RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Boardman writes: "The US-Saudi-led war on Yemen started on March 26, 2015, with the Saudi coalition's aerial blitz, using both high-explosive and outlawed cluster bombs, against a population with no air force or other effective air defense. US-supported year of carnage has killed more than 6,000 people (no one knows for sure), most of them civilians."

Aftermath of a Saudi-led coalition airstrike in Yemen. (photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images)
Aftermath of a Saudi-led coalition airstrike in Yemen. (photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images)

US-Saudi Terror in Yemen Dwarfs ISIS Attacks in Europe

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

25 March 16


“Saudi Arabia has been militarily involved and trying to manipulate political outcomes in Yemen for decades. The last time they did this in 2009, they lost militarily to the Houthis.”
– foreign policy scholar Hillary Mann Leverett on CNN, early 2015

hy are two of the richest countries in the World, the United States and Saudi Arabia, engaged in unrelenting, aggressive war against one of the poorest countries in the world, Yemen? 

The US-Saudi-led war on Yemen started on March 26, 2015, with the Saudi coalition’s aerial blitz, using both high-explosive and outlawed cluster bombs, against a population with no air force or other effective air defense. US-supported year of carnage has killed more than 6,000 people (no one knows for sure), most of them civilians. The US-Saudi criminal intervention in the Yemeni civil war was supposed to be quick and efficient. From the start, the US has helped plan the attacks, provided intelligence, re-fueled attacking planes, and participated in the naval blockade (an act of war) that has pushed Yemen’s 26 million people to the brink of mass starvation. The American-Saudi genocidal war has continued without significant protest around the world – no “Yemeni Lives Matter” movement – and with almost no attention from any of those who will likely inherit this illegal war as the next commander in chief. None of the candidates, despite their tough talk about ISIS, seem to care that the Saudi military focus has shifted from fighting ISIS to killing Yemenis whose primary offense is to want to run their own country. Nobody in authority seems ready to address the possibility that one of the fundamental bad actors in the Middle East is our longstanding “ally” Saudi Arabia.    

One reason the candidates can so easily ignore American war crimes in collusion with the Saudi coalition is that Yemen is not widely reported, much less analyzed. Yemen is not part of the official beltway agenda. The PBS program “Frontline” devoted an hour to Yemen in April 2015, mostly delivering the Saudi propaganda view that the Houthis are the bad guys, and omitting mention of the naval blockade. The New York Times apparently felt Yemen was not front page news till March 14, 2016, when it ran a disingenuous, seriously truncated piece that misrepresented the US role in Yemen, starting with the headline: “Quiet Support for Saudis Entangles U.S. in Yemen” (more about this below). Finding relevant, thoughtful commentary about Yemen from any presidential candidate is difficult to impossible. A sampling follows:   

Donald Trump offers wolf-in-the-woods gibberish to fear

Donald Trump doesn’t appear to have any articulated position on the Yemen War, but he does seem to think that it’s all Iran’s fault. At least that’s what he seemed to say on January 19 at an Iowa rally where Sarah Palin endorsed his candidacy. In Trump’s rally remarks below, “they” – as in “they’re going into Yemen” – refers to Iran: 

Now they’re going into Yemen, and if you look at Yemen, take a look … they’re going to get Syria, they’re going to get Yemen, unless … trust me, a lot of good things are going to happen if I get in, but let’s just sort of leave it the way it is. They get Syria, they get Yemen. Now they didn’t want Yemen, but you ever see the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia? They want Saudi Arabia. So what are they going to have? They’re gonna have Iraq, they’re gonna have Iran, they’re gonna have Iraq, they’re gonna have Yemen, they’re gonna have Syria, they’re gonna have everything!

Even at “The American Conservative,” no booster of Iran, they mock Trump surgically: “This is nonsense,… a crude, simplified version of official Saudi interventionist propaganda, which has grossly exaggerated the extent of Iran’s influence and involvement in Yemen for most of the last year.” Being American Conservatives, they stop short of denouncing a criminal American war that has received “far too little coverage,” since it is “one of the worst foreign policy blunders of [Obama’s] presidency.”

