
the Houthis,” stating on March 27 that the United States backed the
GCC because “they are responding to a request from President [Abed
Rabbo Mansour] Hadi, who is the legitimate president of Yemen.”
(Presumably, the Obama administration would not support an
intervention in Egypt to restore its democratically elected
president, Mohamed Morsi.)
And
then the White House weighed in, with deputy press secretary Eric
Schultz first framing the purpose of the campaign as being “to
defend Saudi Arabia’s border” and prevent the establishment of an
al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula safe haven. Later, press secretary
No. 1, Josh Earnest, shifted the message, claiming that the purpose
was “to try to bring all of the sides, who are in pretty stark
disagreement in Yemen, around the negotiating table to try to
stabilize the situation in that country.” It is unclear who will
sit around this table, since there have been no apparent efforts by
the GCC, U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Jamal Benomar, or Houthi
representatives to commence these negotiations.
Meanwhile,
on Capitol Hill, legislators tried to frame the issue as friend
versus foe. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) stated that intervention was
needed because the Arab countries “can’t allow Iran to take a
foothold in Yemen.... We call them Houthis, but this is Iran,” said
Burr, oversimplifying the matter. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
emphasized the need to “have the Saudis' back ... because that may
give the Saudis some comfort that, even if we do reach an agreement
with Iran on its nuclear program, that doesn’t mean that we’re
not going to be willing to confront Iran as it tries to expand its
quite nefarious influence.” Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) claimed the
intent was “to protect [Saudi Arabia’s] homeland and to protect
their own neighborhood.” Finally, Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) endorsed
the U.S. assistance on the most general justification of all: The
civil war was “threatening the national security interests of our
regional partners and the United States.”
At
least the Pentagon wasn’t trying to make things up. Gen. Lloyd
Austin, commander of Central Command, was frank when asked what the
purpose of the campaign was, stating, “I don’t currently know the
specific goals and objectives of the Saudi campaign, and I would have
to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success.”
Despite the astonishing acknowledgment that he did not know why the
intervention was occurring and was only given a few hours' advance
notice, Austin declared himself “very encouraged that we have seen
what we’ve seen here.”
What
is notable is that Saudi Arabia has made little mention of protecting
its borders, with its ambassador to the United States, Adel
al-Jubeir, stating that the purpose of the intervention was “to
protect the people of Yemen from a radical organization that has
allied with Iran and Hezbollah that has virtually taken over the
country. It’s to defend the legitimate government of Yemen. And
it’s to open up the way for political talks, so that Yemen can
complete its transition period and move towards a better place.”
Jubeir also declared of this proxy war: “I wouldn't call it a proxy
war because we are doing this to protect Yemen.”
So
let’s recap, shall we? The United States is providing operational
support to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen to: 1) defend the
borders of and prove its commitment to Saudi Arabia; 2) deny al Qaeda
a safe haven; 3) protect Yemeni civilians; 4) make GCC members
comfortable with a negotiated settlement to Iran’s nuclear program;
5) halt the expansion of Iranian influence generally; 6) protect the
interests of nearby countries; and 7) foster a peaceful political
transition of the Yemeni government back to power.
All
of this despite the fact that the U.S. military commander for the
region is unaware of the “specific goals and objectives” of those
countries bombing Yemen. This is preposterous.
All
of this despite the fact that the U.S. military commander for the
region is unaware of the “specific goals and objectives” of those
countries bombing Yemen.
This
is preposterous.
Remarkably,
the administration still defends Obama’s claim that the “strategy
of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners
on the front lines, is one that we have successfully
pursued in
Yemen.” [Italics added -- and needed.] The White House spokesperson
said this statement holds because
“Yemen
is not a nation-building strategy; it’s a counterterrorism
strategy,” while the State Department added, “It’s a success
and it has been a success for many years because of our efforts to
push back and counter [al Qaeda] in Yemen.”
Beyond these two
on-the-record mouthpieces, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone
within the U.S. government who would agree off the record. Those
drones that once took out terrorists now feed full-motion video to
Saudi targeteers. And that front-line partner in the fight against al
Qaeda, President Hadi, is in exile in Riyadh. That sure doesn’t
look like a strategy successfully pursued.
To
see Yemen exclusively through the lens of U.S. counterterrorism
goals, and thus deem it a foreign-policy “success,” is not only
insensitive to the chaos Yemenis are experiencing, it is incredibly
shortsighted -- if not downright disingenuous.
It
is entirely implausible that the seven-course buffet of
justifications and objectives will be achieved in Yemen. Oh, and
there’s one more falsehood that we’re being fed: This will all be
over soon. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke pronounced on
Friday: “We don’t want this to be an open-ended military
campaign.” Of course, nobody wants that, though the leaders of the
bombing campaign have pledged it will not end until the Houthis
simply surrender and disarm. No doubt, much of the military and
civilian infrastructure being destroyed will have to be rebuilt -- in
effect, nation-building again.
As
Fred Iklé wrote in his 1971 classic Every
War Must End,
“[I]t is the outcome of the war, not the outcome of the campaigns
within it, that determines how well their plans serve the nation’s
interests.” The manner and speed with which the Obama
administration decided to wholly back one side in Yemen’s latest
proxy civil war -- with no clear outcome -- should be alarming.
Unfortunately, this has become standard operating procedure for how
the United States keeps going to war.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.