Category Archives: Yemen

Britain, China, Government, History, Iran, Middle East, Military, Politics, Russia, United States, Yemen

Probing for weaknesses in the West’s defences

MIDDLE EAST

Intro: Drone strikes are probing for weaknesses in the West’s defences. Russia and China will be watching on with alacrity

COLONIAL history is no longer taught to young British Army officers at Sandhurst. And most American military planners and strategists might never have heard of the desperate battle to save an outpost called Rorke’s Drift in the Zulu Empire.

That Victorian battle was fought in 1879. But, along with the 1964 movie Zulu that was based on it, both have a crucial lesson for Allied forces now facing Islamist militias in flashpoints across the Middle East.

On screen, the Zulu chief sends a wave of warriors on a suicidal assault on the British outpost at Rorke’s Drift. Men are sent into battle armed with assegais or traditional spears but are met with a fierce resistance and gunned down by volleys of rapid rifle fire.

The African losses were heavy. Yet they weren’t trying to win this first assault: they were probing for weak points in the British defences, scoping out what weapons they had and how they used them.

There are strong parallels today with the situation in the Middle East.

The Iranian-backed drone attack on US army outpost Tower 22 in the Syrian desert – in which three marines were killed and 40 suffered horrific injuries – has echoes of long-forgotten colonial conflicts which helped to lay the gunpowder trail to the First World War, just as we could conceivably face another world war now.

Our enemies, the Houthis in Yemen attacking shipping in the Red Sea and Hezbollah guerrillas backed by Iran, are testing the West’s resolve and how we might fight back.

After several days of dithering, America “hit back” with B1 bombers and cruise missile attacks, blasting dusty and largely empty militia bases in the desert.

Since then, the world has witnessed a joint operation by the United States and the UK, which struck 36 targets across 13 locations in Yemen. They were backed by Australia, Bahrain, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.

The Ministry of Defence was at pains in recent days to emphasise that RAF strikes on Houthi targets were not intended as “an escalation”, rather a mission “to protect innocent lives and preserve freedom of navigation.”

The US Air Force’s high-tech weaponry have killed some 37 militants, but Washington has said they have no intention of striking Iran itself. The Americans have repeatedly stressed they do not want a war with Tehran.

These statements, however, signal to the Yemeni militias and their proxy backers that the West does not have the stomach for war and does not want to risk the lives of our own forces.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office insists, too, that: “We need to send the strongest possible signal to Iran that what they’re doing through their proxies is unacceptable. [They] will ultimately be held accountable for what they do.”

Precision strikes that do nothing but destroy a few temporary bases are not “the strongest possible signal”. Nor is the killing of a handful of Houthi rebels who treat death as martyrdom. Put simply, they are regarded by their puppet-masters in Tehran as expendable.

The Tower 22 bombing was carried out by the terrorist militia group Kataeb Hezbollah. This faction is not actually banned in the UK, and its supporters have been able to march down on Whitehall chanting anti-West slogans. Britain is trying to play an international role, but this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of even policing our own streets.

If the Americans are oblivious to the lessons of Rorke’s Drift, they should at least remember Vietnam. At the height of that gruelling war, US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara gave an interview explaining that his policy was to inflict enough deaths and damage on the North Vietnamese to make their Communist leaders back off from fighting the US Army.

President Ho Chi Minh listened to that in such disbelief that he asked for the tape to be replayed. Afterwards, he laughed. McNamara was revealing, he said, that lives mattered – to the Americans! All that mattered to North Vietnam’s fanatics was victory. No price or sacrifice was too high.

Ho Chi Minh’s strategic assessment was right. Far more of his soldiers and untold numbers of civilians were killed. But it was America that gave up paying the price of war. Today President Joe Biden dares not being drawn into an escalating Middle East conflict, particularly with an election due this year. Democrats won’t stand for it. The British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, faces the same stark truth.

Britain herself is no position to wage war against Iran or anyone else. Our military inadequacy is reflected in the fiasco of our two aircraft carriers: HMS Prince of Wales is being rapidly prepared to be seaworthy after repairs to a crippled propeller shaft. The ship is needed to deputise for its £3.5billion sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth II, which is currently out of commission because of another propeller shaft breakdown.

Russia and China are watching closely as Iran, and her proxies, test the West on their behalf. For Putin and Xi Jinping, this has become a spectator sport, as they look for signs that we have failed these tests. Instead of responding to the Tower 22 attacks with real military might, we have staged pin-prick reprisals, designed to demonstrate Western technological superiority. But our timid hesitancy has done nothing to frighten our global rivals.

The battle of Rorke’s Drift was won because we were prepared to fight with a ferocity that equalled the attacks of our numerous enemies. Now we no longer have the ships, the men, or the resolve to do so. Our foes must be laughing.

Standard
Africa, Aid, Government, Society, United Nations, Yemen

UN: World facing gravest humanitarian crisis since 1945

AFRICA

Food Crisis

Intro: The UN has received only about 10 per cent of the money it has sought since launching appeals last month for the drought-affected countries

The world is facing its biggest humanitarian crisis since the end of the second world war, with 20m people facing starvation and famine in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and Nigeria, the UN has warned.

The UN’s humanitarian chief, Stephen O’Brien, has told the Security Council that $4.4bn was needed in the next four months to address the escalating situation.

“Without collective and co-ordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death,” he said. “Many more will suffer and die from disease.

“Already at the beginning of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations.”

The UN last month declared a famine in parts of South Sudan, which has been wracked by civil war for more than three years. But Mr O’Brien said the most serious crisis was in Yemen, where two-thirds of the population, some 18.8m people, need assistance and more than 7m are facing starvation.

“That is 3m people more than in January,” he said, adding that in the last two months almost 50,000 people had fled fighting between forces loyal to the government and Houthi rebels.

Some 6.2m people need help in Somalia, of whom 2.9m are in dire need; 4.9m in South Sudan and some 1.8m in north-eastern Nigeria.

Kenya and Ethiopia are among other countries facing the impacts of severe droughts but their governments have a better capacity to cope.

Famine is declared when daily mortality rates are two or more deaths per 10,000 people and 30 per cent of children suffer from acute malnutrition, among other criteria.

Mr O’Brien stressed that the looming catastrophe was “man-made” and “preventable”.

“It is possible to avert this crisis, to avert these famines, to avert these looming human catastrophes,” he said, stressing that the warring parties in South Sudan were making little effort to alleviate the situation.

The international community has started reacting to the threat of famine much more quickly than in the last such crisis, when 260,000 people died in Somalia in 2012. Many agencies, particularly UN bodies, have started spending pledged aid money before it has been disbursed by using their own reserves.

António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, said this week after visiting Somalia that the situation was deteriorating. He described how he saw children dying from acute watery diarrhoea and cholera.

He said that systems were in place to avert the worst of the looming crisis, if money and aid are delivered.

However, Save the Children UK warned that despite a better response than in 2012 some of the mistakes made then were being repeated. Kevin Watkins, Save the Children’s chief executive, singled out inadequate planning and a slow response from donors.

The UN has received only about 10 per cent of the money it has sought since launching appeals last month for the drought-affected countries.

Mr O’Brien said that if money is not committed soon, not only will many people die but many children who survive will be stunted by severe malnutrition, gains in economic development will be reversed and “livelihoods, futures and hope will be lost”.

 

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Yemen

Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the West…

YEMEN

yemen-houthi

Map depicting Houthi controlled Yemen and the struggle for control

Intro: Saudi Arabia should limit its war in Yemen. Despite the difficulties of late the West should be in a position to help, not by rescinding an almost century-old alliance.

The recent air strike earlier this month that hit a funeral in Sana’a did far more than kill some 140 civilians and wounding 500. For once, it drew rare attention to Saudi Arabia’s 20-month war in Yemen and the strained relationship which now exists with America. That alliance is now under threat with the U.S. reconsidering its military support for the campaign.

Critics are adamant that it is time for the West to abandon its embarrassing alliance with the Saudis. They ask, how can the West denounce the bloodshed and carnage in Syria when its own ally is indiscriminately bombing civilians in Yemen? If the Saudis, with Western support, can intervene to defend the government of Yemen, why shouldn’t Vladimir Putin of Russia not defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria?

