SEP 04, 2019 OPINION
Yemen is a nightmare, a
catastrophe, a mess—and the United States is highly complicit
in the whole disaster. Refueling Saudi aircraft in-flight, providing
targeting intelligence to the kingdom and selling the requisite bombs that have
been dropped for years now on Yemeni civilians places the 100,000-plus deaths,
millions of refugees, and (still) starving children squarely on the American
conscience. If, that is, Washington can still claim to have a
conscience.
The back story in Yemen,
already the Arab world’s poorest country, is relevant. Briefly, the cataclysm
went something like this: Protests against the U.S.-backed dictator during the
Arab Spring broke out in 2011. After a bit, an indecisive and hesitant
President Obama called for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. A
Saudi-backed transitional government took over but governed (surprise,
surprise) poorly. Then, from 2014 to 2015, a vaguely Shiite militia from
Yemen’s north swarmed southward and seized the capital, along with half the
country. At that point, rather than broker a peace, the U.S. quietly went along
with, and militarily supported, a Saudi terror-bombing campaign, starvation
blockade and mercenary
invasion that mainly affected Yemeni civilians. At that point, Yemen
had broken in two.
Now, as the Saudi campaign has
clearly faltered—despite killing tens of thousands of civilians and starving at
least 85,000 children to death along the way—stalemate reigns. Until this past
week, that is, when southern separatists (there was once, before 1990, a South
and North Yemen) seized the major port city of Yemen, backed by the Saudis’
ostensible partners in crime, the United Arab Emirates. So it was that there
were then three Yemens, and ever more fracture. In the last few days,
the Saudi-backed transitional government retook
Aden, but southern separatism seems stronger than ever in the region.
Like Humpty-Dumpty in the
nursery rhyme, it’s far from clear that Yemen can ever be put back together
again. Add to that the fact that al-Qaida-linked militants have used the chaos
of war to carve out some autonomy in the ungoverned southeast of the country
and one might plausibly argue that the outcome of U.S.-backed Saudi
intervention has been no less than four Yemens.
What makes the situation in
the Arabian Peninsula’s south particularly disturbing is that supposed foreign
policy “experts” in D.C. have long been hysterically asserting that the top
risk to America’s safety are Islamist-occupied “safe
havens” or ungoverned spaces. I’m far from convinced that the safe-haven
myth carries much water; after all, the 9/11 attacks were planned in
Germany and the U.S. as much as in, supposedly, the caves of Afghanistan.
Still, for argument’s sake, let’s take the interventionist experts’ assumption
at face value. In that case, isn’t it ironic that in Yemen—and (as I’ll
demonstrate) countless other countries—U.S. military action has repeatedly
created the very state fracture and ungoverned spaces the policymakers and
pundits so fear?
Let us take an ever-so-brief
tour of Washington’s two-decade history of utterly rupturing Greater Mideast
nation-states and splintering an already fractious region. Here goes, from West
to East, in an admittedly noncomprehensive list.
U.S. airstrikes and regime
change policy in Libya has unleashed
an ongoing civil war, divided the country between at least two warlords,
and enabled arms and militiamen to cross the southern border and destabilize
West Africa. Which means that Niger, Libya, Cameroon, Mali, Chad and Nigeria
have seen their shared territory around Lake Chad become a disputed
region, contested by a newly empowered array of Islamists. That, of course,
led the U.S. military to plop a few thousand troops in these countries. That
deployment is unlikely to end well.
In Israel/Palestine, decades
of reflexive U.S. support for Israel and Donald Trump’s doubling
down on that policy—by moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and
turning a blind eye to Israeli plans to annex much of the West Bank—have
ensured, once and for all, that there can be no viable Palestinian state. Which
means that the area is divided into at least three (for the Palestinians, at
least) noncontiguous entities: Gaza, Israel and the West Bank.
In Syria, American meddling in
the civil war, self-destructive
support for various Islamists groups there and military intervention
on behalf of the Kurds have broken Syria into a mostly jihadi, rebel-held
northwest, Assad-regime center and U.S.-backed Kurdish east.
Just over the border in Iraq
stands the gold standard of counterproductive U.S. fracture. There, an
ill-fated, illegal U.S. invasion in 2003 seems to have forever
broken into an autonomous Kurdish north, Shiite-held east and south
and Sunni-controlled west. It is in that contested western region that Sunni
jihadism has long flourished and where al-Qaida in Iraq, and its more extreme
stepchild, Islamic State, metastasized and then unleashed massive bloodletting
on both sides of the border.
Finally, in Afghanistan, the
U.S. invasion and occupation—as well as any impending peace deal—ensured that
this Central Asian basket
case of a country will divide, for the foreseeable future, into
Taliban-dominated Pashtun south and east and tenuous Tajik/Uzbek/Hazara
minorities held north and west.
The point is that the U.S. has
irreparably fractured a broad swath of the globe from West Africa to Central
Asia. Interventionist pundits in both parties and countless think tanks insist
that the U.S. military must remain in place across the region to police
dangerous “ungoverned spaces,” yet recent history demonstrates irrefutably that
it is the very intervention of Washington and presence of its troops that
fragments once (relatively) stable nation-states and empowers separatists and
Islamists.
The whole absurd mess boils
down to a treacherous math problem of sorts. By my simple accounting, a region
from Nigeria to Afghanistan that once counted about 22 state entities has—since
the onset of the U.S. “terror wars”—broken into some 37 autonomous, sometimes
hardly governed, zones. According to the “experts,” that should mean total
disaster and increased danger to the homeland. Yet it’s largely U.S. military
policy and intervention itself that’s caused this fracture. So isn’t
it high time to quit the American combat missions? Not according to the
mainstream policymakers
and pundits. For them, the war must (always) go on!
Counterproductivity seems the
essence of U.S. military policy in Uncle Sam’s never-ending, post-9/11 wars.
Call me crazy, or wildly conspiratorial, but after serving in two hopelessly
absurd wars and studying the full scope of American military action, it seems
that maybe that was the idea all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment