It’s not clear what US intentions are, but a group of US Marines arrived at the Yemeni island of Socotra over the weekend, meeting with the occupying United Arab Emirates forces, and installing Patriot missile systems there.
The US hasn’t announced why they are back on Socotra, an island strategically located near the mouth of the Gulf of Aden. The UAE has been seen as wanting to keep the island after the Yemen War for a base, and there is speculation that the US has designs on a base as well.
The UAE will reportedly “lease” the island for a period of 95 years. There has been no major fighting on the island during the war, though the UAE was quick to occupy it militarily when the opportunity presented itself, reportedly without the permission of the Saudi-backed Yemeni government.
If the US is intending on a long-term stay in Yemen, that’s likely to spark a battle with Congress, which has repeatedly tried to get the administration to leave Yemen outright, since there was never an authorization to use US force there. If Congress wasn’t supportive of a war there, they’ll certainly not endorse an open-ended US presence, even on the island.
Really, US did not intend to keep its nose in? Congress wanted “out”? They never wanted out — just wanted to sound humanitarian so that our hands looked clean in that genocide by starvation. And at that time, wanted to stick it to Saudis — to make big drama about MBS. Since Saudis actually made progress in alignment with Southern clans, US initial plan was to get Saudi Arabia do the dirty work of keeping Yemen in one piece, so US can then have a “partnership” with a young democracy or such similar clap trap — and have military base controlling Bab Al-Mandeb.
UAE are in a bind — cannot screw Saudis, but their entire finance/real-estate/smoke and mirrors economy is so dependent on West, and there is no way it can refuse US . US has list patience — and is solving the problem with a hammer. Just take an island — lease it from whom, where is the state?
This will not sit well with many stakeholders — all those that cannot accept US ability to choke off Red Sea Europe-Asia passage.
This is a short-cut — but will not work. UAE will wiggle out, not give us fig leaf.
So, there are no more starving kids in Yemen? We have just cut off UN aid — or part off. Why? What do we want from Yemen?
And Socotra is a Galapagos of the plant life. We just HAVE to be there?
Or, the opposition was actually against our participation there, but didn’t have the votes.
“If Congress wasn’t supportive of a war there, they’ll certainly not endorse an open-ended US presence, even on the island.”
Non sequitur.
Seem to recall (congress, meaning a majority of congress) voting to prevent this, and then getting vetoed.
And once the veto happened, it was over. Without constant full throated opposition to wars, nothing will change.
What is the opposition to do ? Get vetoed again ?
Yes. Again and again and again. Vetoes shouldn’t stop anything.
Congress does have other business, guys. If they were to spend all their time on Yemen, they get lambasted for that, and they won’t be congress critters anymore. Each theater is brought up, as they come up, annually. Face it, the problem is not those members whom attempt to end the wars, but the electorate that keep sending warmongers into office.
Bianca “decorative. It is acting.” How are those mind reading skills today ? You are saying those who vote against war are secretly for them. Huh. That’s exactly how I perceive people who attack that body of congress which are voting against war, and never mention the other half of congress which jackboots for war every single time. You know, like you are doing.
I respect the hell out of you Dave but our opinion on the democrats is obviously quite different. In my opinion the democratic leadership is just as warmongering as the republicans. They count noses when votes come up. If their desired outcome is in doubt they put pressure on enough of the party members to ensure the vote is never quite enough to actually stop any of the never ending wars. Right now the leadership knows numbnuts will veto anything put forward so their work is less demanding. And when that veto happens, silence.
I note that Sanders and various Team D stalwarts only started to care about Yemen after Team R took the White House.
Before 2016, there was nothing there to see, move along, people.
No, there was dem opposition to Obama’s intervention from the start, and annual votes to stop it. You people forget the congress is and has been under control of the jackbooted GOP, war opposition has to fight their own party, knowing the gop is a warmongering lost cause. If trump truly wanted to end wars, he would have allied himself with this portion of congress. Never happen, because it is is a lie from the start of his campaign.
