Whilst I agree with your point on why this is happenning, after what happenned in Afghanistan, I’m not quite sure of the effectiveness of what you named “big boy stick” against people who have little to lose and have spent over a decade being hit by such a “stick” only yielded by a mate if said “big boy”.
A lot of what I’m reading here is the same “America, yeah!” stuff as before the invasion of Afghanistan - nationalistic enthusiasm rather than anything thought through.
Looking at the hostorical track record, it’s a little premature to celebrate the effectiveness of this.
The Huthis have been launching ballistic missiles across country lines and target (among other things) international shipping lanes somewhat recently. They’re not soldering up IEDs in caves to fend of a US invasion force, so I’m not sure how apt the comparison with Afghanistan is.
All indications are that they’re getting their Tech from Iran.
So ultimatelly to stop this you have to stop that Tech coming from Iran. Also we don’t know how deep their current stockpiles are so even if the former is achieved and sustained without boots on the ground, how long does it have to be kept.
All this has a lot broader implications than the kind of talk I’m seeing around the whole situation: I mean US and UK politicians are treating this as almost One Bombing = Mission Accomplished.
My point is that the stated objectives aren’t likelly to be achieved by just this one military action (as it’s hardly the first time the Houthis get hit by British and American bombs so they’re hardly going to “see the error of their ways” on just this) and as of now it’s unclear how far things will have to go and if and how far will it spread.
I mean, I don’t even see a contradiction with OP there. The big boy stick comes out, Western politicians are seen doing something and don’t get blamed for the higher prices on “TIEMAM banana-shaped egg holder for children yellow plastic food container”, a few of the non-Western brown guys die, but not most of them, and history continues. I don’t think that there’s a good reason was implied.
No one is invading their territory, attempting to force peace or human rights. They’re free to go back to terrorizing the population. This is to stop them from shooting missiles at cargo ships or Israel, and that seems much more doable - it’s not like they have their own military industry capable of reducing these missiles. It’s not like they have many. It’s not like they are wealthy and can buy as many as they need
Reread my post, specifically the very first line were I couldn’t be clearer about agreeing with the reasons the previous poster gave for this.
That post of yours has a whole lot of absolute certainties about the region, the local actors involved, their weapons stockpiles, how the weapons move between local actors and pretty much everything else as well as the behaviours of the foreign actors involved: with so many absolute statements about that region and situation, all of which are spinning a pro-US position, you’re providing a wonderful example for my point about the overabundance of “America, hell yeah!” simplistic nationalistic takes on the whole thing at the moment.
If there is one thing History has shown us in abundance is that the bollocks about “limited intervention” and the “explanations” spun for it by the US and UK politicians and their local Press is almost never the whole truth (often, none of it is true: remember Iraq?!) and their assessments of the impact of those actions and predictions what follows are usually wrong.
Changing the mind of what is already a veteran guerrilla movement with support from a well armed large local actor isn’t quite the same as bombing the Presidential Palace in some peaceful nation were the nation itself and the local power elites have a lot to lose, to “convince” them of the dangers of nationalizing some mineral concessions in the hands of US companies.
We’ll have to wait and see what the Houthis do on this, which in turn is also dependent on their weapon stockpiles, the continued support of Iran and even just how much the Houthis listen to Iran or not - considering that they haven’t just rolled-over and played dead in the face of Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign, plus they have a lot or reasons to want to screw as much as possible the interests of both the US and UK (whose bombs were the ones being dropped by SA), plus there seems to be a lot of popular support in the region for anybody who screws those nations (on account of both supporting the ongowing genocide in Israel) it seems a little premature to expect the Houthis to stop after on single instance of getting from the US and UK that same as what they’ve already been getting from SA.
What are you going on about? No one thinks that suddenly everything is going to stop because of a bombing run and there’s nothing in the works on invading Yemen. You typed a lot of words to say nothing.
Whilst I agree with your point on why this is happenning, after what happenned in Afghanistan, I’m not quite sure of the effectiveness of what you named “big boy stick” against people who have little to lose and have spent over a decade being hit by such a “stick” only yielded by a mate if said “big boy”.
A lot of what I’m reading here is the same “America, yeah!” stuff as before the invasion of Afghanistan - nationalistic enthusiasm rather than anything thought through.
Looking at the hostorical track record, it’s a little premature to celebrate the effectiveness of this.
The Huthis have been launching ballistic missiles across country lines and target (among other things) international shipping lanes somewhat recently. They’re not soldering up IEDs in caves to fend of a US invasion force, so I’m not sure how apt the comparison with Afghanistan is.
All indications are that they’re getting their Tech from Iran.
So ultimatelly to stop this you have to stop that Tech coming from Iran. Also we don’t know how deep their current stockpiles are so even if the former is achieved and sustained without boots on the ground, how long does it have to be kept.
All this has a lot broader implications than the kind of talk I’m seeing around the whole situation: I mean US and UK politicians are treating this as almost One Bombing = Mission Accomplished.
My point is that the stated objectives aren’t likelly to be achieved by just this one military action (as it’s hardly the first time the Houthis get hit by British and American bombs so they’re hardly going to “see the error of their ways” on just this) and as of now it’s unclear how far things will have to go and if and how far will it spread.
I mean, I don’t even see a contradiction with OP there. The big boy stick comes out, Western politicians are seen doing something and don’t get blamed for the higher prices on “TIEMAM banana-shaped egg holder for children yellow plastic food container”, a few of the non-Western brown guys die, but not most of them, and history continues. I don’t think that there’s a good reason was implied.
No one is invading their territory, attempting to force peace or human rights. They’re free to go back to terrorizing the population. This is to stop them from shooting missiles at cargo ships or Israel, and that seems much more doable - it’s not like they have their own military industry capable of reducing these missiles. It’s not like they have many. It’s not like they are wealthy and can buy as many as they need
Two points:
If there is one thing History has shown us in abundance is that the bollocks about “limited intervention” and the “explanations” spun for it by the US and UK politicians and their local Press is almost never the whole truth (often, none of it is true: remember Iraq?!) and their assessments of the impact of those actions and predictions what follows are usually wrong.
Changing the mind of what is already a veteran guerrilla movement with support from a well armed large local actor isn’t quite the same as bombing the Presidential Palace in some peaceful nation were the nation itself and the local power elites have a lot to lose, to “convince” them of the dangers of nationalizing some mineral concessions in the hands of US companies.
We’ll have to wait and see what the Houthis do on this, which in turn is also dependent on their weapon stockpiles, the continued support of Iran and even just how much the Houthis listen to Iran or not - considering that they haven’t just rolled-over and played dead in the face of Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign, plus they have a lot or reasons to want to screw as much as possible the interests of both the US and UK (whose bombs were the ones being dropped by SA), plus there seems to be a lot of popular support in the region for anybody who screws those nations (on account of both supporting the ongowing genocide in Israel) it seems a little premature to expect the Houthis to stop after on single instance of getting from the US and UK that same as what they’ve already been getting from SA.
What are you going on about? No one thinks that suddenly everything is going to stop because of a bombing run and there’s nothing in the works on invading Yemen. You typed a lot of words to say nothing.