Yemen

Yemen Rebels Dissolve Parliament, Complete Takeover of Country—U.S. Seeks a 'Stable' Yemen

The Houthi militia entered Sana'a late last year and now controls a swath of territory in north Yemen. Al Qaeda continues operating in the south

|

euronews

The Houthi militia, Shiite rebels in Yemen, announced they had dissolved the parliament, completing their takeover of the country. Yemen's prime minister resigned in September when rebels entered Sana'a, the capital city, and last month Yemen's president resigned after rebels seized the presidential palace. The rebellion began last year as protests against government policies like a recent fuel hike before turning violent.

The Houthis now control a swath of territory in Yemen that more or less corresponds to the formerly independent North Yemen, whose capital was also Sana'a. Separately, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula operates out of southern Yemen. The change in government in Sana'a won't affect U.S. operations in the country, as Voice of America reports:

The failure of a truce between the Houthi militia and the government of the U.S.-backed Hadi sparked reports that Washington would suspend counterterrorism operations in Yemen until the situation stabilized.

Despite the political crisis, President Barack Obama vowed there would be no let-up, saying the United States would continue to pursue "high value targets inside Yemen."

This week, the Yemen branch of al-Qaida said one of its top commanders, Harith al-Nadhari, was killed in a U.S. air strike in the country's south.

The White House has not yet released a statement about the situation in Yemen, although a spokesperson said the U.S. was "deeply concerned" about it. In the National Security Strategy document released earlier today, Yemen received one mention, that the U.S. seeks " a stable Yemen that undertakes difficult structural reforms and confronts an active threat from al-Qa'ida and other rebels."

NEXT: Bosnian Serb legislature passes ban on offensive speech online

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have a cunning plan. Develop a new concept in international law called a Bombing Easement. Provided that there are no boots on the ground, a country (to be defined as the United States) can destroy things via aircraft. There will be no violation of sovereignty or international law, as the U.S.’s rights to utilize the Bombing Easement will be absolute.

    1. Baldric- get back to your turnips, you ninny headed, liver slurping, human boil.

    2. John Yoo is that, er, you?

      1. Watch it, or I’ll get an easement for you, too.

    3. Thank you, Cytotoxic.

      1. Look, it’s all legal. If it’s legal, it’s okay. Right?

        1. If you don’t legalize it, it’ll just happen on the black market.

          1. like murder.

            1. Nuremburg Laws.

    4. *Pro Libertate immediately gets job offer from State Department*

      1. It’s all groovy if you paper it up right.

  2. Despite the political crisis, President Barack Obama vowed there would be no let-up, saying the United States would continue to pursue “high value targets inside Yemen.”

    How valuable can anything in Yemen be at this point?

    1. They meant to capitalize the “t” in “target.” See, Obama is merely a tool of Sam Walton’s. And no, Sam’s not dead. He’s at the Pentaverate’s underground lair.

      1. Pronounced Tar-ZHAY, of course.

        1. Yes. Tar-get translates to one who suckles the teats of a yak.

  3. NEW plan- we get Ziggy Marley to play Jammin’ , but replace jammin’ with Yemin and everyone lights up. Peace reigns.

    1. All the qat Yemenis consume hasn’t made them mellow? why would marijuana be any different?

      1. because that’s a stimulant. It’d be like giving them all guns and coke.

        1. Guns and coke?!? Where do I sign up!?

          1. in between cuba and florida.

            1. *looks at globe*

              Wait a minute!

        2. They already have guns … Lots of guns.

      2. All the qat Yemenis consume hasn’t made them mellow?

        Have they never been mellow?
        Have they ever even tried?

    2. The photocopier should be named Bob Marley because it always be jammin mon.

  4. How screwed up is Yemen? South Yemen is actually further north than North Yemen:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi….._Yemen.svg

    1. that’s SOUF yemen- it’s ironic.

      1. The phrase “put some south in your mouth” has always made me uncomfortable.

        1. it’s really rapey.

          1. squeal like a pig rapey.

