"Everything Is A Target"
September 8, 2016 12:28 AM Subscribe
The bombing and blockade of the Middle East's poorest country, done with US weaponry, accelerates. Tens of thousands have died directly from Saudi bombings, and half of Yemen is malnourished, with the air war and blockade cutting access to 90% of the nation's food supplies and much of its clean water.
Also noteworthy that the US-backed Saudi military has collaborated frequently with Al Qaeda in its war on West Yemen's primarily Shia population.
Also noteworthy that the US-backed Saudi military has collaborated frequently with Al Qaeda in its war on West Yemen's primarily Shia population.
The Clinton State Department set up the general outlines of the arms deals that are now moving forward, so yes I'd say her commitment to the Saudi military is pretty impeccable, although it is not explicitly drawn out in this article.
This would be Clinton the lifelong feminist.
posted by blankdawn at 1:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
This would be Clinton the lifelong feminist.
posted by blankdawn at 1:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Meanwhile, Yemen’s ill fortune proved a blessing, not for the last time, for the U.S. defense establishment. The Obama Administration was already bent on expanding arms sales as part of its drive to boost exports, and now manna fell from heaven. Shocked by their poor performance against the Houthi guerrillas, the Saudis embarked on a massive weapons-buying spree. . . This enormous deal totaled $60 billion: the largest arms sale in U.S. history..
This is who we are and what we are about. And not just the U.S. - all the major western countries. And then we "wonder" why a third of the world hates our guts and we can't figure out why there's so much non stop war.
posted by gt2 at 1:11 AM on September 8, 2016 [38 favorites]
This is who we are and what we are about. And not just the U.S. - all the major western countries. And then we "wonder" why a third of the world hates our guts and we can't figure out why there's so much non stop war.
posted by gt2 at 1:11 AM on September 8, 2016 [38 favorites]
The Australian connection to what is happening in Yemen is particularly galling to me. Australian politicians competitively posture to be 'tough' on ISIS - but the unspoken part of that is the toll on civilians in Yemen (>10,000 civvies KIA).
Australia needs the UAE as a base for our A2G Ops against ISIS (Super Hornets & UCAVs) and there's some very ugly quid-pro-quo:
Retired Australian Major General Mike Hindmarsh faces questions about knowledge of civilian attacks in Yemen
Former Australian Special Forces soldiers fighting as mercenaries in Yemen
Australian mercenary killed in Yemen
posted by Outside Context Problem at 1:25 AM on September 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
Australia needs the UAE as a base for our A2G Ops against ISIS (Super Hornets & UCAVs) and there's some very ugly quid-pro-quo:
Retired Australian Major General Mike Hindmarsh faces questions about knowledge of civilian attacks in Yemen
Former Australian Special Forces soldiers fighting as mercenaries in Yemen
Australian mercenary killed in Yemen
posted by Outside Context Problem at 1:25 AM on September 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's a live debate in the UK as well, with the usual shenanigans of a Parliamentary committee saying 'we must stop selling these people arms' and various others trying to tone it down.
I fear that the abhorrent immorality of these affairs is unfixable while national sovereignty is paramount.
posted by Devonian at 1:31 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I fear that the abhorrent immorality of these affairs is unfixable while national sovereignty is paramount.
posted by Devonian at 1:31 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Scott Horton interviewed Andrew Cockburn about Yemen and his Harper's article on Aug 24th (.mp3)
posted by Auden at 1:40 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Auden at 1:40 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
While it is correct to say that Clinton herself approved of and certainly will in the future continue to support the Saudi regime in all its general and specific insanity and horribleness, can we stop using the phrase "the Clinton State Department?" It negates Obama's role and his chief complicity in the situation and displays a lack of understanding that the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President. The number of things Clinton did as Secretary of State which Obama did not approve of approaches zero.
I am also struck that at no time in my life have I ever heard the phrase "the Powell State Department," or "the Rice State Department" or "the Kerry State Department."
(Neither you nor I should be surprised to learn that Google shows about 1800 results for "Albright State Department," 3300 for Powell, 2400 for Rice, 3000 for Kerry, and 273,000 for "the Clinton State Department.")
posted by incessant at 2:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [48 favorites]
I am also struck that at no time in my life have I ever heard the phrase "the Powell State Department," or "the Rice State Department" or "the Kerry State Department."
(Neither you nor I should be surprised to learn that Google shows about 1800 results for "Albright State Department," 3300 for Powell, 2400 for Rice, 3000 for Kerry, and 273,000 for "the Clinton State Department.")
posted by incessant at 2:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [48 favorites]
The primary beneficiaries of these arms deals are the companies who fulfill the contracts--Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, etc. In a sales call, a Lockheed Martin executive called the Middle East a "growth market." Eisenhower is twirling in his grave while defense contractors grow fat and happy.
Obama's rationale for this record selling of arms has been, believe it or not, as a job creation tool. Canada's recent $15B arms deal with the Saudis had a similar rationale--3,000 jobs > national integrity despite complaints by Canadian citizens.
Obama's military/foreign policy record is one of the primary reasons I'm disappointed with his performance as a President. He has no problem selling arms to a country actively committing human rights abuses and is essentially allied with Al Qaeda in Syria. Which... yeah. From a foreign policy standpoint I don't see much difference between the tenures of Clinton and Kerry, so I'm pretty comfortable wagging my finger just at Obama for the moment.
posted by xyzzy at 2:30 AM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Obama's rationale for this record selling of arms has been, believe it or not, as a job creation tool. Canada's recent $15B arms deal with the Saudis had a similar rationale--3,000 jobs > national integrity despite complaints by Canadian citizens.
Obama's military/foreign policy record is one of the primary reasons I'm disappointed with his performance as a President. He has no problem selling arms to a country actively committing human rights abuses and is essentially allied with Al Qaeda in Syria. Which... yeah. From a foreign policy standpoint I don't see much difference between the tenures of Clinton and Kerry, so I'm pretty comfortable wagging my finger just at Obama for the moment.
posted by xyzzy at 2:30 AM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
To be fair, the correct term for the Allbright State Dept. would be the Clinton State Dept. so that search data is not saying much.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:44 AM on September 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 2:44 AM on September 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
How is that a pun?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:41 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:41 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reign/rain maybe?
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:47 AM on September 8, 2016
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:47 AM on September 8, 2016
Yemen previously, if you want to read how it was when Metafilter's own idlewords visited in 2014.
posted by zrail at 4:51 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zrail at 4:51 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the professional perspective of Des Roches, the Saudis and their partners have not done badly at all. “Twenty-eight hundred [killed] for a yearlong bombing campaign?” he told me, using a U.N. figure from January. “That’s one night in Hamburg in World War Two.” In fact, the number of civilians killed from the air in a year, he suggested, bore favorable comparison with NATO’s record in the 1999 air campaign against Serbia, the so-called Kosovo War, in which some 500 civilians died from allied air strikes in barely three months. The Saudis, in his view, were “showing restraint. They’re showing a degree of technical expertise.”Buhhh this is actually good, you dumb carelords. The Houthis are a big time threat to Middle East peace because Iran supports them, kind of, so this is all justified
As of February 2016, the Saudis noted that the coalition had flown more than 46,500 sorties over Yemen. By July, sixty-nine strikes studied in detail by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had killed 913 civilians, at least. As of June, the World Health Organization reported nearly 6,500 dead and more than 31,400 injured, on the basis of information from hospitals around the country. But Doctors Without Borders officials insist that they alone have treated more than 37,000 people with war-related injuries. In any case, more than half the population lacked access to any health care, let alone hospitals.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:54 AM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
(Neither you nor I should be surprised to learn that Google shows about 1800 results for "Albright State Department," 3300 for Powell, 2400 for Rice, 3000 for Kerry, and 273,000 for "the Clinton State Department.")
None of the other people were a former president's spouse, nor running for president......
posted by lalochezia at 5:18 AM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Would a Trump State Department be any different? Sadly, this approach to foreign policy in the Middle East is a bipartisan given our current slate of candidates.
posted by smirkette at 5:26 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by smirkette at 5:26 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess it's the one thing everyone agrees on. HOPE! CHANGE! KILL EVERYONE!
posted by blue_beetle at 5:28 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 5:28 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shhhhh! What, do you want this to end up in the news or something? Only Republicans start wars. Remember that.
posted by resurrexit at 5:38 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by resurrexit at 5:38 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is who we are and what we are about.
Me, I seriously mislike this "we". I did not vote for this. I do not approve any of this. I'm pretty sure most of my fellow Americans (and Europeans) if asked would not be on board with this. Given the Sanders/Trump surge, I would argue that the "we" in question are fewer than might appear. (Bring back the draft and/or finance these wars with direct taxation rather than IOUs and I expect that other we would become a lot more vocal.)
Would a Trump State Department be any different?
Who can say? On the one hand, he has no record of messing around in places (Syria, Libya) that do not concern us, and objected to the Iraq nonsense early on. And he's considered an isolationist. On the other, he wants to boost military spending, he says as a preventative.
Only Republicans start wars.
Feh. Between presidents and congresses doing, and not doing, and reacting to outside stimuli, both parties have plenty to answer for. Among presidents - WWI - Wilson(D); WWII - FDR (D); Korea - Truman (D); Vietnam - a tad Eisenhower (R), but the big push was JFK(D) and LBJ(D). Bill Clinton (D) was the first president since WWII to drop bombs in Europe. (FWIW, Korea and Vietnam were ended by Republicans. Not fast enough, but still- they were ended.)
posted by IndigoJones at 6:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Me, I seriously mislike this "we". I did not vote for this. I do not approve any of this. I'm pretty sure most of my fellow Americans (and Europeans) if asked would not be on board with this. Given the Sanders/Trump surge, I would argue that the "we" in question are fewer than might appear. (Bring back the draft and/or finance these wars with direct taxation rather than IOUs and I expect that other we would become a lot more vocal.)
Would a Trump State Department be any different?
Who can say? On the one hand, he has no record of messing around in places (Syria, Libya) that do not concern us, and objected to the Iraq nonsense early on. And he's considered an isolationist. On the other, he wants to boost military spending, he says as a preventative.
Only Republicans start wars.
Feh. Between presidents and congresses doing, and not doing, and reacting to outside stimuli, both parties have plenty to answer for. Among presidents - WWI - Wilson(D); WWII - FDR (D); Korea - Truman (D); Vietnam - a tad Eisenhower (R), but the big push was JFK(D) and LBJ(D). Bill Clinton (D) was the first president since WWII to drop bombs in Europe. (FWIW, Korea and Vietnam were ended by Republicans. Not fast enough, but still- they were ended.)
posted by IndigoJones at 6:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
And not just the U.S. - all the major western countries.
But, to be fair, mostly the U.S.
posted by flabdablet at 6:11 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, to be fair, mostly the U.S.
posted by flabdablet at 6:11 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's been so odd seeing this appearing in my feed at least once a week if not more and never hearing a peep about it anywhere else.
posted by charred husk at 6:24 AM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by charred husk at 6:24 AM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of these days the Saudis are going to slip up and do something reprehensible
posted by Damienmce at 6:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Damienmce at 6:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think Obama, Clinton, and Kerry all bear a lot of responsibility for this atrocious war. Since neither future state department is likely to waver in its support for Saudi Arabia's wanton attacks on civilians in a poor country - Trump is considered an isolationist only by people who don't pay attention - it's silly to turn this into yet another thread about the election.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I really don't get it. The administration expended huge political capital, and took great historical-legacy risk, to conclude the nuclear deal with Iran. It has been collaborating with Iran in the war against ISIS, a fight in which the Saudis started as adverse and have been with the greatest of reluctance compelled to just be useless. And yet in Yemen it is deploying an old-school reflexive anti-Iranian sentiment and permitting the Saudis to conduct a (however mitigated by advanced targeting) old-school-brutal colonial-power police action.
posted by MattD at 6:39 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by MattD at 6:39 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
What's especially sad about Canada's participation in this, is that the arms deal was signed under the Harper government. Trudeau had a perfect opportunity to scrap the deal with his party recently, coming into power, but instead it was more important for him that "... Canada's word needs to mean something in the international community."
Note that he didn't say what word was.
posted by bitteroldman at 6:47 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Note that he didn't say what word was.
posted by bitteroldman at 6:47 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
MattD: The article seems to explain it. Obama badly wanted the Iran nuclear deal, which he saw as critical to stabilizing the Middle East. Israel was never going to support it. He needed Saudi support, or at least for the Saudis to not actively resist it. Ditto the fight against ISIS. I guess he saw helping the Saudis perform atrocities in their own backyard as a relatively cheap price to pay, especially since it strengthened economic ties to the US. Anti-Iranian sentiment doesn't really enter into it.
posted by xthlc at 6:50 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by xthlc at 6:50 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
The best evidence for the existence of the Mainstream Media/MSM is their abject failure to cover the situation in Yemen. Daniel Larison has been doing yeoman's work on constantly calling Obama, and the pathetic Congress only too happy to ignore the issue, out on this.
I'm living in bizarro world, where the Republican Congress wastes $6 million investigating Benghazi, refuses to give Obama a hearing on a Supreme Court justice they'll wish they'd approved, and then says absolutely jack-shit nothing when the President--whom they daily accuse of flagrant violations of the Constitution for doing things like passing legislation--puts U.S. soldiers in foreign countries with which we are not at war and instructs them to do warlike things as needed.
posted by radicalawyer at 7:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm living in bizarro world, where the Republican Congress wastes $6 million investigating Benghazi, refuses to give Obama a hearing on a Supreme Court justice they'll wish they'd approved, and then says absolutely jack-shit nothing when the President--whom they daily accuse of flagrant violations of the Constitution for doing things like passing legislation--puts U.S. soldiers in foreign countries with which we are not at war and instructs them to do warlike things as needed.
posted by radicalawyer at 7:10 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is who we are and what we are about.
the irony, alluded to in the article, is that the Obama administration almost certainly wishes the Saudis weren't doing this, just as they wish the Turks weren't in Syria.
critics, left critics, are hung up on the idea of "responsibility" meaning moral responsibility, but what is happening in the middle east is that our policies are being driven by the actions of countries which used to be considered proxies for the United States, but are acting independently or even counter to "our" goals. this doesn't change any claim of moral responsibility for Yemen, but the politics of "responsibility" are built on the conceit of the US being, in fact rather than word, a superpower. I don't think the left in the US are ready, any more than the right, for a world where the US is one actor among many...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:16 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
the irony, alluded to in the article, is that the Obama administration almost certainly wishes the Saudis weren't doing this, just as they wish the Turks weren't in Syria.
critics, left critics, are hung up on the idea of "responsibility" meaning moral responsibility, but what is happening in the middle east is that our policies are being driven by the actions of countries which used to be considered proxies for the United States, but are acting independently or even counter to "our" goals. this doesn't change any claim of moral responsibility for Yemen, but the politics of "responsibility" are built on the conceit of the US being, in fact rather than word, a superpower. I don't think the left in the US are ready, any more than the right, for a world where the US is one actor among many...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:16 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm living in bizarro world, where the Republican Congress wastes $6 million investigating Benghazi, refuses to give Obama a hearing on a Supreme Court justice they'll wish they'd approved, and then says absolutely jack-shit nothing when the President--whom they daily accuse of flagrant violations of the Constitution for doing things like passing legislation--puts U.S. soldiers in foreign countries with which we are not at war and instructs them to do warlike things as needed.
But the Republicans don't actually object to any of this? So why would they investigate it?
Eternal war in the Middle East is the only thing both US parties can agree on.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:17 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the Republicans don't actually object to any of this? So why would they investigate it?
Eternal war in the Middle East is the only thing both US parties can agree on.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:17 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eternal war in the Middle East is the only thing both US parties can agree on.
the only way the US can maintain it's position with the Saudis is by playing as many sides against each other as it can. It's why Bush's war in Iraq has been less of a disaster than it should have been: by knocking over the apple cart we continue to be indispensable to every side trying to pick up the apples. it won't end well, but when do empires ever?
the second mistake left critics make wrt US foreign policy is the obsession with Israel/Palestine. US policy in the Middle East has always revolved around Saudi Arabia and this will continue to be the case up until our military is destroyed trying to defend the price of oil.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:42 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
the only way the US can maintain it's position with the Saudis is by playing as many sides against each other as it can. It's why Bush's war in Iraq has been less of a disaster than it should have been: by knocking over the apple cart we continue to be indispensable to every side trying to pick up the apples. it won't end well, but when do empires ever?
the second mistake left critics make wrt US foreign policy is the obsession with Israel/Palestine. US policy in the Middle East has always revolved around Saudi Arabia and this will continue to be the case up until our military is destroyed trying to defend the price of oil.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:42 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
re: Clinton. The question is whether she can be as canny as Obama about the Iranians. The linch-pin of our continuing "strategy", if you can all it that, in the Middle East is whether we can play the Iranians and Saudis off each other. The Iranian nuclear deal is crucial for building this position and, viewed socio-pathically, the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis will have been worth it to obtain that deal with the Iranians: there are 15 different ways the Saudis could have torpedoed it, and should have if the Saud family weren't run by senile old men and idiot princes.
But if Clinton's "friends" push her back to the previous US policy of unrelenting hostility to the Iranians, this will wreck everything.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:47 AM on September 8, 2016
But if Clinton's "friends" push her back to the previous US policy of unrelenting hostility to the Iranians, this will wreck everything.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:47 AM on September 8, 2016
So, it's a sectarian shift in policy in a stratedgy guided by religious wars.
posted by clavdivs at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2016
And he's considered an isolationist.
Not really, but that's probably what Trump would claim to be and then go on to say something that undermines it two minutes later. How can he be isolationist if he claims to want to go after ISIS even harder than Obama? How is he isolationist if he tries to bully, threaten, and intimidate other countries with trade wars and walls? How is he isolationist if he wants to be friends with Putin? Seriously, don't mistake that just because Obama and Clinton are interventionist it means that Trump is somehow the opposite.
posted by FJT at 8:14 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not really, but that's probably what Trump would claim to be and then go on to say something that undermines it two minutes later. How can he be isolationist if he claims to want to go after ISIS even harder than Obama? How is he isolationist if he tries to bully, threaten, and intimidate other countries with trade wars and walls? How is he isolationist if he wants to be friends with Putin? Seriously, don't mistake that just because Obama and Clinton are interventionist it means that Trump is somehow the opposite.
posted by FJT at 8:14 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
"To be fair, the correct term for the Allbright State Dept. would be the Clinton State Dept. so that search data is not saying much."
Then we should at least mostly use the term "the Obama State Department" (37,000 google hits), and yet we don't.
posted by incessant at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2016
Then we should at least mostly use the term "the Obama State Department" (37,000 google hits), and yet we don't.
posted by incessant at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2016
Trump was isolationist until about 24 hours ago. Now he's not, of course. He's not an ideologue, to put it mildly.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2016
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2016
Trump: My position is now the exact opposite of my previous position that you loved so much.
Trump supporters: We love you even more!
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:56 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump supporters: We love you even more!
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:56 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
the irony, alluded to in the article, is that the Obama administration almost certainly wishes the Saudis weren't doing this, just as they wish the Turks weren't in Syria.
They're wishing so hard that they're providing in-air refueling, targeting intelligence and military "advisors" to the Saudis, the Navy is blockading Yemeni ports, the State Department is approving weapons sales. LA Times a year ago:
They're wishing so hard that they're providing in-air refueling, targeting intelligence and military "advisors" to the Saudis, the Navy is blockading Yemeni ports, the State Department is approving weapons sales. LA Times a year ago:
The Obama administration is providing intelligence, munitions and midair refueling to coalition aircraft, and U.S. warships have helped enforce a blockade in the Gulf of Aden and southern Arabian Sea intended to prevent weapons shipments from Iran to the Houthis. The coalition includes five Persian Gulf Arab states plus Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan.posted by indubitable at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Human rights groups say the sea cordon also cuts Yemen off from imports of basic commodities, including food and fuel, adding to the nation's miseries. Overall, fighting since March has killed nearly 4,300 people, nearly half of them civilians, and forced more than 1.3 million others to flee their homes, according to United Nations agencies.
I actually don't get the lack of media coverage of Yemen. I only know about it because of a crusading blogger, Daniel Larison, who at least weekly has something about it on The American Conservative. See here for one example.
posted by resurrexit at 9:36 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by resurrexit at 9:36 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Here's a letter signed by over 60 members of the US Congress urging Obama not to complete a $1-plus billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia for use in its war in Yemen.
A pretty bipartisan letter and as a political matter a positive development. A public reprimand of sorts! Presidential overreach is still overreach when your guy does it.
posted by resurrexit at 9:45 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
A pretty bipartisan letter and as a political matter a positive development. A public reprimand of sorts! Presidential overreach is still overreach when your guy does it.
posted by resurrexit at 9:45 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
They're wishing so hard that they're providing in-air refueling, targeting intelligence and military "advisors" to the Saudis, the Navy is blockading Yemeni ports, the State Department is approving weapons sales.
But, as the article mentions as an aside, it should have been over in a month.
let me clear, I think that Saudi Arabia and the US are committing grave war crimes in Yemen. if nothing else, civilians are clearly being targeted with cluster munitions supplied by the US, targeted by US data, using planes refueled by the US. But the policy of war in Yemen is clearly being driven by the Saudis. the US is absolutely engaged in that war, but I do not believe it was a choice by the Obama administration, rather an accommodation to our central ally in the region for which Obama decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
the war in Yemen is just insane, it serves no conceivable aim or interest other than as a gambit by Prince Salman to overthrow the Saudi family hierarchy and become king.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, as the article mentions as an aside, it should have been over in a month.
let me clear, I think that Saudi Arabia and the US are committing grave war crimes in Yemen. if nothing else, civilians are clearly being targeted with cluster munitions supplied by the US, targeted by US data, using planes refueled by the US. But the policy of war in Yemen is clearly being driven by the Saudis. the US is absolutely engaged in that war, but I do not believe it was a choice by the Obama administration, rather an accommodation to our central ally in the region for which Obama decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
the war in Yemen is just insane, it serves no conceivable aim or interest other than as a gambit by Prince Salman to overthrow the Saudi family hierarchy and become king.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But my point is that the Yemen war is so insane and criminal and contra to the behavior of the Obama administration and damaging to US interests, that one can conclude that the US doesn't have the leverage on the Saudis to stop it.
the argument for moral responsibility always presumes a basically absolute power on the part of the US to shape events. what is the argument if we can't actually stop the Saudis without torpedoeing our alliance with them?
the idea that the US foreign policy can be transported to a purely moral sphere where the US dependence on the price of oil is irrelevant is, more than ever, politically foolish.
But a middle east where the US can't control the price of oil would be a cataclysmic disaster. you don't think Trumps call to just take the oil wouldn't take him to the presidency if the Saudis announced an embargo tomorrow?
posted by ennui.bz at 10:21 AM on September 8, 2016
the argument for moral responsibility always presumes a basically absolute power on the part of the US to shape events. what is the argument if we can't actually stop the Saudis without torpedoeing our alliance with them?
the idea that the US foreign policy can be transported to a purely moral sphere where the US dependence on the price of oil is irrelevant is, more than ever, politically foolish.
But a middle east where the US can't control the price of oil would be a cataclysmic disaster. you don't think Trumps call to just take the oil wouldn't take him to the presidency if the Saudis announced an embargo tomorrow?
posted by ennui.bz at 10:21 AM on September 8, 2016
Here's a letter signed by over 60 members of the US Congress urging Obama not to complete a $1-plus billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia for use in its war in Yemen.
A pretty bipartisan letter and as a political matter a positive development. A public reprimand of sorts! Presidential overreach is still overreach when your guy does it.
Bipartisan or not, that's only 13% of the total membership of of the House of Representatives. Not even enough to stage a successful filibuster, if they were Senators, which they aren't, so I don't see how this proves presidential overreach?
This is not about "your guy" or "their guy", and that kind of thinking is utterly myopic. The US political establishment, by a vast majority, is in support of eternal war in the Middle East. The vast majority entire US political establishment supports arming the Saudis, it supports arming Israel, it supports drone strikes, it's supports whatever other thing you want to pin on Obama alone. If there was a groundswell of resistance in the political establishment, they could stop these things. But they won't stop them, because they support them.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:45 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
A pretty bipartisan letter and as a political matter a positive development. A public reprimand of sorts! Presidential overreach is still overreach when your guy does it.
Bipartisan or not, that's only 13% of the total membership of of the House of Representatives. Not even enough to stage a successful filibuster, if they were Senators, which they aren't, so I don't see how this proves presidential overreach?
This is not about "your guy" or "their guy", and that kind of thinking is utterly myopic. The US political establishment, by a vast majority, is in support of eternal war in the Middle East. The vast majority entire US political establishment supports arming the Saudis, it supports arming Israel, it supports drone strikes, it's supports whatever other thing you want to pin on Obama alone. If there was a groundswell of resistance in the political establishment, they could stop these things. But they won't stop them, because they support them.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:45 AM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
(I call out the fact that the signatories weren't Senators because the Senate is the chamber of Congress that traditionally has the most influence over foreign policy.)
posted by tobascodagama at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2016
posted by tobascodagama at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2016
The US political establishment, by a vast majority, is in support of eternal war in the Middle East.
By extension the US itself supports this as well, because we keep voting for these people.
posted by zutalors! at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
By extension the US itself supports this as well, because we keep voting for these people.
posted by zutalors! at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
@incessant
It's called the Clinton State Department because
1) She did push for things Obama didn't want, particularly the war in Libya
2) State Department policies shifted moderately when she left, thus there is also a Kerry State Department (for example he doesn't consult Henry Kissinger and doesn't support cluster bombs like she did)
3) She is running for president of the US with her role as Secretary of State the "crown jewel" of her experience, as brought up by Clinton supporters.
Is this terminology really more offensive than what she did in the Middle East?
posted by blankdawn at 10:58 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's called the Clinton State Department because
1) She did push for things Obama didn't want, particularly the war in Libya
2) State Department policies shifted moderately when she left, thus there is also a Kerry State Department (for example he doesn't consult Henry Kissinger and doesn't support cluster bombs like she did)
3) She is running for president of the US with her role as Secretary of State the "crown jewel" of her experience, as brought up by Clinton supporters.
Is this terminology really more offensive than what she did in the Middle East?
posted by blankdawn at 10:58 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
@ ennui.bz
The Iranian nuclear deal is crucial... the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis will have been worth it to obtain that deal with the Iranians: there are 15 different ways the Saudis could have torpedoed it...
No, the US was the central actor pushing Europeans et al towards sanctions. The US could have ended them virtually unilaterally at anytime and restored the money we stole from Iran. Saudi Arabia had no veto power. (And if they did this would still be Hitler logic.)
The Yemen war is so... damaging to US interests, that one can conclude that the US doesn't have the leverage on the Saudis to stop it.
"US interests" is not a lobbying group. The interests of arms dealers (mostly their investors but also their employees) are taking precedence here, as is the revolving door of government to contractor to think tank elite in-group identification.
