Comment by redsymbol | Hacker News Reader

Comment by redsymbol | Hacker News Reader

The situation in Yemen is complex. As I understand it, the civil war essentially started in 2014, when a group called the Houthis attempted a military coup, to seize control of the government over the democratic election process. These are the "rebels" referred to in the article.

Saudi Arabia has been supporting the government of Hadi, the former vice president who became president in Yemen's 2012 election. Meanwhile, Iran has been giving support to the Houthis. Again, the situation is complex, but it seems to me that without SA's military support, the coup would have been successful in seizing control of the country.

Imagine SA withdraws all military support, and the Houthis are successful in taking over the country by force. Is the world now a better place?

Maybe. Maybe not. I sincerely don't know. But if you felt intense anger while reading this article... I have to point out that you probably don't know, either.

The humanitarian needs in Yemen are immense, and heartbreaking; it's the poorest nation on the Arabian peninsula, and it's essentially run out of water. Maybe it's better to let the coup succeed just to allow some stability and rebuilding.

Just don't have any illusions on what you're actually supporting.

EDIT: And if you don't know what to think yet, or what's best for everyone... be willing to say that to yourself.

Everything is complicated, so there's no simple coherent explanation you could have provided, but it's probably not completely valid to depict the Houthi resistance as an anti-democratic uprising; rather, they may have started as a political response to the Saleh administration, which in turn violently (and anti-democratically) repressed the Houthis themselves, who militarized in response. The Arab Spring factors heavily into this too. It's a total mess.

The one thing that does seem pretty clear in all this is that the Saudis should not be bombing anyone in Yemen.

Good points.

I think your view is somewhat wrong.

The Huthis have been at war with the government for a long time and calling it a coup is very misleading.

A coup is the seizure of power by a internal force that seeks to control the government.

The Huthis are a external force to the government and when they took Sanaa the governemnt left for aden.

A important aspect is also that the former president that was pressured out of power by US/Saudi. He essentially took his best trained and equipped (by the US of course) and allied with the Huthis. He left for another city and basically handed the Houthis Sanaa.

The now persident Hadi was hardly elected, he is the hand picked successor by the US/Saudi. He has little legitimicy anywhere, not in the North or even the South that the government claims to control.

The Houthi have no capabilty to take over the rest of the country and the only way we could 'let them succeed' would be to join them against forces in the South.

The fact is that Yemen is politically fractured and no group has the power to control the territory. We should simply accept that, minimize combat with support for local seize fires and open up trade and aid again.

And of course non of that will happen as the Saudis will continue this war. For them having stable Houthi control over the North west is not very acceptable.

I agree that it is complex and your assessment seems accurate but the problem with Saudi is not that they are opposing the houthis but their tactics of attacking supply lines and bombing indiscriminately. They refuse to use ground troops because they rely on Pakistan for an army and Pakistan does not want to invade. So they continue to do airstrikes on any and all targets like hospitals, kindergartens, food supply caravans, power stations etc and they don’t seem to care.

I worked closely with their reconnaissance aircraft as a foreigner and it’s funny that when they found out I was in Afghanistan they lectured me about killing kids but they are 100 times worse. I eventually left because I was disgusted with the way they conducted that war and did not want to be a part of it regardless of it if supported US foreign policy goals.

So if the Houthis win I don’t know if it’s better long term but at least 5 year olds won’t get blown up on their way to school but a Saudi pilot.

Thanks for commenting, good information.

It's a useful distinction: perhaps Finland isn't protesting SA's involvement per se. Rather, one can be neutral about that, or even support it... but not support the incompetence of how that intervetion is executed, i.e. resulting in the deaths of children and civilians. Makes a lot of sense.

Edit: And I'm now thinking about how well those can be separated. Could the military intervention continue, but change in a way that dramatically decreases innocent victims (or relatively innocent, etc.)? It seems like that ought to be possible. But I don't know the situation on the ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com