    2. North Yemen should be West Yemen and South Yemen should be East Yemen?

      1. maybe we’re really on the southern hemisphere, but we just, like, named it wrong, man…

    3. Is that like the south side of Detroit?

    4. I think they ignore the eastern part because no one lives there.

  5. This week, the Yemen branch of al-Qaida said one of its top commanders, Harith al-Nadhari, was killed in a U.S. air strike in the country’s south.

    Does anyone else feel like one of “Al-Qaeda’s top commanders” gets killed in an airstrike about every other day? How many commanders could they possibly have? Is it like being at one of those companies where there’s like 50 vice presidents of marketing? I’m guessing it’s not a very sought-after job in their organization, given the turnover rate.

    1. they are very egalitarian. All members are commanders and all commanders are TOP commanders.

    2. Even the drummers for Spinal Tap turn down that job. Too risky.

      1. +1 Gob of green goo.

    3. Well, someone is always on top. Even if you kill all of the competent leaders and commanders, someone will still be top. Or at least you can say that he was.

    4. Aren’t there more admirals than boats in the navy?

      1. We need a lot of Admirals. Especially the Dreaded Rear Admiral.

  6. Yemen is about to be stable alright. Just like General Franco’s condition continues to be stable.

  7. “The Houthi militia”

    What happened to the Blowfish militia?

    1. “The Houthi Militia”

      That sounds like a gangster rap act.

      1. I was listen to terror squad on the way to work this morning. Nobody would name there group that today.

        1. *their

        2. Whatever happened to 2 Live Crew? Are they still knocking around Florida?

          1. They did a reunion tour last year. I didn’t go.

          2. They’re still so horny.

        3. All of these crazy fucks seem to want to name their organizations with plausible band names

          ISIS (sounds a 70s Prog band)
          Boco Harum (sounds like a jazz fusion/funk band)
          Teh Houthi Militia (Gangster Rap)

          1. I never noticed. Weird.

          2. The Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Project

            1. Why not call it banana-Rama. Ass!

              1. The Martyrson Twins

                1. You think you’re so hip.

                2. Marilyn Martyr-son

          3. From the first I heard of Boko Haram, I thought of Procol Harum. I know I’m not the only one. So Boko Haram should probably be a psychedelic art rock band.

            There has to be a band called Isis out there somewhere.

            1. I don’t know about Isis, but there is a Nile

          4. Bi a Harum sounds lik that place where Morty Seinfeld and his wife moved to in Florida.

            1. Boca Harum. Fucking auto correct.

  8. It wouldn’t be so screwed up if George Bush hadn’t dropped all those bombs on it. Obama doesn’t have a choice now, Bush made so many enemies he has to keep up the bombing campaign now.

    -the whole fucking left

    1. Blaming this on Bush or Obama is really really stupid.

      1. You’re right, for once. It should be blamed on Bush and Obama.

        1. Nope. That’s even stupider. Neither of them are at fault. You just have a monomaniacal view of the world.

          1. that’s monocle-maniacle view of the world.

          2. … US bombing campaign in Yemen has had no impact on the political stability of the country? What about the fact that AQ in Magreb didnt even exist before the Iraq war?

    2. I see what you just did there.

  9. Kill them all! Blood! Blood! BLOOOOOOOOOOOD!

    /pinch hitting for our neighbor to the North

    1. They do seem to need killing. If Obama just has to bomb someone, he could do worse than these morons.

      1. And if we had some magical way of only killing the evil brown ones, would that satisfy Cytotoxic? I see no evidence for that.

        I’d rather we’d work on arming the Kurds against ISIS. Or just let Israel off the leash.

        1. I’d rather us just all come home and leave those people to their own devices. The Jordanians and Kurds are gonna annihilate ISIS anyway. Why do we need to accidentally kill some innocents and create more enemies to take out people whose days are numbered anyway?

          1. Well, of course, but if Obama is determined to meddle, a few more airdrops to the Kurds would be a low-risk operation with excellent optics.

            This means that Obama will drop in 10,000 National Guard troops with slingshots.

            1. Do those slingshots come with EOTechs?

              #ExcellentOptics

            2. Look, make Kurdistan a state and arm it to the teeth, as befits an American state. As was settled here long ago, the proper name for our 51st state is Kurdlahoma.

          2. 1) There’s no reason to believe killing more ‘innocents’ will cause much of a problem down the road.