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have less to say about Yemen than Trump

In January 2015, before the US-Saudi war started, Ted Cruz was arguing that “Yemen demands our attention as the terrorism bred there has global reach.” In support of this demand, Cruz cited varyingly relevant events of 2000, 2009, and 2011, as well as the then-fact that: “Seventy-one of the 122 prisoners remaining at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are from Yemen.” Beyond more “attention,” Cruz made no policy proposal. The Ted Cruz 2016 website offers no Yemen policy, nor does it acknowledge the criminal US-Saudi war that kills civilians there almost daily, even though it does not resort to “carpet bombing” (which Cruz recommended for ISIS in Syria).   

John Kasich is as quiet as anyone on the American role in bringing Yemen to the brink of mass starvation, but in South Carolina on January 14 Kasich had some unusually harsh, semi-coherent words for Saudi Arabia’s educational initiatives, if not its war crimes:

In terms of Saudi Arabia, look, my biggest problem with them is funding radical clerics through their madrassas, that is a bad deal. Whether I'm president or not, make it clear to the Saudis, we're going to support you, we're in relation with you just like the first gulf war, but you got to knock off the funding and teaching of radical clerics who are the very people who try to destroy us and will turn around and destroy them.

Kasich’s speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on March 21 was titled “A Comprehensive Outline for American Security in a Chaotic World.” Kasich offered ritualistic, dishonest Iran demonizing (“Iran’s regional aggression“) and lied about the USA not being part of Gulf State cooperation, the same Saudi-led alliance waging war on Yemen. But neither his speech nor the Kasich presidential website was comprehensive enough to mention the illegal US-Saudi war in Yemen, in which Israel has participated.

The same day Kasich spoke to AIPAC, Israel managed to evacuate 19 Yemeni Jews from one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, in Yemen. During 1947-1949, after the partition of Palestine, Yemeni attacks on Jews in Yemen led most of them (about 50,000) to flee to Israel. Now, most of the remaining Yemeni Jews (about 50) live in a compound in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa under the protection of “authorities.”  

Hillary Clinton silent on war she helped make possible

Hillary Clinton’s present silence on the US-Saudi terror-bombing campaign that has killed some 3,000 Yemeni civilians since March 2015 distinguishes her from none of the other 2016 candidates. But Clinton does have the distinction of being the only candidate who contributed materially to the ability of Saudi Arabia to bomb indiscriminately, using American weapons and munitions, against which Yemen is virtually defenseless. As a hawkish Secretary of State, Clinton made arming Saudi Arabia a “top priority,”supporting more than $100 billion of dollars of arms sales (2010-2015), including F-15s and the bombs the Saudis have used to pummel Yemen for a year. Unlike the US or Canada, European countries have begun to question or block arms sales to Saudi Arabia in response to the horrendous and unrelenting Saudi record of human rights abuses. Code Pink and other human rights organizations say the Saudi-led attacks on Yemen “may amount to war crimes,” stopping short of naming possible war criminals. The Clinton Foundation has accepted more than $10 million from two of Yemen’s aggressors, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.     

Bernie Sanders has no public opinion on Yemeni ethnic cleansing

In early 2015, Bernie Sanders expressed a vague Middle East policy that called for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to take the lead in fighting terrorism, with the US in more of a support role. What the Saudi-coalition is doing to Yemen fits this framework, except for the terrorism part. The US-Saudi war on Yemen has actually made Yemen safer and more secure for both ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In November 2015, almost eight months after Yemen was attacked, Sanders offered this oblique but accurate assessment:  

Saudi Arabia, turns out, has the third-largest defense budget in the world,… Yet instead of fighting ISIS they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

By omission, this amounts to a kind of blessing of that genocidal war. It also reveals an uncritical acceptance of the false Saudi version of reality (“Iran-backed Houthis”). With no relevant comment on the official Sanders website, the Yemen war remains an issue-cluster he has yet to address directly, never mind thoroughly and accurately, any more than anyone else.   

After a year of US-guided terror bombing in Yemen, in a Saudi-led campaign primarily against the Houthis’ tribal homeland – an assault that is effectively a multinational campaign of ethnic cleansing – it is a sad measure of the seriousness of the candidates for president that they have nothing critical to say of an effort that has more than 24 million victims, most of them innocent, all held hostage in a food-deprived country sealed off by a naval, air, and land blockade imposed primarily by the US, UK, and Saudi Arabia. That’s why you don’t see a flood of Yemeni refugees comparable to those escaping from a smaller (23 million) Syria: because the US is helping to keep them there till they kill each other, get bombed to bits, or starve.   

What you don’t know about is less likely to disturb the status quo

Mainstream media coverage of Yemen continues to be spotty, limited, incomplete, and mostly incoherent. The New York Times article mentioned above is perhaps a sign of increased official attention, but it is no harbinger of completeness or coherence.  The premise of the story is fundamentally dishonest, as expressed in the inside headline: “Quiet Support for Saudi Allies Entangles U.S. in a Bloody Conflict in Yemen.” What the story makes clear is that, in March 2015, the Saudi ambassador pitched the White House on starting a new war in Yemen. The ambassador promised a quick campaign to re-install the Yemeni government that had fled to Saudi Arabia. The ambassador hyped his pitch with the standard exaggeration of Iranian involvement (which has actually been all but nil). Despite concern by “many” advisors that “the Saudi-led offensive would be long, bloody, and indecisive,” President Obama bought the pitch and authorized the Pentagon to support the Saudi-coalition’s attacks on Yemen. Somewhat contradictorily, the Times story also reports:

American intelligence officials had long thought that the Saudis overstated the extent of Iranian support for the Houthis, and that Iran had never seen its ties to the rebel group as more than a useful annoyance to the Saudis. But Mr. Obama’s aides believed that the Saudis saw a military campaign in Yemen as a tough message to Iran.

How do you vote for accountability when no candidate’s for it?  

Taken altogether, that leaves the reader wondering why the president listened to one set of advisors more than another, and especially why he listened to the ones not supported by either intelligence officials or evidence on the ground.  According to the Times, two of those most in favor of war on Yemen were Secretary of State John Kerry (as way to ameliorate Saudi annoyance with US-Iran talks, sacrifice some Yemenis) and UN Ambassador Samantha Power (arguing preposterously that US involvement might mean fewer civilian casualties). Even now, the White House official in charge of Middle East policy (Robert Malley) claims, “This is not our war.” He doesn’t explain how this war could have happened without the US.   

In other words, there was no conscientious analysis leading to a measured decision by the White House as to what would be the best course in Yemen. Doing nothing was apparently not an option, since doing nothing would likely have meant no war there at all (except civil war). The White was already morally compromised by the US drone program that had significantly added to instability (and anger at the US) in Yemen, so how much worse could unleashing an illegal war of aggression be? A year later, we’re finding out. 

So the White House needs a cover story, the White House needs plausible deniability of its willingness to commit war crimes. Enter the Times with something of a cover story: the official version of events is that US participation in and “quiet support” for an aggressive war, in violation of international law, isn’t a big deal as long as the US doesn’t get “entangled.”

That’s not a particularly persuasive argument. But President Obama’s de facto pardon of Bush White House operatives for all their Iraq-related war crimes and crimes against humanity pretty much set the stage for the current absence of any serious call for accountability for any abuse of authority. Little wonder that none of the president’s would-be replacements are challenging the ability to exercise power without personal risk.   

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+44 # REDPILLED 2016-03-25 13:16
Of course, it isn't terrorism when the 'exceptional' U.S. and/or its allies kill civilians.

It's unfortunate "collateral damage" (one of the most disgusting euphemisms ever created), but 'necessary' for our sacred 'national security'.

Of course.
+36 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-25 13:40
On September 6, 2006 an opportunity was presented for our elected officials to ban the continued use of cluster bombs by our armed forces. The results of these inhumane and barbaric munitions was well described by an article in Asia Times (published on April 10, 2003) describing the carnage found in Baghdad hospitals: "The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs." The Mirror (a British newspaper reporting from a hospital in Hillah) further reported "Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that "all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children..."
Hillary Clinton joined Joe Lieberman and their Republican soulmates to defeat the ban on these shameful explosives. It is well acknowledged that 20% of these devices do not immediately explode and lie in wait for new victims for years and years to come.
This is a perfect example of Hillary's concern for women and children.
She is a bloodthirsty hawk with not a shred of human compassion.
We must not allow this neocon warmonger to become our President.
+16 # torch and pitchfork 2016-03-25 17:10
A very small percentage of the cost for these bombs could have bailed out Detroit and the entire state of Michigan. Americans are asses!
+25 # danireland46 2016-03-25 13:43
You can't expect the US to care about the people or country of Yemen - they obviously don't have enough oil under them to make them worthy of a little humanity,
+34 # jdd 2016-03-25 13:45
Yes, these crimes are being carried out with the full support of President Obama, who should give back his Peace Prize and take a seat in a war crime tribunal for his complicity in this slaughter. He has allied with and supported the Ssudi royals, the biggest sponsors of state supported terrorism, from day one. AS extensively reported by former DIA Chief Gen. Michael Flynn, he looked the other way while they upped their support to ISIS while simultaneously blocking the release of the bombshell 28 pages of the 911 Joint Inquiry Report, redacted and classified by GW Bush, which document the Saudi hand behind that atrocity. As for Bernie, he can regain the momentum by calling for the release of the 28 pages and nailing the bloody Hillary on her "foreign policy experience" on this and Libya and stop calling on "Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia," to play a larger role." Is he a socialist or a monarchist? He needs to stop pandering to Clinton's rotten demonization of Assad and Iran, which if anything, have been the Muslim forces which are actually fighting ISIS and the Saudi head-choppers' terrorist gangs.
+18 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-03-25 15:21
Gotta keep the war machine well fed so it can buy politicians who vote for war i.e. Hillary Clinton.
+16 # futhark 2016-03-25 15:27
This is an issue upon which all presidential and congressional candidates need to asked to comment.
-26 # ben Noweizer 2016-03-25 15:29
Obviously Mr. Boardman audacious persistence in depicting Yemen as a defenceless peace loving poor country trying to survive with mere Iranian aides in a strive to feed the needy with hundreds of scud missiles thru an air bridge establishing overnight allowing 18 flights a week between Sana’a and Teheran after the military coup that deposited the elected president, clearly ascertain the mercenary nature of Mr. Boardman that hires his pen for a living.
Shame on you Mr. Boardman.
-18 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-25 16:06
I once contributed to this site until I learned that it was RSP and not RSN. That is, reader supported propaganda and I say propaganda because there is never a rebuttal to the one sided "NEWS" you get on this site. It's those that respond, like ben Noweizer, that remove the filter placed on what is written, propaganda, on this site. Appreciate them as I do since it gives you an opportunity to form a reasonable opinion.....som etimes RSN gets it right but not enough for me to contribute to their one-sided BS. C'mon those of you who agree with me. Help us out here and call this site for what it is.
+16 # nogardflow 2016-03-25 16:47
All news or commentary sites, whether it's RSN, CNN, Fox, Breitbart or any number of others, are but starting points or at least that's how I see them. It's my job to check Mr. Boardman's presentations, as being true or false, I appreciate RSN's commitment to timely articles and while mostly leaning towards being progressive, they will offer opposing views.
-11 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-25 19:17
nogardflow. Good point but my complaint is that RSN calls their-selves NEWS and not commentary. You might see that as what the sites you mentioned are doing BUT they aren't asking for contributions. At least not that I've heard. And I do not watch Breitbart or Rush or other manufacturers of NEWS. Rush finished that for me when he accused Bill Clinton, while in office, of having Vince Foster murdered in 1993 and he had me believing it because I foolishly thought you couldn't make charges like that without proof. Now he's saying it could have been Hillary.
I do check RSN and Fox news but will NOT contribute to any source that has an agenda of one way news, better if called propaganda.
+10 # itchyvet 2016-03-26 00:40
W.T.F. ? Quote, " I foolishly thought you couldn't make charges like that without proof". Unquote. Are you for real ??? Where have you been, living in a cave or something for the last 30 years ? Since when is PROOF ever required by American authorities to back up a charge they are making ?????? Let's face it, it'd be nice, very nice indeedy if such PROOF was ever supplied to substantiate charges laid, yet I have yet to ever witness such an event ever happening in my lifetime emanting from the U.S. authorities. Talk about propaganda, my friend, what exactly would call such affairs ? Keep in mind the hundreds and thousands of people who have died on the false charges laid by the U.S. Government without a shred of substantiating proof to sustain their claims. Where indeed were you hiding at the time ?
+5 # WBoardman 2016-03-26 12:50
The Buffalo Guy has a legitimate concern
about distinguishing between "news" and "opinion"

His view of RSN, unhappily, seems based partly
on his own neglectful reading – the RSN home page
clearly distinguishes between "breaking news" in the
left column and "opinion" in the right column.

So Buffalo Guy needs to return to square one and start
again using critical thinking and clear distinctions
(and he might ask himself why he thinks ben Noweizer's
evidence-free claims are credible).

As for my own work, it's ALWAYS opinion, supported by
as much credible evidence as I have available at the time.

Fact-based corrections, or mere challenges, are always

since nogardflow has raised no objection to my piece here,
I will assume it passed the "true or false" test – although,
personally, there's little in this world that seems to me simply
true or false.
+2 # Caliban 2016-03-26 01:00
Buffalo Guy--your critique of RSN's choice of articles is a matter of taste--yours vs Marc Ash and company.

But you are right to praise RSN for having an exceptionally interesting and engaged group of Reader-Responde rs. Personally I think this reader-presence is in large measure a function of exactly those article selections you criticize. These pieces provoke exactly that reader participation that makes RSN so appealing and thought-provoki ng.
-4 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-26 12:39
itchyvet, I guess that I expected an uproar from people if it were untrue and didn't see any. I eventually realized there was no proof and learned from the experience. And it was Rush that made the charge and not from any government entity.
Propaganda is not necessary a lie but can be info given in a biased manner. RSN does that in my opinion. It hurts their credibility with me and I cannot contribute to it.
-4 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-26 12:53
caliban, my only problem is with RSN followers. You can tell them because they throw red thumbs at anyone questioning or disagreeing with an RSN commentator. If your belief in RSN is so strong then why is RSN always begging for funds? I, at least, have a reason for not contributing. So many of you who do agree with their propaganda don't contribute or is it that they, like me, won't contribute to biased "NEWS?????". Or perhaps it's that their following is really as small as RSN reports, just a handful of contributors out of multi-thousands of cheap readers?
+1 # pietheyn07 2016-04-04 11:36
Hey Buff,I'm curious: Since you state your reasons why you don't contribute to the RSN effort, perhaps you will tell us which news and opinion sources you do contribute to, and why.
+2 # rhgreen 2016-03-26 19:16
Response to The Buffalo Guy: Personally, I am happy to see news & commentary & opinion which covers such things as Saudi Arabia's self-centred and aggressive behaviour both inside and outside its borders (in Yemen for example), and also covers America's complicity in it. The US mainstream media doesn't cover these things and thus seems to think it's OK. I am happy to see RSN's coverage of it. Their slant on it is very close to mine - which is derived from other sources than RSN.
-1 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-27 12:12
rhgreen, well there you go. You may be but I'm not impressed by "one slant" whatever even if I agree with that particular persuasion. I prefer to hear opposing views and I do get concerned when opinion is offered as fact. I appreciate Boardman's stating what he writes is his opinion all of the time and allowing me to be clear in thought with his posts. It disappoints me that RSN only offers an opinion they agree with. So my choice is to ignore contributing to them. I'm not trying to advocate the demise of RSN but won't contribute to what I consider one way discourse that does not create challenging thought. I'm very surprised how hard RSN has to work for funds. So many of you don't contribute and as I said earlier, WHY IS THAT? Are those of you that label me a troll contributors or just snipers? I would return to contributing if my challenge were met. What's your excuse for dogging your beloved site?
+4 # Helen Marshall 2016-03-25 19:22
Just another troll...shame on you!!!
+4 # WBoardman 2016-03-26 12:39
Despite an emphasis on ad hominem slurs,
ben Noweizer asserts some interesting "facts" –

(1) "hundreds of scud missiles," NO source

google "scud missiles in yemen" and you find evidence
that a SINGLE missile from Yemen was intercepted by
Saudi defenses on three occasions in August 2015,
December 2015, and February 2016 – so that's a minimum
of 197 FEWER than ben Noweizer claims over an
undefined time period.

But the beauty part here is this:
perhaps 20 scud missiles came to Yemen from North Korea!
(reported July 2015)

No doubt these reports need refining,
but ben Noweizer should do his(?) own homework

(2) "18 flights a week between Sana'a and Tehran," NO source

google "flights from Iran to Sanaa" and you quickly learn
that on or about March 1, 2015,
an Iranian airlines plane landed in Sanaa for the 1st time
in 25 years. It carried medical aid. That report,
more than three weeks before the US-Saudi attacks,
said that Yemen & Iran planned 14 flights per week.

A limited search for current flights from Tehran to Sanaa
found none available. That may be because,
as of March 26, 2015, the Saudi-coalition has maintained
an air blockade of Yemen (along with the naval and land

(3) ben Noweizer offers no counter-evidenc e to rebut
my piece, which he also misrepresents,
so whose head should hang in shame?

A cogent response from ben Noweizer would probably be appreciated here...
+14 # Ralph 2016-03-25 17:05
But but but BRUSSELS! Who cares that thousands of innocent people are being cluster bombed. They are the wrong color. We've become nothing more than good Germans. This country is a disgrace. Thank you Mr. Boardman and RSN for bringing light to this most important issue.
+11 # Stilldreamin1 2016-03-25 20:22
Do you think maybe the war on Iraq killed more people than 9/11? But they're the barbaric ones.
+5 # itchyvet 2016-03-26 00:45
I question your connection of Iraq with 9/11. It would appear it is only the media in the U.S. that has perpetrated this false claim, and the citizens of the U.S. ever so obligingly accepted that claim, without asking for PROOF.(as the Buffalo Guy is so fond of) We now read that even Iran is being connected to 9/11 despite the FACT that they were the first nation to respond with offers of assistance at the time. Proof ???? Who in hell needs PROOF of anything in the U.S. the truth is as the Government SAYS IT IS, accept it, or else.
+2 # Glen 2016-03-26 06:21
Your comments are the same as Stilldreamin - sarcasm and irony are now ruling the waves! Perfect. A necessary injection of humor in sad cases around the world.
+2 # ahollman 2016-03-26 14:56
William Boardman does a good job of documenting what is absent - good information on the war, who is doing what, who and how many the victims are, US Presidential candidates' positions on it.

But, Mr. Boardman fails to explain why this war came about in the first place. That the Saudis might want to use it to annoy the Iranians is plausible, but as debatable as is the role of Iran. That the US might go along with its Saudi ally for other reasons is plausible, but leaves unstated the other reasons.

I could speculate that the root of this is come combination of tribal conflict, Sunni-Shia conflict, political jockeying among Yemen's elite, some kind of remnant from the days of a separate North and South Yemen, or an attempt to promote or prevent the increased influence of some terrorist group, but that is all speculation. Likewise, I could speculate that access to oil or water might play a role, or that climate change is displacing people and/or creating competition for scarce resources, but again, that is all speculation.

We lost Vietnam because we didn't understand the country's history, in particular, its long-term hostility with China, and its shorter-term resentment of the French. We then framed it as a capitalist-Comm unist conflict and proceeded on those terms.

Let's not proceed on Yemen until we understand it better. Of course, the war is ongoing.

Who in Congress consented, and is the lack of Congressional approval a basis for stopping it?
+2 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-03-27 16:15
ahollman's post makes my point of why an opposing or different view is so essential to making a fair judgement of an incident and which view makes sense to the reader. As I said, I don't necessarily disagree with him but need more info to make a personal judgement. And I don't want to have to search the internet for other posted views that I believe should accompany Boardman's opinion. Even an occasional opposing view would make the site more credible but none does not cut it for me.
+2 # WBoardman 2016-03-28 09:49
The Buffalo Guy asks, reasonably enough,
for some "opposing view," presumably something
credibly argued and fact-based.

But what does that really mean.
In the news section, "opposing view" implies "opposing facts,"
which is an oxymoron.
In the opinion section, there's more room for an "opposing
view," although it's somewhat like slapping oneself in the face.

Yemen, for example, might have an opposing view that
the Houthis are a threat to the civilized world and it's good
to take them out by any means necessary.

That's more or less what the Saudi-coalition has been saing
for more than a year, usually with the added assertion that
the Houthis are just a catspaw for Iranian hegemony.

With this particular piece, there's an added irony,
that I searched diligently for any view from the candidates,
and presented what I found, with the result that
the "opposing view" seems to be more like no view at all.

The Buffalo Guy asks the impossible here:
to present someone's defense of a war being waged
pretty much in secret.

Stay tuned ;-)))
+2 # WBoardman 2016-03-26 16:57
ahollman asks interesting questions
that I mostly don't know the answers to,
but here's what I think I know:

1. The war on Yemen came about for a variety of reasons,
in order of apparent priority:
* age-old Yemen/Saudi hostility, reflected by the absence of an actual border between most of the two countries
* longstanding Houthi tribal independence against everybody
* western concern for controlling Yemen's coastal waters [hard to assess western thinking on this, but it's real and may be the #1 reason US et all gave the war a green light]
* support for the Yemen government that fled to Saudi Arabia
* pushback against Iran seems largely an excuse
* same for Sunni-Shia conflict

[what the war is NOT about is fighting al Qaeda or ISIS, both of which have benefitted from the fighting in western Yemen]

(2) Yemeni civil strife is the context for the US-Saudi way, not a cause of it

(3) Yemen has no significanr reserves of oil, and what there is is now controlled mostly by al Qaeda/ISIS

(4) Yemen's need for water is growing more critical

(5) climate change may be an underlying factor, but not yet a significant one

Nobody asked Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to declare war.... USNews reported that support was bi-partisan:

Congress was fine with years of US drone attacks in Yemen.
+1 # corals33 2016-03-31 23:35
why are we making bombs? because we will bomb people somewhere, anywhere,otherw ise what is the point of making the damned things in the first place.Eventuall y the logic of this will dawn on the hypnotized populations of this planet and the madness will stop. All this civilized, intellectualizi ng is but a silly distraction designed to have us looking at the trees and not seeing the forest.
0 # Johnny 2016-04-10 14:59
Boardman writes cogently and argues from evidence in the article above. The Zionist trolls are nothing but buzzing gnats.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.