The US could immediately
1) Stop arming the Saudis and propping up their wahhabist monarchy
2) Push the UN to investigate war crimes
3) Threaten embargo (together with UN / European powers)
Remember that the Saudis can't "win" this war against some of the most impoverished people on earth even with the most advanced weapons in the world on their side. You think they would win without Western supplies and with the threat of embargos?
"But they would raise the price of oil!"
1) The US doesn't really buy oil from the Middle East, we produce our own and buy from Canada and Venezuela.
2) That's another reason to develop better relations with Iran.
posted by blankdawn at 11:11 AM on September 8, 2016
The Iranian nuclear deal is crucial... the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis will have been worth it to obtain that deal with the Iranians: there are 15 different ways the Saudis could have torpedoed it...
No, the US was the central actor pushing Europeans et al towards sanctions. The US could have ended them virtually unilaterally at anytime and restored the money we stole from Iran. Saudi Arabia had no veto power. (And if they did this would still be Hitler logic.)
The Yemen war is so... damaging to US interests, that one can conclude that the US doesn't have the leverage on the Saudis to stop it.
"US interests" is not a lobbying group. The interests of arms dealers (mostly their investors but also their employees) are taking precedence here, as is the revolving door of government to contractor to think tank elite in-group identification.
The US could immediately
1) Stop arming the Saudis and propping up their wahhabist monarchy
2) Push the UN to investigate war crimes
3) Threaten embargo (together with UN / European powers)
Remember that the Saudis can't "win" this war against some of the most impoverished people on earth even with the most advanced weapons in the world on their side. You think they would win without Western supplies and with the threat of embargos?
"But they would raise the price of oil!"
1) The US doesn't really buy oil from the Middle East, we produce our own and buy from Canada and Venezuela.
2) That's another reason to develop better relations with Iran.
posted by blankdawn at 11:11 AM on September 8, 2016
"But they would raise the price of oil!"
1) The US doesn't really buy oil from the Middle East, we produce our own and buy from Canada and Venezuela.
this is a perennial misunderstanding. the reason why we have our "special" relationship with Saudi Arabia is that oil is a global commodity and Saudi Arabia, with the largest proven reserves, has the ability to sharply modulate the price. it doesn't matter where we get our oil from, only that the price is low enough that it doesn't strangle the US economy.
2) Push the UN to investigate war crimes
The US is going to push the UN to investigate war crimes we are committing?
No, the US was the central actor pushing Europeans et al towards sanctions. The US could have ended them virtually unilaterally at anytime and restored the money we stole from Iran. Saudi Arabia had no veto power. (And if they did this would still be Hitler logic.)
Then you should understand how radically Obama changed the direction of US policy by getting that deal with Iran. Now, you could argue that the embargo was crumbling and the Europeans were going to end it unilaterally, but either way, it was a dramatic change in US policy and one that has plenty of opponents eager to roll it back.
3) Threaten embargo (together with UN / European powers)
if the US could barely hold together an embargo against Iran, what makes you think it could embargo Saudi Arabia? I mean, come on. Obama might as well announce an embargo on corn from Iowa.
You're illustrating how much the left is addicted to moral preening masquerading as politics. None of what you suggest could ever remotely happen, but it justifies your own feeling of moral superiority. The problem is that you can't possibly hope to change US policy if you don't understand how it works, and why it works and it starts with the fact that the US *must* be able to put the brakes on any jump in the price of oil, which is the paramount interest the US has in the Middle East: the PRICE of oil.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
1) The US doesn't really buy oil from the Middle East, we produce our own and buy from Canada and Venezuela.
this is a perennial misunderstanding. the reason why we have our "special" relationship with Saudi Arabia is that oil is a global commodity and Saudi Arabia, with the largest proven reserves, has the ability to sharply modulate the price. it doesn't matter where we get our oil from, only that the price is low enough that it doesn't strangle the US economy.
2) Push the UN to investigate war crimes
The US is going to push the UN to investigate war crimes we are committing?
No, the US was the central actor pushing Europeans et al towards sanctions. The US could have ended them virtually unilaterally at anytime and restored the money we stole from Iran. Saudi Arabia had no veto power. (And if they did this would still be Hitler logic.)
Then you should understand how radically Obama changed the direction of US policy by getting that deal with Iran. Now, you could argue that the embargo was crumbling and the Europeans were going to end it unilaterally, but either way, it was a dramatic change in US policy and one that has plenty of opponents eager to roll it back.
3) Threaten embargo (together with UN / European powers)
if the US could barely hold together an embargo against Iran, what makes you think it could embargo Saudi Arabia? I mean, come on. Obama might as well announce an embargo on corn from Iowa.
You're illustrating how much the left is addicted to moral preening masquerading as politics. None of what you suggest could ever remotely happen, but it justifies your own feeling of moral superiority. The problem is that you can't possibly hope to change US policy if you don't understand how it works, and why it works and it starts with the fact that the US *must* be able to put the brakes on any jump in the price of oil, which is the paramount interest the US has in the Middle East: the PRICE of oil.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
ennui.bz: You're illustrating how much the left is addicted to moral preening masquerading as politics.
It's unfair the paint the left with such a broad stroke. There are many voices on the left, center, and right.
posted by kyp at 12:23 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's unfair the paint the left with such a broad stroke. There are many voices on the left, center, and right.
posted by kyp at 12:23 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
David Commons did great backup vocal work on “Peace Train.” He was behind most of Teaser and the Firecat on the Astrolabe label.
Of course the Dutch called for an investigation into war crimes. Irony is one of the immutable laws of human nature.
“I asked a senior State Department official why the United States had acted as it did.
“The Yemenis didn’t want it,” he replied, by which he meant Hadi.
“Does the United States usually do what Mr. Hadi wants or doesn’t want?” I asked.
“You should have heard him say, "My ivory." Oh, yes, I heard him. "My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my—" everything belonged to him. It made me hold my breath in expectation of hearing the wilderness burst into a prodigious peal of laughter that would shake the fixed stars in their places. Everything belonged to him—but that was a trifle. The thing was to know what he belonged to, how many powers of darkness claimed him for their own. That was the reflection that made you creepy all over. It was impossible—it was not good for one either—trying to imagine it. He had taken a high seat amongst the devils of the land—I mean literally. You can’t understand,” he answered with a smirk
Sorry, been reading a lot of Pynchon while I recover.
But this is what we do, y’all know that right?
We bomb residential areas and target cities as military targets (because terrorism ) in violation of even the pretense of precaution and all distinction and proportionality precisely because it is disproportionate. It’s risk free. It’s a money sink. War is Peace 101. It’s a great place to expend munitions so we can sell more.
It’s not merely indiscriminate, it’s systematic.
I mean, the general idea of bombing as a legitimate tactic is rooted in WWII where you had industrialized production spread out and/or hidden in civilian populations in small machine shops and so forth so destroying Dresden was, from that mindset, precautionary. Regardless of necessity or right or wrong, there might have been war-making facilities there or could be created there because you have a lot of population and some of them are engineers, chemists, etc. and (from Joe 1940’s perspective) we just don’t know, so destroy it.
Again, regardless of validity, and indeed, disregarding legitimacy as a matter of course, that’s the justification.
So too, we have terrorism. Could be terrorists. Bomb the whole area because it can produce terrorism. Which is a mindset, apparently. And having a knife (who needs WMDs to scare people?)
So there’s no proportionality. Not that I’m ok with anyone getting their throat cut, but y’know, flattening some other guys village based on some vague ideas and fear of a cheap thug level armory, doesn’t seem like a legit pretext for “war.” But that’s an even more nebulous abstract concept (example: are we at war with Yemen? We’ve “been “there in any meaning of that phrase that matters since 2012)
But that’s all by design. You don’t manipulate the thing itself you manipulate the environment.
Seriously, so many of you have this pretension to hard bitten cynicism and I have to explain how we pay the rent? This is how we contrast our standard of living with the rest of the world. Proles. Outer Party. Inner Party. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta. Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able…
Listen...
We shipped 600 patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia last year for $5.4 billion. Raytheon’s unit cost is about $3 million (Or between 1-6 million depending on the specs)
Do the math. Even at the top end that’s a nice profit.
Meanwhile, strategically (from a state orthodox non-profiteering bastard monk’s perspective) the future is cheap drones, so $500k- plus or minus, so who cares who has 1990’s era anti-air tech?
And $148 million in aid, or thereabouts, really, I crap bigger than that. Conceptually I mean. Personally I’m having trouble filling my gas tank. But resources themselves have never really impressed me. (One of the truly amazing things about greed is not its expansiveness, but how petty it is. Had a guy bragging on me about his car. Oooh. Car. How neat. We were parked just a bit away from where the Stennis (CVN74) was docked. Oooh, lets eat at Canlis and talk about how our cars are JUST like a $6.2 billion piece of equipment. Jesus fuck)
But not only is $148 million in aid cheap, and even cheaper as a PR write off considering what we’re banking, that cost be offloaded on taxpayers (because we love socialism when it comes to losses just so long as profits remain private, mmm Lemon (meringue) Socialism). We can say it’s for “defense” just like the bombing. It’s business creating business, yay! In a system based on scarcity, suffering is built into the design. You play keep away. Sometimes with explosives. No clean water for you! Boom. No hospitals for you! Boom. Etc.
Anyway, the legalisms are pretty clearly moot. Most of the collateral damage is from multiple hits from bombing so it’s pretty obvious it’s deliberate targeting.
Create chaos elsewhere so your enemies cannot rise against you. If they’re temperamental, irritate them. If they’re at ease, give them no rest. If they’re united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Etc. Etc. Basic strategy.
Of course, then we wind up with failed states.
Like Somalia, Syria, etc. and, y’know, massive suffering.
But here’s the thing about the politics, whether it’s Trump or Clinton the objective is consolidation of power – regardless of the objective, Clinton could be Captain Altruism and Trump could be Satan or vice versa – the need is to solidify the ability to control relations in the region. And that means money, goodwill, pretending to be interested in/ prefer one religion over another, all that, in order to say “nice doggie” until we pick up the rock.
As far as I can see both candidates are reaching for a rock. To differing ends and to differing degrees in different areas, but given what’s going on with Russia and China and Ukraine and Syria, and Iraq and Iran, and Yemen they’re playing the same game, particularly with Putin. (It’s all Related! It’s the Illuminati! Wake Up Sheeple!)
Heh. Except, no, yeah, it really is all related.
So Russia and the U.S. and China are jockeying for position with Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and Iran is the kingpin there.
Look at China and Russia, they’re building pipelines in Siberia (supplying China’s gas needs for the next 30 years) leveraging against the U.S. and EU’s power in the mideast.
They’re looking at losing allies in Libya (BENGHAZI!!!!!!! *ahem* apropos of nothing, just kinda funny how many political monkeys jerk off over minutiae while the actual import evades them), losing the Ukraine (Ukraine is GAME TO YOU!? Ukraine NOT WEAK! – actually, smashing the whole board is sort of a realistic potential scenario given how angry everyone is getting over the Budapest Memorandum, and of course, just because they got rid of their nukes, doesn’t mean their nuclear expertise, fuel cycle capabilities or nuclear plants (and they’re building more) went away – and allow me to reiterate, whatever his other faults, Obama is easily the best possible president we could have had over the past 8 years. Wait 8 years from now and I’d be happy to see if anyone debates it.), losing Syria (at least, stability in Syria), while Iran is being developed as a hedge against Russia and is a lynchpin of stability in the region (again, thanks Barack!) Which apparently is in NO ONEs interest. *shrug*
Obama's Iran deal irritated the Saudis (and so much of the GOP who decried the deal, and schizoid attention monkey Donald Trump…*sigh*.) but then oil prices went down, didn’t they?
And gee, it’s be great if there was some investment in Saudi Arabia so they could buy weapons (wink, wink, nudge, nudge there King Salman)
So, well, and now we’re here. And things are getting fractious. Obama has total senioritis.
We know Trump is kissing Putins ass. And Clinton’s people did a lot of business with Rusnano which is part of the outfit building the pipeline with China, blah de blah. Again, no one's interest is Iran and stability.
This is not to cast aspersions or take some side or cry “conspiracy!” Politicians and political agendas are pretty incestuous by nature.
This is just…well, a description of the coming weather.
So…Yemen. From the U.S. position -
Clinton’s State Department wasn’t Clinton’s it was Obamas. Granted he was on board with her agenda, but it was his bat and ball. The Clinton presidency will look very different than the Obama State Department headed by Clinton. (btw I love the “I must break you” picture. I'm a fanboy, so sue me. My guy doesn't back the fuck down. I think he's cool. Meh, the photoship is pretty funny too. yeah, I said photoship. I can coin things an everythin' ok?. )
So, dig: Ukraine 2014 vs. Yemen 2015.
The U.S. wants a government (a new government) that serves our interests.
Whether we have to destroy it to save it or not because we (and our Arab chums) like pretending to attack terrorists (like the base) while actually fostering fanaticism (because if you lose your home, family, etc. odds are you’re pretty pissed off.) Religious war is easily exploitable because remains self-contained within the factions and ignores practical realities (health care, clean water, etc. If life on Earth sucks it’s because the afterlife is so much better, especially if you die for God or whatever).
We’re not in total parity with the Saudis of course. But regardless, (TL:DR): consider the difference between the reality and the narrative.
We have to fight terrorism in Yemen. Help our allies. The violence is legitimate. Blah de blah.
But “Russian aggression” in Ukraine has to be fought, there Jen Psaki (Chi Omega see ya lattah!)
So yeah. I mean all things considered you’d want the heavyweight politician in charge of things if/when things are going to go to hell. She's easily the most qualified human being on the planet for the job. I'm not a fan of her policies, but c'mon, she's forgotten more about running a government than anyone I can think of off the top of my head has ever learned except her husband and even there she's got an edge.
I don’t buy that Clinton is driving us into any wars (as the Washington times, et.al. argue…because war is bad unless it’s a GOP administration I guess) rather, there are numerous forces at work, economic, political, ideological, both inside and outside the country that are bending us towards much, much bigger conflicts.
Trump, pfft. I mean, c’mon, it’s the end of the world man. I'd rather have a random number generator in charge.
But either way the tactics – that is the whole “it’s not an accident” dropping bombs on hospitals (et.al) thing are exactly the same.
Only the language and the narrative are different. We bomb this hospital to defend people against terrorism whereas they bomb hospitals because they’re aggressors or terrorists, etc.
And it’s a racket.
I mean, I know that’s my thing but… there’s a great line from “The Big Short” about how the system is a complete fabrication. That’s pretty much modern warfare. At best, maybe, you can do something on a small level to make someone’s life suck less or fight for something true, but that’s a drop in a vast ocean geared toward collusion in corruption. ALL of it.
I like all your comments and god bless ya, but arguing that law or politics or something other than a complete apocalyptic catastrofuck can result in easing the systemic driving of the lash into innocent backs of the starving helpless poor is a fantasy belief in a system that just ain’t there.
(And some of y’all are the same people that make fun of people praying to a loving god.)
And that explains, mostly, Trumps’ appeal. Hell, the “what the hell have you got to lose” comments are a dead giveaway. It’s utter despair. People know somewhere deep down it’s a completely rigged system and it’s headed towards a near, if not total, extinction level event.
…of course, Trump is not the massive change you’re looking for.*waves hand*
Even if I thought he was in earnest, even if he really was dedicated to it, he’s not capable of it.
And perhaps my dark perspective is a bit colored by my personal life. But Goddamnit I know war and chaos and as complex as Yemen is and as small as those domestic moves might seem, it – and the other geopolitical tensions in context (US, Russia, China and Ukraine, Syria, energy policies, etc) – is putting pressure on what is essentially the key log (as in log jam, not surveillance) of all that tension, between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
And it's not just energy. It's no coincidence Yemen is short on water. It's no coincidence civil wars crop up more in dry areas, we kid ourselves with these big ideas couched in complex terms but whether those are valid or not, there's an undeniable reality there Stilgar.
Two thirds of the world get thirsty at least one month a year.
Now stupidity and greed will drive people into some pretty self-destructive acts, but desperation and fear?
I know those too. I can't imagine there are any lengths to which someone will not go. It's just talk until it's YOUR kid dying of thirst.
It’s not the end of the world (could be, but probably not) but it’s a distraction. Yet another distraction funneling billions if not trillions of dollars into nations pointlessly spinning wheels jockeying for positional advantage while pestilence and famine caused by climate change, poverty, malnutrition, etc. loom larger and larger.
Worse, actually, because the destruction of these kinds of engagements, bombing, etc., destroy the infrastructure (water, sewage, hygienic hospitals) we need to deal with those things and magnifies their severity.
The politics, without real change, is akin to the candy asses who put "no blood for oil" bumper stickers on their cars. which run on gas. and drive on roads made from asphalt. live under roofs made of asphaltenes. eat crops collected by machines run on diesel and protected by pesticides made from petroleum. etc. etc.
Not to say oppositions to such fainthearted protests aren't as or more (drill baby drill!) stupid.
Just, y'know, the magnitude of the problem escapes most (political) conceptualization much less discussion. And I mean, most talk is so shallow. But I don't mean to derogate.
You can be willing to kill or die for change, and odds are it's not enough either.
You could be a doctor, join doctors without borders, spend your life working for charity trying to relieve the suffering ...and get bombed to hell without even being noticed by the forces driving it.
Wish I was smarter. Wish I devoted my life to something else. Nanotechnology or material science maybe. Doesn't seem to be much medicine or politics or warfighting or journalism, or hell, a lot of other fields, can do on a broad scale to stop the causes of suffering.
I write too much but it's tough to meaningfully illustrate this kind of gargantuan elephant in a cute quippy little bon mot.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Of course the Dutch called for an investigation into war crimes. Irony is one of the immutable laws of human nature.
“I asked a senior State Department official why the United States had acted as it did.
“The Yemenis didn’t want it,” he replied, by which he meant Hadi.
“Does the United States usually do what Mr. Hadi wants or doesn’t want?” I asked.