            2) I’d rather those people just stay over there and not harm us but they hate us for our freedoms.

            1. That’s not really the main problem with killing innocent people.

              1. Well now you’re just moving Sloopy’s goalposts.

            2. 1) Hardly a defense of indiscriminate bombing. Either you value innocent life or you don’t. And we all know where you and I stand on this issue.

              2) When was the last time a Yemeni came to America and attacked us? As far as I can tell, they are staying over there. The fact that they hate us isn’t relevant to whether or not we have a moral right to bomb them.

              1. Good think I already moved those goal-posts for you.

              2. 1) I value individual rights, and I am capable of the clear rational thought that is required to defend them. You are not. Your reasoning is between sophomoric and MLP-fanfic.

                2) Cargo plane bombing.

            3. they hate us cause they anus.

            4. There are plenty of reasons to believe that killing innocent people causes problems down the road.

              The Sunni population in western Iraq constantly feeling disenfranchised or Afghanistan for example. But, I imagine in Canadia land if I randomly blew up houses in your neighborhood you would continue about your business with no anger towards me at all. If one day my bombing houses hurt or killed a family member you would probably still go about your business like nothing changed.

              Or, you would be fucking irate and decide I’m an asshole and you should do something about it.

            5. They hate us because we bomb them. They wouldn’t give a shit if we were hardcore anarchist, a theocracy, communist, or nudist meritocracy. It has to do with the bombs dropping on their heads and killing their family members.

            6. They hate us for our freedom? LOLOLOL You, sir, are a dumbass.

        2. And if we had some magical way of only killing the evil brown ones, would that satisfy Cytotoxic? I see no evidence for that.

          That’s because you’re an imbecile.

          I don’t really know what to do with this situation aside from continuing the drone bomb campaign and recognizing South Yemen if (when) it breaks away.

      2. Who, the self-described AQ in Yemen? Those fucks can’t even locate America on a map, let alone come,up,with an executable plan to injure a single American that’s not stupid enough to venture into their country and start pissing on freshly-drawn pictures of Mohammed.

        If they’re not an imminent threat then we have no business killing them. It’s not self-defense, it’s either cold-blooded,murder or were acting as mercenaries for somebody else. It’s beneath our culture and beneath our,professional military.

        1. AQAP has already attempted to kill Americans, in one case they sent a bomb to blow up cargo planes.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C….._bomb_plot

          You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own reality I’m afraid.

          If they’re not an imminent threat then we have no business killing them.

          Why? Because we should wait for threats to become imminent? Sorry, not interested in being sacrificed for your asinine arbitrary morality.

          1. So we claim to know who did it. We claim to know exactly where they are. And we claim to have a friendly relationship with their government (at that time).

            I don’t suppose withmalmost our superior technology and a willing partner,mwe could have gone over there and brought them to stand trial. Nah. They might shoot those antique guns they own at us.

            Fuck man,my ou just love the almighty CIA acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner for people our government claims to be our enemy without providing even the slightest of concrete evidence. That, to me, is insane.

            1. our government claims to be our enemy without providing even the slightest of concrete evidence.

              Linked: One week later, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) took responsibility for the plot

              Did you even RTFA? Are you retarded?

              I don’t suppose withmalmost our superior technology and a willing partner,mwe could have gone over there and brought them to stand trial. Nah. They might shoot those antique guns they own at us

              Yeah, they would. That’s war.

              Fuck man,my ou just love the almighty CIA acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner

              The CIA isn’t carrying out drone strikes anymore.

              War: it’s not where trials belong.

            2. I don’t give a shit about providing due process and ‘trials’ for foreign enemy combatants. It is not required, never has been, and I’m not sure where you get the idea that we need to do something like that.

              If our country or its assets, interests, citizens, troops, etc. are attacked, we figure out who did it and kill them to death. Period.

              It’s not law enforcement, it’s war.

          2. Why? Because we should wait for threats to become imminent? Sorry, not interested in being sacrificed for your asinine arbitrary morality.