Morally, and perhaps also legally, the U.S. and Britain are directly implicated in Saudi actions: they sell warplanes and provide munitions and armaments to the Saudi regime; they assist with air-to-air refuelling and help with targeting. Critics also point to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a woeful ally against jihadism. They insist that the Saudis are inflaming global extremism through its export of intolerant Wahhabi doctrines.

Such arguments do have strength. On balance, though, the West should not forsake the Saudis. Rather, it should seek to restrain the damage of their ongoing air campaign, and ultimately aim to bring it to an end. Western support cannot be deemed to be unconditional.

Consider first the moral position and balance. The two conflicts are both ghastly, but not equally so. Around 10,000 have died in Yemen, too many, but far fewer than the 400,000 or so that have perished in Syria. The Saudi-led coalition has not used chemical gas – although it has undoubtedly been careless. It has bombed several hospitals, and its blockade of Yemen and the subsequent damage to its infrastructure has caused dire hardship. A famine now looms, with more than half the country deemed to be hungry or malnourished.

The political context is also different. The Assad regime wrest power in a coup, and has held onto it through tyrannical brutality. Its deliberate crushing of peaceful protests and dissent in 2011, and its indiscriminate and repeated slaughter since then, has removed any speck of legitimacy it may have had. By contrast, Yemen’s president, Abd-Rabbo Mansour Hadi, though ineffectual and flawed, has at least presided over a broad coalition that was established through UN-backed negotiations (which followed the resignation of the former strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh). The Shia Houthis and Mr Saleh, backed by Iran, overturned that deal by force. They frequently fire missiles indiscriminately at Saudi cities, although the damage is often limited.

While the West has little reason to join the war, it has much at stake if it goes wrong. Al-Qaeda’s local franchise has been strengthened, and the Houthis have begun firing missiles at ships in the Bab al-Mandab strait, one of the world’s vital sea lanes. America launched cruise-missile strikes against Houthi-controlled radar sites after attempts were made to attack one of its warships patrolling the region.

The West’s involvement with the Al Sauds is important to understand. Its long alliance, which dates back nearly a century, was also built on its extensive commercial interests that the West has had in the Gulf. Over the decades, the Saudis have put up with many American blunders in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They were shocked, too, by how the West abandoned the former Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, during the mass protests and upheaval of 2011. Last year’s deal between America and Iran to restrict Tehran’s nuclear programme, and Mr Obama’s skewered rhetoric and offhand tone about the Saudis, has deepened their own fear of abandonment. And, the Congressional approval for a bill to allow the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 to sue Saudi Arabia, overriding Mr Obama’s presidential veto, is further evidence that the disenchantment is mutual.

Yet, despite this, there are still good reasons for the West to maintain ties to Saudi Arabia. The alternative to the Al Sauds is not liberalism but some form of radical Islamism. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s biggest oil exporter, and holds guardianship of Islam’s two holiest shrines. Better surely that these be in the hands of a friendly power than a hostile one. Whilst slow to respond to the emerging threats of fundamental Islam, it is now a vital partner in the fight against jihadism. It will be better placed than the West to challenge their nihilistic and radical ideologies. The chaos of the Middle East, a tinderbox of tension and hatreds, stems at least in part from Sunni Arabs’ sense of dispossession. The best hope of containing the volatility is to work and collaborate with Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia.

As uncomfortable as it is, the West should stay close to the Saudis. Riyadh should be encouraged to reform economically and politically, while acknowledging widespread concern in the Gulf about the spread of Iranian influence. As the U.S. has said, Western support cannot be ‘a blank cheque’; the more the West helps Saudi Arabia wage war in Yemen, the more it becomes exposed and liable for war crimes. If the Saudis want to fight with Western weapons, they must be obliged to respect the laws of war.

But above all, the West should use its influence and diplomatic powers to help the Saudis end the bloody stalemate. It should promote a reasonable power-sharing agreement that directly involves the Houthis. That would make Yemen a model by which the future of Syria could also follow suit.

 

Standard