 |
| Pix Credit here |
"The United States and a handful of its allies on Thursday carried out military strikes against more than a dozen targets in Yemen controlled by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia, U.S. officials said, in an expansion of the war in the Middle East that the Biden administration had sought to avoid for three months. * * * The American-led strikes on Thursday hit radars, missiles and drone launch sites, and weapons storage areas, according to a U.S. official, who said President Biden had approved the retaliatory assault." (U.S. Missiles Strike Targets in Yemen Linked to the Houthi Militia).
 |
| Pix Credit here |
The reactions were excruciatingly predictable (here; here). The Houthi leadership rejected the actions and the UN demands that they cease their belligerency on the grounds that it was the US violating international law, and, besides the UN system was rigged (unless or when it is rigged in their favor). That is a view of the international system that appears to be gaining traction among those who do not walk its self-enclosed Halls of Mirrors (here). The Houthis appear to be far more worried about upsetting the cease fire with the Saudi than anything coming from the liberal democracies (here). Perhaps with that in mind, the Saudis called for restraint (here). And the Omani's as well seek to protect their interests by balancing their own contradictions (here).
It is just as well, the liberal democracies' internal bickering, now increasingly grounded within the arcane world of transposing slippery interpretations (strategically aligned with ideology and broader political goals) of context dependent legal terms applied to conflict (for a taste here), are the royal road to leveraging advantage where one is otherwise outgunned (e.g., here, and here). And, of course, the experts (here). And, of course, the legal niceties will be scrupulously observed ("The government added that international law allows the U.K. to use force in circumstances of self-defense and says that it will notify the U.N. Security Council of its actions" here); see as well the 4 January 2024 "Background Press Call on Recent Attacks by the Houthis").
The focus appears, as in the Ukraine war, to reduce the risk of "escalation"--a term that itself has become as malleable as the politics of those who use it (here). "Saudi Arabia called for restraint and "avoiding escalation" in light of the air strikes launched by the United States and Britain against sites linked to the Houthi movement in Yemen, the kingdom's Foreign Ministry said. The statement also said Saudi Arabia was closely monitoring the situation with "great concern." (HERE). And like the Russians, the temptation to use that well intentioned objective against those who constrain their own actions by it, may be too difficult to resist for belligerents unconstrained by the niceties of proportionality or the avoidance of human shields as a strategy to turn weakness into strategic advantage. But proportionality has again become embedded within the semiotics of meaning making where preferred outcome drives interpretation and analysis. Enter Turkey's Mr Erdogan: "'All that has been done is a disproportionate use of force,' Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday in Istanbul, according to multiple reports. 'At the moment, [the U.S. and U.K.] are trying to turn the Red Sea into a sea of blood and Yemen, with the Houthis and by using all of its force, says it is and will give the necessary response in the region to the United States, Britain.'" (here).
In the meantime the object--beyond the risk of managing conflict with increasingly risk seeking "competitors" through the legal discursive tropes of "escalation" and "proportionality"--is a sound one: to protect the pathways of commerce that it has taken quite a bit of time to develop and maintain. It is not for nothing that the Houthi's might have had it put in their heads (that is those who lead them and apparently are bound by ties of fealty to others) that it would be a marvelous idea to disrupt trade along one of the major pathways between Asia and Europe. The cover was also appealing--the Jews make an excellent target all the more so now in an era when the developed world finds it difficult to deal with the tropes and tactics of conflict that can simultaneously have both strongly manipulable political and religious aspects. That cover appeals to the stratagem of "getting the Jews/Zionists/Israelis/Jew Lovers etc." as something that is far more tolerable to the global community, than, say, "let's impair strategic global trade routes" that would in fact inconvenience the voting populations of the core OECD states. That the strategy benefits those who might well have convinced the Houthis that this is a good idea (and that they would be compensated for loss) is well beyond a doubt. The Euro-Asian Silk roads take many routes--some advantage one group of apex powers more than others. The irony, of course, is the result--escalation, but one sided, as only one set of belligerents appears to be drawn in. That, of course, is one of the ironies of the complexities of the rule system developed after 1945 to avoid and manage conflict in the fist place.
None of this, though, goes to the merits of the micro conflicts that in a broader perspective appear as the more traditional expression of conflict that in its more contemporary forms, has been ongoing since at least 2014 as the global community reshapes itself by every means possible. Ukraine and Israel, those conflicts are meant to be well managed extensions of other conflicts for which the micro causes appear to serve larger macro ambitions. That micro.discussion, at this point, is almost beside the point and in any case serves merely as a platform for dredging up the turgid tropes of another time that belie the modernity of the elites who otherwise tend to lecture about the evils of those tropes (at least in other contexts). The parties are too heavily invested in a broad range of objectives to distill any simple essence of it that can be resolved. This strike is merely the opening salvo. To come: an intensification of countermeasures to preserve global pathways; and eventually the convergence of the two fronts of the war, with Israel in the South and Ukraine in the North within the wider conflict that will define the frontiers of the post-global imperial collectives which will sit at the apex of fealty driven integrated systems. Between them there will be lots of interactions. But the emerging borders will matter. Starting with the one at the mouth of the Red Sea. For the moment, the center holds under the standard operating framework of the early 21st Century for OECD states.
The text of President Biden's Statement follows below and may be accessed HERE.
Statement from President Joe Biden on Coalition Strikes in Houthi-Controlled Areas in Yemen
Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces—together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways.
These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history. These attacks have endangered U.S. personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized trade, and threatened freedom of navigation. More than 50 nations have been affected in 27 attacks on international commercial shipping. Crews from more than 20 countries have been threatened or taken hostage in acts of piracy. More than 2,000 ships have been forced to divert thousands of miles to avoid the Red Sea—which can cause weeks of delays in product shipping times. And on January 9, Houthis launched their largest attack to date—directly targeting American ships.
The response of the international community to these reckless attacks has been united and resolute. Last month, the United States launched Operation Prosperity Guardian—a coalition of more than 20 nations committed to defending international shipping and deterring Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. We also joined more than 40 nations in condemning Houthi threats. Last week, together with 13 allies and partners, we issued an unequivocal warning that Houthi rebels would bear the consequences if their attacks did not cease. And yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the Houthis end attacks on merchant and commercial vessels.
Today’s defensive action follows this extensive diplomatic campaign and Houthi rebels’ escalating attacks against commercial vessels. These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes. I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.###
No comments:
Post a Comment