“You should have heard him say, "My ivory." Oh, yes, I heard him. "My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my—" everything belonged to him. It made me hold my breath in expectation of hearing the wilderness burst into a prodigious peal of laughter that would shake the fixed stars in their places. Everything belonged to him—but that was a trifle. The thing was to know what he belonged to, how many powers of darkness claimed him for their own. That was the reflection that made you creepy all over. It was impossible—it was not good for one either—trying to imagine it. He had taken a high seat amongst the devils of the land—I mean literally. You can’t understand,” he answered with a smirk
Sorry, been reading a lot of Pynchon while I recover.
But this is what we do, y’all know that right?
We bomb residential areas and target cities as military targets (because terrorism ) in violation of even the pretense of precaution and all distinction and proportionality precisely because it is disproportionate. It’s risk free. It’s a money sink. War is Peace 101. It’s a great place to expend munitions so we can sell more.
It’s not merely indiscriminate, it’s systematic.
I mean, the general idea of bombing as a legitimate tactic is rooted in WWII where you had industrialized production spread out and/or hidden in civilian populations in small machine shops and so forth so destroying Dresden was, from that mindset, precautionary. Regardless of necessity or right or wrong, there might have been war-making facilities there or could be created there because you have a lot of population and some of them are engineers, chemists, etc. and (from Joe 1940’s perspective) we just don’t know, so destroy it.
Again, regardless of validity, and indeed, disregarding legitimacy as a matter of course, that’s the justification.
So too, we have terrorism. Could be terrorists. Bomb the whole area because it can produce terrorism. Which is a mindset, apparently. And having a knife (who needs WMDs to scare people?)
So there’s no proportionality. Not that I’m ok with anyone getting their throat cut, but y’know, flattening some other guys village based on some vague ideas and fear of a cheap thug level armory, doesn’t seem like a legit pretext for “war.” But that’s an even more nebulous abstract concept (example: are we at war with Yemen? We’ve “been “there in any meaning of that phrase that matters since 2012)
But that’s all by design. You don’t manipulate the thing itself you manipulate the environment.
Seriously, so many of you have this pretension to hard bitten cynicism and I have to explain how we pay the rent? This is how we contrast our standard of living with the rest of the world. Proles. Outer Party. Inner Party. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta. Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able…
Listen...
We shipped 600 patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia last year for $5.4 billion. Raytheon’s unit cost is about $3 million (Or between 1-6 million depending on the specs)
Do the math. Even at the top end that’s a nice profit.
Meanwhile, strategically (from a state orthodox non-profiteering bastard monk’s perspective) the future is cheap drones, so $500k- plus or minus, so who cares who has 1990’s era anti-air tech?
And $148 million in aid, or thereabouts, really, I crap bigger than that. Conceptually I mean. Personally I’m having trouble filling my gas tank. But resources themselves have never really impressed me. (One of the truly amazing things about greed is not its expansiveness, but how petty it is. Had a guy bragging on me about his car. Oooh. Car. How neat. We were parked just a bit away from where the Stennis (CVN74) was docked. Oooh, lets eat at Canlis and talk about how our cars are JUST like a $6.2 billion piece of equipment. Jesus fuck)
But not only is $148 million in aid cheap, and even cheaper as a PR write off considering what we’re banking, that cost be offloaded on taxpayers (because we love socialism when it comes to losses just so long as profits remain private, mmm Lemon (meringue) Socialism). We can say it’s for “defense” just like the bombing. It’s business creating business, yay! In a system based on scarcity, suffering is built into the design. You play keep away. Sometimes with explosives. No clean water for you! Boom. No hospitals for you! Boom. Etc.
Anyway, the legalisms are pretty clearly moot. Most of the collateral damage is from multiple hits from bombing so it’s pretty obvious it’s deliberate targeting.
Create chaos elsewhere so your enemies cannot rise against you. If they’re temperamental, irritate them. If they’re at ease, give them no rest. If they’re united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Etc. Etc. Basic strategy.
Of course, then we wind up with failed states.
Like Somalia, Syria, etc. and, y’know, massive suffering.
But here’s the thing about the politics, whether it’s Trump or Clinton the objective is consolidation of power – regardless of the objective, Clinton could be Captain Altruism and Trump could be Satan or vice versa – the need is to solidify the ability to control relations in the region. And that means money, goodwill, pretending to be interested in/ prefer one religion over another, all that, in order to say “nice doggie” until we pick up the rock.
As far as I can see both candidates are reaching for a rock. To differing ends and to differing degrees in different areas, but given what’s going on with Russia and China and Ukraine and Syria, and Iraq and Iran, and Yemen they’re playing the same game, particularly with Putin. (It’s all Related! It’s the Illuminati! Wake Up Sheeple!)
Heh. Except, no, yeah, it really is all related.
So Russia and the U.S. and China are jockeying for position with Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and Iran is the kingpin there.
Look at China and Russia, they’re building pipelines in Siberia (supplying China’s gas needs for the next 30 years) leveraging against the U.S. and EU’s power in the mideast.
They’re looking at losing allies in Libya (BENGHAZI!!!!!!! *ahem* apropos of nothing, just kinda funny how many political monkeys jerk off over minutiae while the actual import evades them), losing the Ukraine (Ukraine is GAME TO YOU!? Ukraine NOT WEAK! – actually, smashing the whole board is sort of a realistic potential scenario given how angry everyone is getting over the Budapest Memorandum, and of course, just because they got rid of their nukes, doesn’t mean their nuclear expertise, fuel cycle capabilities or nuclear plants (and they’re building more) went away – and allow me to reiterate, whatever his other faults, Obama is easily the best possible president we could have had over the past 8 years. Wait 8 years from now and I’d be happy to see if anyone debates it.), losing Syria (at least, stability in Syria), while Iran is being developed as a hedge against Russia and is a lynchpin of stability in the region (again, thanks Barack!) Which apparently is in NO ONEs interest. *shrug*
Obama's Iran deal irritated the Saudis (and so much of the GOP who decried the deal, and schizoid attention monkey Donald Trump…*sigh*.) but then oil prices went down, didn’t they?
And gee, it’s be great if there was some investment in Saudi Arabia so they could buy weapons (wink, wink, nudge, nudge there King Salman)
So, well, and now we’re here. And things are getting fractious. Obama has total senioritis.
We know Trump is kissing Putins ass. And Clinton’s people did a lot of business with Rusnano which is part of the outfit building the pipeline with China, blah de blah. Again, no one's interest is Iran and stability.
This is not to cast aspersions or take some side or cry “conspiracy!” Politicians and political agendas are pretty incestuous by nature.
This is just…well, a description of the coming weather.
So…Yemen. From the U.S. position -
Clinton’s State Department wasn’t Clinton’s it was Obamas. Granted he was on board with her agenda, but it was his bat and ball. The Clinton presidency will look very different than the Obama State Department headed by Clinton. (btw I love the “I must break you” picture. I'm a fanboy, so sue me. My guy doesn't back the fuck down. I think he's cool. Meh, the photoship is pretty funny too. yeah, I said photoship. I can coin things an everythin' ok?. )
So, dig: Ukraine 2014 vs. Yemen 2015.
The U.S. wants a government (a new government) that serves our interests.
Whether we have to destroy it to save it or not because we (and our Arab chums) like pretending to attack terrorists (like the base) while actually fostering fanaticism (because if you lose your home, family, etc. odds are you’re pretty pissed off.) Religious war is easily exploitable because remains self-contained within the factions and ignores practical realities (health care, clean water, etc. If life on Earth sucks it’s because the afterlife is so much better, especially if you die for God or whatever).
We’re not in total parity with the Saudis of course. But regardless, (TL:DR): consider the difference between the reality and the narrative.
We have to fight terrorism in Yemen. Help our allies. The violence is legitimate. Blah de blah.
But “Russian aggression” in Ukraine has to be fought, there Jen Psaki (Chi Omega see ya lattah!)
So yeah. I mean all things considered you’d want the heavyweight politician in charge of things if/when things are going to go to hell. She's easily the most qualified human being on the planet for the job. I'm not a fan of her policies, but c'mon, she's forgotten more about running a government than anyone I can think of off the top of my head has ever learned except her husband and even there she's got an edge.
I don’t buy that Clinton is driving us into any wars (as the Washington times, et.al. argue…because war is bad unless it’s a GOP administration I guess) rather, there are numerous forces at work, economic, political, ideological, both inside and outside the country that are bending us towards much, much bigger conflicts.
Trump, pfft. I mean, c’mon, it’s the end of the world man. I'd rather have a random number generator in charge.
But either way the tactics – that is the whole “it’s not an accident” dropping bombs on hospitals (et.al) thing are exactly the same.
Only the language and the narrative are different. We bomb this hospital to defend people against terrorism whereas they bomb hospitals because they’re aggressors or terrorists, etc.
And it’s a racket.
I mean, I know that’s my thing but… there’s a great line from “The Big Short” about how the system is a complete fabrication. That’s pretty much modern warfare. At best, maybe, you can do something on a small level to make someone’s life suck less or fight for something true, but that’s a drop in a vast ocean geared toward collusion in corruption. ALL of it.
I like all your comments and god bless ya, but arguing that law or politics or something other than a complete apocalyptic catastrofuck can result in easing the systemic driving of the lash into innocent backs of the starving helpless poor is a fantasy belief in a system that just ain’t there.
(And some of y’all are the same people that make fun of people praying to a loving god.)
And that explains, mostly, Trumps’ appeal. Hell, the “what the hell have you got to lose” comments are a dead giveaway. It’s utter despair. People know somewhere deep down it’s a completely rigged system and it’s headed towards a near, if not total, extinction level event.
…of course, Trump is not the massive change you’re looking for.*waves hand*
Even if I thought he was in earnest, even if he really was dedicated to it, he’s not capable of it.
And perhaps my dark perspective is a bit colored by my personal life. But Goddamnit I know war and chaos and as complex as Yemen is and as small as those domestic moves might seem, it – and the other geopolitical tensions in context (US, Russia, China and Ukraine, Syria, energy policies, etc) – is putting pressure on what is essentially the key log (as in log jam, not surveillance) of all that tension, between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
And it's not just energy. It's no coincidence Yemen is short on water. It's no coincidence civil wars crop up more in dry areas, we kid ourselves with these big ideas couched in complex terms but whether those are valid or not, there's an undeniable reality there Stilgar.
Two thirds of the world get thirsty at least one month a year.
Now stupidity and greed will drive people into some pretty self-destructive acts, but desperation and fear?
I know those too. I can't imagine there are any lengths to which someone will not go. It's just talk until it's YOUR kid dying of thirst.
It’s not the end of the world (could be, but probably not) but it’s a distraction. Yet another distraction funneling billions if not trillions of dollars into nations pointlessly spinning wheels jockeying for positional advantage while pestilence and famine caused by climate change, poverty, malnutrition, etc. loom larger and larger.
Worse, actually, because the destruction of these kinds of engagements, bombing, etc., destroy the infrastructure (water, sewage, hygienic hospitals) we need to deal with those things and magnifies their severity.
The politics, without real change, is akin to the candy asses who put "no blood for oil" bumper stickers on their cars. which run on gas. and drive on roads made from asphalt. live under roofs made of asphaltenes. eat crops collected by machines run on diesel and protected by pesticides made from petroleum. etc. etc.
Not to say oppositions to such fainthearted protests aren't as or more (drill baby drill!) stupid.
Just, y'know, the magnitude of the problem escapes most (political) conceptualization much less discussion. And I mean, most talk is so shallow. But I don't mean to derogate.
You can be willing to kill or die for change, and odds are it's not enough either.
You could be a doctor, join doctors without borders, spend your life working for charity trying to relieve the suffering ...and get bombed to hell without even being noticed by the forces driving it.
Wish I was smarter. Wish I devoted my life to something else. Nanotechnology or material science maybe. Doesn't seem to be much medicine or politics or warfighting or journalism, or hell, a lot of other fields, can do on a broad scale to stop the causes of suffering.
I write too much but it's tough to meaningfully illustrate this kind of gargantuan elephant in a cute quippy little bon mot.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Who can say? On the one hand, he has no record of messing around in places (Syria, Libya ) that do not concern us, and objected to the Iraq nonsense early on. And he's considered an isolationist. On the other, he wants to boost military spending, he says as a preventative.
> You know, it used to be, to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said, “Take the oil.”
Isolationist my butt.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:53 PM on September 8, 2016
> You know, it used to be, to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said, “Take the oil.”
Isolationist my butt.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:53 PM on September 8, 2016
@ennui.bz
I understand oil is a global commodity. I think the more common misunderstanding is that the US has tried to "control access" to its oil from the Middle East, when in fact the Middle East mostly supplies Europe and Asia.
Yes the Saudis could raise the price of oil to an extent. It means Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Canada, Nigeria etc would sell more.
Saudis have often kept the price of oil artificially low at the request of the US (1980s especially) to the detriment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, mass transit and the climate.
The US was certainly willing to have the price of oil artificially raised through sanctions on Iran (and Russia), so it's obvious that's not the prime deciding factor in US Policy.
The US is going to push the UN to investigate war crimes we are committing?
The UN is mostly willing to investigate this (you know I'm talking about Saudi crimes here), the US is holding them back. When the US stops arming the Saudis then if they continue bombing yes the US could help investigation go through.
If the US could barely hold together an embargo against Iran, what makes you think it could embargo Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is not Iran. They are the major exporter of terrorist ideology and jihadi funding in the world. They commit human rights violations on a scale that makes Iran look like Sweden. They are basically an ISIS who succeeded. And even other Arab neighbors hold huge resentment against them. (Source: Time spent in various Middle Eastern countries talking politics with people of all social classes and persuasions.)
And we're not even talking necessarily about such a strict embargo as was against Iran (affecting even their medicines). I'm talking specifically about anything related to warfare. Even an imperfect embargo would send a message and empower democracy and reform movements in the Kingdom. Right now the whole world is sure we're on the side of brutal wahhabist monarchy.
Let's show the we're not.
posted by blankdawn at 3:55 PM on September 8, 2016
I understand oil is a global commodity. I think the more common misunderstanding is that the US has tried to "control access" to its oil from the Middle East, when in fact the Middle East mostly supplies Europe and Asia.
Yes the Saudis could raise the price of oil to an extent. It means Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Canada, Nigeria etc would sell more.
Saudis have often kept the price of oil artificially low at the request of the US (1980s especially) to the detriment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, mass transit and the climate.
The US was certainly willing to have the price of oil artificially raised through sanctions on Iran (and Russia), so it's obvious that's not the prime deciding factor in US Policy.
The US is going to push the UN to investigate war crimes we are committing?
The UN is mostly willing to investigate this (you know I'm talking about Saudi crimes here), the US is holding them back. When the US stops arming the Saudis then if they continue bombing yes the US could help investigation go through.
If the US could barely hold together an embargo against Iran, what makes you think it could embargo Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is not Iran. They are the major exporter of terrorist ideology and jihadi funding in the world. They commit human rights violations on a scale that makes Iran look like Sweden. They are basically an ISIS who succeeded. And even other Arab neighbors hold huge resentment against them. (Source: Time spent in various Middle Eastern countries talking politics with people of all social classes and persuasions.)
And we're not even talking necessarily about such a strict embargo as was against Iran (affecting even their medicines). I'm talking specifically about anything related to warfare. Even an imperfect embargo would send a message and empower democracy and reform movements in the Kingdom. Right now the whole world is sure we're on the side of brutal wahhabist monarchy.
Let's show the we're not.
posted by blankdawn at 3:55 PM on September 8, 2016
Saudi Arabia is not Iran. They are the major exporter of terrorist ideology and jihadi funding in the world. They commit human rights violations on a scale that makes Iran look like Sweden.
Iran is no better than Saudi Arabia, and probably a lot worse. They're both theocratic police states, but Iran's involvement in Syria is the reason its civil war is still going on; Iran's support of Hezbollah has basically destroyed Lebanon; Iran has supported terrorist attacks around the world, such as the Jewish community center bombing in Argentina.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Iran is no better than Saudi Arabia, and probably a lot worse. They're both theocratic police states, but Iran's involvement in Syria is the reason its civil war is still going on; Iran's support of Hezbollah has basically destroyed Lebanon; Iran has supported terrorist attacks around the world, such as the Jewish community center bombing in Argentina.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
@Joe In Australia
How many Iranian suicide bombers have attacked the West recently? (Reminder: Over 3/4 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and newly declassifed documents show they were receiving money from a Saudi consulate, whether directly or not.)
Even the US State Department understands Saudi Arabia is the biggest source of funding for terrorism in the world, no other state comes close. (Statements revealed by Wikileaks.)
Saudi Arabia regularly exports extremists from their own jails to global hotspots like Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen.
Saudi Arabia functions on the back an ocean of foreign slave labor, with beating, rape, heat stroke and arbitrary detainment (not to mention massive wage theft) used to keep them all in line.
They practice regular torture in jails, hanging victims from chains while left without food or water. They amputate the hands and feet of petty thieves on the testimony of rich aristocrats (foreigner testimony means nothing.)
They whip rape victims and bloggers until their flesh falls off. A woman's face is considered obscene.
Iran has a lot of problems but it's not like that, definitely not on that scale. And most importantly, Iranians have at least a plausible chance to shift their country's future through (imperfect) elections. In Saudi the king and his court rule all with assists from state-sponsored clergy who regularly call for the destruction of the United States.
posted by blankdawn at 4:11 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
How many Iranian suicide bombers have attacked the West recently? (Reminder: Over 3/4 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and newly declassifed documents show they were receiving money from a Saudi consulate, whether directly or not.)
Even the US State Department understands Saudi Arabia is the biggest source of funding for terrorism in the world, no other state comes close. (Statements revealed by Wikileaks.)
Saudi Arabia regularly exports extremists from their own jails to global hotspots like Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen.
Saudi Arabia functions on the back an ocean of foreign slave labor, with beating, rape, heat stroke and arbitrary detainment (not to mention massive wage theft) used to keep them all in line.
They practice regular torture in jails, hanging victims from chains while left without food or water. They amputate the hands and feet of petty thieves on the testimony of rich aristocrats (foreigner testimony means nothing.)
They whip rape victims and bloggers until their flesh falls off. A woman's face is considered obscene.
Iran has a lot of problems but it's not like that, definitely not on that scale. And most importantly, Iranians have at least a plausible chance to shift their country's future through (imperfect) elections. In Saudi the king and his court rule all with assists from state-sponsored clergy who regularly call for the destruction of the United States.
posted by blankdawn at 4:11 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
How many Iranian suicide bombers have attacked the West recently?
That's a weird metric. Why suicide bombers, specifically? Why "the West"? For what it's worth, though, the last one I know of was the Burgas bus bombing in 2012. There have been other recent attempts e.g., Thailand in the same year. But all this is pretty much inconsequential, compared to Iran's role in Lebanon, and Syria, and Iraq.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:54 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's a weird metric. Why suicide bombers, specifically? Why "the West"? For what it's worth, though, the last one I know of was the Burgas bus bombing in 2012. There have been other recent attempts e.g., Thailand in the same year. But all this is pretty much inconsequential, compared to Iran's role in Lebanon, and Syria, and Iraq.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:54 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
@Joe in Australia
Well they've helped fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria so that's an interesting choice to show how they are worse than the nation that exports the ideology of ISIS around the world.
posted by blankdawn at 7:10 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well they've helped fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria so that's an interesting choice to show how they are worse than the nation that exports the ideology of ISIS around the world.
posted by blankdawn at 7:10 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Overall, fighting since March has killed nearly 4,300 people, nearly half of them civilians
Roughly 5.6K people die from gunshots homicide in the US every six months (2013 stat), and we're wondering why the US populace doesn't really care about ~2,150 non-combatants killed in the same timeframe in Yemen? Yemen? To the contrary, it's remarkable that anyone has noticed at all.
...maybe this is why gun control goes nowhere? Shit, when people are dying all the time on your block, who gives a fuck about some water-starved hellhole on the other side of the planet being bombed by assholes you've never even met?
posted by aramaic at 9:10 PM on September 8, 2016
Roughly 5.6K people die from gunshots homicide in the US every six months (2013 stat), and we're wondering why the US populace doesn't really care about ~2,150 non-combatants killed in the same timeframe in Yemen? Yemen? To the contrary, it's remarkable that anyone has noticed at all.
...maybe this is why gun control goes nowhere? Shit, when people are dying all the time on your block, who gives a fuck about some water-starved hellhole on the other side of the planet being bombed by assholes you've never even met?
posted by aramaic at 9:10 PM on September 8, 2016
Nothing much has changed, since Major General Smedley Butler's 1935 book (pdf) told the truth in bald and unvarnished terms. Except the names ... of the profiteers, of this year's victims, and of the public (us) that supports the never-ending murder-for-profit. What separates the profiteers from Hitler? good business.
So it goes.
posted by Twang at 9:45 PM on September 8, 2016
So it goes.
posted by Twang at 9:45 PM on September 8, 2016
yet another reason for U.S. voters to to elect the peace candidate in this fall's election.
...
who's the peace candidate? you don't know?! i thought everyone knew. ... you'd better ask someone.
Roughly 5.6K people die from gunshots homicide in the US every six months (2013 stat), and we're wondering why the US populace doesn't really care about ~2,150 non-combatants killed in the same timeframe in Yemen? Yemen? To the contrary, it's remarkable that anyone has noticed at all.
the government isn't firing (most of) those gunshots. and jeez, drone strikes in Pakistan have *only* killed 3,341 people (many civilians) since 2004, so quitcher whining eh.
i've always wanted to ask one of those "All Lives Matters" folks if a Yemeni (or Somali or Iraqi or Ukrainian etc.) kid's life equals an American kid's life, but i've never met one. somebody ask for me. TIA.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:39 PM on September 8, 2016
...
who's the peace candidate? you don't know?! i thought everyone knew. ... you'd better ask someone.
Roughly 5.6K people die from gunshots homicide in the US every six months (2013 stat), and we're wondering why the US populace doesn't really care about ~2,150 non-combatants killed in the same timeframe in Yemen? Yemen? To the contrary, it's remarkable that anyone has noticed at all.
the government isn't firing (most of) those gunshots. and jeez, drone strikes in Pakistan have *only* killed 3,341 people (many civilians) since 2004, so quitcher whining eh.
i've always wanted to ask one of those "All Lives Matters" folks if a Yemeni (or Somali or Iraqi or Ukrainian etc.) kid's life equals an American kid's life, but i've never met one. somebody ask for me. TIA.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:39 PM on September 8, 2016
That's a weird metric. Why suicide bombers, specifically? Why "the West"? For what it's worth, though, the last one I know of was the Burgas bus bombing in 2012. There have been other recent attempts e.g., Thailand in the same year. But all this is pretty much inconsequential, compared to Iran's role in Lebanon, and Syria, and Iraq.
Thanks for this. I had a thousand responses of my own to the question you're reacting to, but most of them were, uh, less productive than this.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for this. I had a thousand responses of my own to the question you're reacting to, but most of them were, uh, less productive than this.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's turn a thread about Saudi atrocities abetted by the United States into a thread about whether Iran is bad. I think the latter topic is under-discussed in the press and online in general.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:42 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:42 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
the argument for moral responsibility always presumes a basically absolute power on the part of the US to shape event
No it doesn't. It assumes that we should be more responsible in who we dole weapons out to. See the topic of this fpp or the "rebels" we have been funding, supplying, and training in Syria...since 2006 mind you.
what is the argument if we can't actually stop the Saudis without torpedoeing our alliance with them?
A political system that has evolved to the point where it can't exist in the world without selling weapons of death to madmen would seem to be morally bankrupt and in need of reform. Remember we are enabling the bombing of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Folks who, unlike Americans and Saudis, are decidedly not privileged. Either way, the argument is that in this case the loss of the Saudi alliance would be worth it...from both a political and moral perspective.
But a middle east where the US can't control the price of oil would be a cataclysmic disaster
But a Middle East where the US can't keep its allies in line with International standards on human rights isn't? In case you haven't been keeping up with the news lately it already is a cataclysmic disaster. But not for us privileged Americans who can rest safe at night knowing that our contribution to the Saudi war effort is keeping our gas prices below $3.00 per gallon. I think our priorities are tragically misplaced.
You're illustrating how much the left is addicted to moral preening masquerading as politics.
Says the person illustrating how much Americans (right and left) are addicted to economic exploitation masquerading as politics. So rational, so pragmatic.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:43 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
No it doesn't. It assumes that we should be more responsible in who we dole weapons out to. See the topic of this fpp or the "rebels" we have been funding, supplying, and training in Syria...since 2006 mind you.
what is the argument if we can't actually stop the Saudis without torpedoeing our alliance with them?
A political system that has evolved to the point where it can't exist in the world without selling weapons of death to madmen would seem to be morally bankrupt and in need of reform. Remember we are enabling the bombing of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Folks who, unlike Americans and Saudis, are decidedly not privileged. Either way, the argument is that in this case the loss of the Saudi alliance would be worth it...from both a political and moral perspective.
But a middle east where the US can't control the price of oil would be a cataclysmic disaster
But a Middle East where the US can't keep its allies in line with International standards on human rights isn't? In case you haven't been keeping up with the news lately it already is a cataclysmic disaster. But not for us privileged Americans who can rest safe at night knowing that our contribution to the Saudi war effort is keeping our gas prices below $3.00 per gallon. I think our priorities are tragically misplaced.
You're illustrating how much the left is addicted to moral preening masquerading as politics.
Says the person illustrating how much Americans (right and left) are addicted to economic exploitation masquerading as politics. So rational, so pragmatic.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:43 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Intercept: Wolf Blitzer Is Worried Defense Contractors Will Lose Jobs if U.S. Stops Arming Saudi Arabia
The war’s incredible humanitarian toll has generated an increasing outcry in the United States. Earlier this month, more than 60 members of Congress signed a letter asking the administration to delay the most recent arms shipment. Ordinarily, under the Arms Export Control Act, Congress has 30 days to block arms sales proposed by the administration — but by announcing the arms sale in August, most of those 30 days fell during Congress’s August recess. That 30-day window expired Thursday night and the White House has not granted the request for extra time.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:49 AM on September 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Obama administration has sold more weapons to the Saudis than any other administration, pledging more than $115 billion worth of small arms, tanks, helicopters, missiles, and aircraft.
So yes, it’s a legitimate moral issue. What it’s not is a legitimate economic issue.
If you’re worried about jobs, military spending is not where you look. It’s an inefficient way to create jobs, because it has a lower multiplier effect — meaning how much it ripples in the wider economy. One study from 2011 found that $1 billion put into military spending would create approximately 11,200 jobs, but that same amount of money put into education creates 26,700 jobs.
The Internet: Kirth Gerson is worried that Wolf Blitzer will not lose his job if he continues his practice of fake journalism.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:31 AM on September 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:31 AM on September 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Dataism: Getting out of the 'job loop' and into... | The Bible Went Down With The Birdie Jean Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
We can, of course, expect more of the same from Clinton.
Such a tragedy.
posted by anarch at 12:48 AM on September 8, 2016 [14 favorites]