Interesting.
I recall that since 2010, the Senate has been in Team R hands. Did it pass a resolution to end the War on Yemen when Obama was president?
Within a month after 2015 intervention, Sen Chris Murphy (Dem), ranking member of the Foreign Relations subcommittee for the region issued a public condemnation of Obama’s policy.
In early 2016, the senate held its first vote on continued intervention. The vote went like this
More war..gop..49..dems..21
No war ..gop..4..dems..23
So, more war.
Once again, if the gop votes like dems, wars dont happen
The parties are not “the same” every time.
I never said that the parties were the same every time, but it is noteworthy that Team D support for the War on Yemen seems to have weakened since 2016.
No, you didn’t say that. Yet it is a popular position, not just here. The support for the Yemen intervention has certainly diminished since trump took office. It took time for the media message concerning what was occuring in Yemen to filter thru all the disasters normally occurring. Note that GOP support has increased over the same period.
At least in the second vote in 2019, seven Team R senators voted for the resolution:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/politics/yemen-saudi-war-senate.html
That indicates an increase in Team R support to end the war, compared with 2016.
I suppose it is an improvement. After 3 years of additional US war weariness, expense and no end in sight, and, an election of a guy who said he would end endless wars, kinda pitiful.
Even if Team R Senators had voted in the same proportions that Team D had voted in 2016, that would not have been enough to overcome Obama’s certain veto.
And then there’s the whole issue of virtue signalling. by voting in favor of a resolution that one knows will get vetoed.
Perhaps “certain” if you say so. There’s that “virtue signaling” again. Just went thru this with Wars above. Why is it, casting shade on the faction in government which is on your side ? I figure you are antiwar, or why would you be on this page ? You are saying that congressmen are not capable of the same position on issues that we are. I wonder, with a belief like that, why bother to post on an antiwar blog at all, it’s pointless, right ?
Quit trying to make this about me.
It is your belief, or opinion, as it is Wars above. Yes, I am challenging it on a forum for discussion.
I am not the one doing the voting. Moreover, I have advised enough high ranking politicians (Team D and Team R) to know how the sausage is made.
I see, so how well is your advise being heeded ? Yes, of course you vote…every election.
I make no bones that I use this forum to influence voters, I believe that was the intention of creating the site in the first place. A forum on policy.
Since you know “how the sausage is made”, perhaps you can tell me what the Yemen vote would have been, if, as you say, those that voted to get out, whom only voted that way for “theater” voted to stay in ?
1. It seems that you are here to cheerlead not for policies but for a party.
2. If you are so naive and/or blinkered as to not understand the dynamics of congressional voting, depending on which party is in the White House and whether the president (if from the Other Party) can be forced to use a veto, then there is no explaining it to you.
If you prefer, look at how Team R care very much about exploding deficits, except when they control the White House, and then deficits suddenly stop mattering.
I think anyone knows group dynamics from high school.
I don’t know how you separate policy from party. Congressional authorization votes are on record. The record is clear in the differences of the parties. One, is always for war, one, is mostly against them. If I feel US militancy is a scourge here and abroad, why would I not support the party that demonstrates it as the most likely to curb that militancy ?
You want to pretend, that because noninterventionist congressional voting fails, there is some conspiracy going on. No, too many voters support the wars, and the representatives that vote for them. See Occams Razor….
I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy, but I also question whether the voters know or care about Yemen one way or the other.
“tell me what the Yemen vote would have been, if, as you say, those that voted to get out, whom only voted that way for “theater” voted to stay in.”
21 voted for war when Obama was in office. So I’d imagine it would be a percentage of those.
I’m kinda surprised you keep referring to this 2016 yemen vote, as it illustrates my point exactly. The majority of dem Senators voted to not intervene, with a dem POTUS. Gop senators endorsed the war in near unanimity, with a dem POTUS. War was the only thing the gop did support obama on in 8 years.
It was also my point. My assertion was that the democrats vote for war, or against it, for reasons other than their being anti-war. If 21 voted for war under Obama and zero voted for the same war under Trump, what does that say about the possibility of other influences, besides the actual war, swaying their votes? And no way am I defending the republicans. But the fact that they are more lustful for war doesn’t make the democrats anti-war.
I really get irritated when my name is mentioned and I’m not being spoken to.
Breathe, just pointing out our discussion just above on the same topic. Besides, is Wars your actual name ?
Wars is my name here. I just got the impression you were tiring of explaining yourself and you invoked my name as a way to bolster that point. Sorry if I misread.
“More war..gop..49..dems..21
No war ..gop..4..dems..23”
And without looking up the second vote, I imagine that number 21 fell to zero, or close to it. That’s why I can’t get excited about these recent votes. And in between votes, the rhetoric is laced with belligerence and enmity towards the same countries they are trying to keep Trump from attacking without their approval.
“Democratic leadership is just as warmongering as the Republicans”…I guess leadership is undefined, I go by congressional votes, in which case, you are wholly wrong, by the arithmetic and history.
Hard to defend the dems with Biden rising, yet, the disparate records of the parties is blatantly obvious. Do I celebrate the dems here, no, I am definitely a lesser of evils voter. The gop has to be busted up if any progress is to be made. They offer nothing but blood and greed.
No, i don’t buy the conspiracy theory…dems vote against war because they know it will lose. It requires a level of mind reading i am not capable of, i go by the numbers. US citizens are a militancy supporter, paranoid, expansionist. Peace candidates throughout our history are routinely tossed to the curb, by the voters. Prior to John Brown, less than 5% (non blacks) were abolitionists, north or south. Antiwar sentiment in the US today, is only slightly better.
“No, i don’t buy the conspiracy theory…dems vote against war because they know it will lose.”
I didn’t say that. I said the leadership counts noses. They do that with everything, not just issues dealing with war. The leadership can count on the gop to be damn near unanimous so they will put pressure on only enough of their own party members to ensure the wars continue. The democrats could have many genuine anti-war types but it doesn’t matter because the leadership only needs X amount to vote their preferred way. I remember Schumer doing that when he was against Obama’s Iran nuke deal. Fortunately he couldn’t sway enough to stop it from going into place. I don’t think that is a conspiracy theory, more like standard practice.
You are saying, the dems only vote against war because they know the antiwar vote will lose, and, that you know why certain congress people vote the way they do. No free will, no determination. I suppose your theory goes all the way back to when…Vietnam? Pretty good scheme considering not a single dem rep ever wrote about “fixing” war votes.
I am sympathetic to the 3rd party vote. Been there, done that. My concern now, is the defeat of the gop. Their record is clear and consistent. If voting for 3rd party did that, I would. Yet, here we are, discussing the failures of the dems, rather than the warmongering malfeasance of the gop. Where’s eric prince today ?
I thought I explained myself. I guess not.
Yes. And again, again and again. This will send a message, as well as get larger public support.
What they do is decorative. It is acting. Looks good for a campaign. We should be sick of it but we still believe!
Well atleast supporting those who roast prisoners on spites got us some spiffy new realty. I’m sure the island falls in the Asset category, atleast for government parasites. Woulda been a shame if we didn’t get to atleast install some missiles somewhere given all our effort.
Imperialism is a disease.
Exactly. History has proven it over and over again. It always happens when an elite grabs power, and cannot be dislodged. The real power corrupts institutions, surrounds itself with equally corrupt, blackmailed and naive. The narrative takes hold. But the Achilles heel is the constant need for expansion, just to stay in power. This is not sustainable, and predictably the edifice implodes, with or without anyone’s meddling.
And there is a new invasion….
I missed this. But I’m sure the word “invasion” will suddenly have a different meaning. Like “imminent”.
Troops from Afghanistan?? Yippee….another pointless war. Gotta love the Amerikan Empire.