            Huh, “thou shalt not murder” seems to be “arbitrary”…

            1. DERP that’s not murder.

              1. Just because the government does it? Or because they’re ‘evil’? Are the innocent people near them ‘evil’ too?

                “Thou shalt not murder” applies to all men at all time. If you can find a way to kill the aggressor without killing the innocent then good on you. Bombs from high altitude is not even close to fulfilling that criteria.

                1. Any free (isn) nation acting in self-defence has no obligation to avoid enemy civilian casualties. Indeed, it has the obligation to inflict them if it leads to victory sooner ex Hiroshima.

                  1. A nation isn’t sovereign, an individual is. The Constitution starts out “We the people” because it is supposedly a document wherein the people take from their rights and give them to the government.

                    Because the powers from the government only come from individuals, they cannot supersede or become more powerful than they are. Therefore, a government will never have more authority than a person does.

                    Therefore, individual morality can and must be used when measuring how a government acts. So, just as you cannot kill an innocent to kill the guilty, neither can the government.

                    That’s called “logic”. Let’s see if you can find where it is unsound (good luck).

                  2. Exactly. It’s a testament to our restraint and Exceptionalism that we make any attempt to do so. But the, we ARE the good guys.

                    With fucks like this, we never would have made it through WW2.

            2. religion is arbitrary morality.

              1. I agree, all “religions” (including atheism) have arbitrary morality.

                To be non-arbitrary, it needs to be based on something that can’t and won’t change, such as:

                “I am what I am, I will be what I will be, I was what I was.”

                1. ace_m82|2.6.15 @ 5:46PM|#
                  “I agree, all “religions” (including atheism)”

                  I agree you’re a stupid shit.

          3. Yes, we should wait for threats to become immanent. That’s how self defense works. You don’t get to shoot someone because you are pretty sure he is going to break into your house later.

            1. You do get to shoot at organizations that keep trying to break into your house. Self defines = destroying AQAP

              1. But you understand why hey do it because you keep breaking into their house and killing them along with regular fuck-ups of killing other people that live in the same neighborhood.

      3. “They do seem to need killing. If Obama just has to bomb someone, he could do worse than these morons.”

        Except that the entire country is run by one of several militias. If you kill members of one militia, you empower the other.

        Our involvement in their squabble just adds American fire power to an insoluble problem. We’ve been pounding that country for the entire Obama administration and all it got us is a toppled government, half the country run by a Shia militia and the other half run by Al Qaeda in Yemen.

        1. Pounding the country has not led to this moment. It would be here no matter what. Iran is the reason the Houthis are empowered. Bombing AQAP has actually been pretty successful.

          AQAP does not run the other half of Yemen, but it’s there. That half might break off, and could be a great partner for America.

          1. Yeah, okay. There is a long and storied history of chaotic Muslim countries becoming firm allies of America after we spend 10 years hitting them with missiles.

            Al Qaeda militants in Yemen are actually fighting against the Houthi militia. When you have multiple groups of armed religious fanatics fighting each other in a quickly dissolving country, the idea that American drone strikes will stabilize that nation enough to become an American ally is laughable.

            1. There is a long and storied history of chaotic Muslim countries becoming firm allies of America after we spend 10 years hitting them with missiles.

              Irrelevant and insipid.

              the idea that American drone strikes will stabilize that nation enough to become an American ally is laughable.

              I don’t care about that. I care about getting rid/dampening AQAP. Bombing them works good.

              1. I would respect your dumb ass opinions of you enlisted in the Canadia military and put your neo-con principles to a test. I could be super wrong, but I imagine a deployment or two in a shit hole country might change your attitude. There have been plenty of stories about the price of US intervention in Yemen.

                http://www.amazon.com/The-Last…..0393082423

                1. I’ve been deployed to a few middle eastern shit holes and yet still recognize the value of doing what we need to do to stop them there.

                  Then again, I’m not some pussy that never served, yet pontificates about it.

                  1. Suicidy|2.6.15 @ 7:52PM|#
                    “I’ve been deployed to a few middle eastern shit holes and yet still recognize the value of doing what we need to do to stop them there.”
                    Which give you no special authority at all.

                    “Then again, I’m not some pussy that never served, yet pontificates about it.”
                    No, you’re a stupid shit who presumes an authority you don’t have.

                  2. Give me my fucking tax money back

          2. When 2 of your “enemies” start beating the crap out of each other, the correct course of action is to:

            1. Punch person “A”
            2. Punch person “B”
            3. Watch from a safe distance

            1. The Houthis haven’t yet aggressed against America. AQAP has, so the USG can keep punching them.

              1. Do you actually think that the US can kill them all? I don’t think anything short of many nukes will do so. If not, then what’s the point? Just kill the ones who do.

                Signed, former US Marine, Iraq 2007-2008, Haditha

                1. Maybe not, but we can damage the organization. Hopefully Houthi-AQAP fighting finishes the rest.

                  1. How much longer before we damage them enough? Like Rockefeller, are you going to say “just a little more”?

                    How many more Americans must die before you’re satisfied? How much more money must be stolen?

  10. This report can’t be right. I just read, in the Nat’l Security Strategy, that things were getting much better.

    1. Oh, right, what are we thinking? Everything is groovy.

      Now’s the time at Hit & Run when we dance!

      1. Would you like to touch my monkey?
        /deiter

        Or were you going for the producers where ulla dances?

        1. No, all Sprockets. I recently learned that there was a Dieter movie in the works that ended up falling through, because Mike Myers went totally insane.

          1. That’s why he put on the halloween mask. It all makes sense now.

          2. I heard he thought the script was shit. Given some of the shit he greenlit (Love Guru comes to mind), we may have dodged a bullet on that one. Plus I would hate to have the pleasant memories of those sketches stained with a bad feature film adaption.

            Some sketches are better off remaining as such.

        2. Wirst du meine Affe anfassen?

  11. The good news is that Boko Haram is getting pushed back and slaughtered, mainly by Chadian forces that have crossed into Nigeria. Thankfully they weren’t afraid of ‘having a James Bond complex’ or whatever buzzword is hot.

    http://www.euronews.com/2015/0…..t-nigeria/

    1. When they are just across an easy to cross land border, I don’t think counts as James Bond complex. That’s ordinary defensive action.

      If Al Qaeda in Canada really takes off, I’d have no problem with the US going in and taking care of it.

      1. So why is it that suddenly being like James Bond is bad? Have you seen all the chicks he nailed?

      2. What about ISIS here in the US?

        http://fox2now.com/2015/02/06/…..errorists/

        Thankfully it’s only a small number, but several Bosnians who we let in as refugees are ISIS supporters…

        The more ISIS and other groups do overseas, the more likely that Muslims in the US will side with them.

        1. But I would agree with you if we didn’t have Muslims in the US.

          However, having them them in, we’ve exposed ourselves.

    2. Good. The people IN THE AREA should be handling that.

      There’s a slight difference between hopping a border to slaughter Boka Haram soldiers and American troops gallivanting around the entire planet, spreading themselves so thin that they’re incapable of being effective at any of their supposed duties.

      Especially given that we can’t station American troops permanently in every country unless we plan on bringing back the draft. If Chadians deal with this sort of thing, they can deal with it continuously whenever it crops up. If Americans dealt with it, the problem would just re-manifest once we’d left.

      There is an obvious difference, your lust for American interventionism aside.

      1. There is an obvious difference. What the fuck stationing American soldiers everywhere has to do with drone strikes in Yemen is far less obvious.

        The people in the area of Yemen aren’t necessarily going to kill the enemies of America on their own. Depending on others to do what you must is not a great idea.

        1. You’re Canadian, but you keep committing our military to foreign engagements. Are you maybe missing something? Like the fact that you live in a sovereign nation with its own military which is not, to whit, the United States? Or is this some sort of weird 51st state thing? I don’t get it.

          1. Canadia. The other Mexico.

  12. Hmm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Iranian regime is ultimately a peaceful government and would never meddle anywhere beyond its borders, only if the US would just leave it alone. I wish I could remember where I read that.

    1. Does the phrase “cocktail parties” stir up any memories?

    2. Not only that, FdA thinks giving them a nuke would lead to ME peace! A little unbalanced, that one.

  13. Once again, I have utterly dominated another thread. It’s like shooting idiots in a barrel with you people.

    1. And Cytotoxic continues to prove that he has narcissistic personality disorder and zero self-awareness.

    2. Someday little cyo will grow up and have the chance to “dominate” something outside of the Internet.

      Step1:

      Stop tucking your outie in like an innie.

      In case you miss the reference. Stop being a pussy and go enlist in the Canadia military. Fuck, you could go fight ISIS if you wanted as a volunteer. I bet you Reason commentators would crowd fund your trip.

      1. Where did you serve?

        1. What difference does it make?

    3. Cytotoxic|2.6.15 @ 5:18PM|#
      “Once again, I have utterly dominated another thread. It’s like shooting idiots in a barrel with you people.”

      Whatever you’re drinking/smoking, I don’t want any of it.

    4. Hockey is stupid, Canadian whiskey is swill, and we make better maple syrup. Now go fuck off and shovel some snow or something.

    5. Cytotoxic. You really have no idea whats is going on in Yemen.

      https://www.erowid.org/plants/khat/

  14. I have two options I would like to propose, in the full knowledge that neither one will find much favor anywhere;

    1) We wait until one or another faction presently making Yemen into more of a hell hole attacks a U.S. citizen, or a genuine U.S. interest. Then we send in sufficient troops to break the proser structure of THAT FACTION. Not eliminate it entirely. Not bring selected individuals “to justice”. Just break that factions power structure, making them easy pickings for their enemies. Then LEAVE, with the admonishment “Don’t bother us, we won’t bother you. Bother us, and we’ll be back.”

    2) If a stable Yemen is so goddamn important, invade and conquer. Do not mess around with local elections or nation building; just rule directly.

    If leaving the whole boiling alone isn’t an option (and apparently it isn’t. *sigh*), then one or the other of the above should do nicely. Nothing else will bring about a notably better outcome then either.

    1. “If leaving the whole boiling alone isn’t an option (and apparently it isn’t. *sigh*),”

      Is there a reason you find this true?

      1. Well, a Democrat President is talking about mucking about in it. That means there will be little to no anti-war movement, at least that the Media deigns to notice.

        Also; at some point we do need to start slapping down these revolutionary movements. They are endemic to the Islamic world and always have been (too many young men at loose ends with no sexual relief unless they raid for concubines, among other things), and historically the only thing that has kept it in check has been fairly certain military unpleasantness. Unfortunately, we are not presently constituted as a culture such that we can just clobber them and then leave. If our further meddling was likely to do any good, this would be compassion. It isn’t.

        Hence the sigh.

        1. Or we could go back to Colonialism, which worked, for certain values of “work”. The Progressives decided it was immoral, but the Progressives have have had the better part of a Century to come up with something better and their way simply doesn’t work worth sour owl sh*t. And the post-colonial governments of Africa and Asia frankly make the Colonial governments look pretty goddamned good, on average.

          But wee don’t really have the temperament for Colonialism. We would be bad at it. Not, I hope, as bad as the Belgian Congo, but bad.

          Hence the sigh, again.

    2. CSPS. I have a Third option. Desalination plant’s. Water for drinking, water for agriculture, and they can pay for it by selling Quat. Yemen spends most of it’s natural water growing Quat anyways.

      1. We’ve tried giving these third world chess-pits technology and industry for what, 60+ years? It has, sometimes, in rare circumstances, worked. Never, to my knowledge, in a primarily Islamic country. Don’t think Yemen is likely to be an exception.

  15. I see that Cyto is pulling the same shit here as he’s done elsewhere:
    Cyto: ‘A member of X killed a US citizen some time or other! Now prove to my satisfaction why the US shouldn’t spend billions killing members of X!’

    1. Why the fuck does this psychotic little gnome give a shit?? He’s Canadian! Not American! Can-fucking-adian! He has his very own foreign policy he can criticize!

      1. You think Canukistan is gonna spend a franc killing folks Cyto don’t like?
        HA!
        Cyto’s only hope is to enlist the US taxpayers to provide his war-porn.

        1. Oh Canada indeed!

  16. Get Paid Up To $21.75 Per hour
    – No Experience Necessary
    – Beginners preferred
    – No websites needed
    – No CPA
    – No PPC
    – No One Click Wonder
    – No Fake jobs
    – JUST REAL RESULTS
    Click Here For Details…………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.