In a new meeting with reporters, Defense Secretary James Mattis has offered new details about US involvement in the Saudi invasion of Yemen, providing specifics about what the US is doing that contradict long-standing claims of a very limited, non-combat involvement.
Mattis now admits the US is “doing the planning” in Yemen strikes, and has shown the Saudis how the concept of a no-strike zone is supposed to work, and engaged in a maturing process of “battlefield management” intended to see Saudi strikes killing fewer civilians.
Mattis also tried to spin the already established US involvement in mid-air refueling as beneficial for civilians being bombed. He warned Saudi bombers would make “rash or hasty decisions” if they had to worry about running out of fuel before bombing a place, and might take less time to avoid hitting civilian targets.
Obviously all of these US efforts to avoid hitting civilian targets in Yemen aren’t working, as Saudi airstrikes are still killing a shocking number of innocent bystanders. The comments are more noteworthy than just another half-hearted attempted to spin US involvement in the war as innocuous, however.
That’s because the Senate just debated measure on the Yemen War, with Mattis and other top Pentagon officials defending their involvement as limited. Throughout this, officials have long presented the civilian toll as something distinct from their own involvement in the conflict, and suggested that the US has nothing to do with targeting.
I suppose since the resolution to possibly end the war was killed we can just openly talk about our ongoing war crimes. And who would have thought that refueling their bombers saves civilian lives? Or that anyone could say that with a straight face?
Yes, the resolution being killed by tabling it before the vote was a clever ploy. It allowed a number of politicians to act like they care, by voting for it. Knowing full well it was going to be killed. If it came to vote, only bill sponsors would have boted for it. So, US publc can be given a bone (“close vote”), while passing the test of loyalty to the paying master.
Coming out finally. Now we know who is in charge, and why Saudis are unable to stop it, even though it never made sense from Saudi interest point of view. Now after the shake up at the top, both Army and Airforce — we will see what happens. Every time when Saudis do anything to displease real power in NY, a noise about charges against Saudi Arabia for 9/11 start. Is the newest noise related to Saudis going vobbly on Yemen?
It is like Vatican child moleststion charges. They slways flare up when something is going on politically with Vatican.
Should Saudis get out of the war — would US allow the split between north and south, and return to two state solution, ss it existed before Clinton?
Somehow, ending conflicts is an absolute NO NO.
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. … The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” – George Orwell
Thanks for this. Old Orwell worth rereading. In our specific case, wars are waged to keep the very structure of the society intact, as the elites that captured it are not willing and capsble to adjust to change.