Decisive Storm
* cultural reference @ 13:50, but watch the whole ep anyway. TIMMMY!!
They need someone like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Campbell_Mitchell to take on the Yemeni scum. Unfortunately we are no longer allowed to fight terrorists we have to suck up to them.
Check the archives and you will see I mentioned that the Saudi’s would go all in on Yemen and, tada, they have.
Its one thing to casually observe your neighbors haveing a fit and another when the locals are knockin at your door. That is Something the House of Saud will not allow.
Ever.Rich K is right, and has it right then. The Saudis have been trying to exert power in Yemen for at least two centuries, and the last time a major hostile power popped up decades ago (Nasserite Egypt in the Arab Cold War and a new “Yemeni Republic” in his mold) they did go all out. Resulting in a bloody years-long indecisive slog that is comparable to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and made our interventions in French Indochina look clean.
And also played a supporting role in Egypt slapping the bajeesus out of the Arab League in the Six Day War, since so many veteran cadres had been hammered by the Royalists and so much of the equipment and supplies were in Southern Arabia when the IDF dropped the hammer.
That said… “Decisive Storm?” Oooh. Look. How cuuuute. Another “D-Storm” Operation heading. That kind of reminds people of an actual, decisive international operation. Led by a West and an American POTUS that wasn’t a coward.
Does ANYBODY really think this is going to be decisive in any way, shape, or form? Yemen’s been in civil war as long as most today have been alive. Nobody involved in the game has the skill, guts, or brains to obtain a decisive victory over anybody, and the people who do aren’t involved and don’t want to be.
As for myself, I’m one of the most interventionist/globalist/imperialist people around, but I don’t think we really have a dog in this fight outside of keeping the Red Sea clear for transport. Let the Islamists and other nutjobs fight it out, and maybe convince the Moroccans to keep their boys alive.
That said, Id o find it perverse they went out of their way to act like Cyprus and Israel don’t exist (when I sure as hell know the PLO isn’t providing any major military support). And the Pak-Iran border depiction is all kinds of odd.
Still, my gut feeling is that this is going to be an acceleration of the old Cold War we saw surface in Bahrain and Syria....
Posted by Turtler
03/26/2015 at 11:25 PM
The Turtle Lives, long live the Turtle.
I do get it right at least once day,,,,,sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War
Side note; Most people believe Faisal was assasinated by a Nephew who objected to the modernization of the kingdom. In truth, most of the Royals believe he was manipulated by unknowns parties sympathetic to Nasser and killed as payback for the war in Yemen.
Got that first hand during my time with them back in 77/80.The Turtle Lives, long live the Turtle.
Thank you kindly. But yes, I’m back!
I do get it right at least once day,,,,,sometimes.
Don’t sell yourself short. You do it most of the time. Certainly more than the morons that got elected.
Side note; Most people believe Faisal was assasinated by a Nephew who objected to the modernization of the kingdom. In truth, most of the Royals believe he was manipulated by unknowns parties sympathetic to Nasser and killed as payback for the war in Yemen.
Got that first hand during my time with them back in 77/80.I’m more dubious about this. Sure, the Royals said and likely believe that. But of course the Royals would say and possibly believe it. In between the not so subtle messages that it was a plan by the evil CIA and Israelis. But I’m not so sure. My gut feeling is that it was something closer to home, since in-family politics are hugely personal. Everybody has to live with everybody else to some degree or another in quite close proximity, and know them far more closely than they might want to. That causes issues.
From even the casual knowledge I have of it, Saudi dynastic politics are a massive mess with so many clans within clans within the clan jostling for the crown and limited resources all while the entire thing careens towards a succession crisis the present generation dies off (soon). It’s just a very well disguised one. It has to be, because if there were too many open breaks they fear that they might get eaten for lunch. By the Islamists underneath them, by the Persians, or by rival tribes. So my gut feeling is that it was likely over Faisal’s displacing the previous king and scuttling the nephew’s royal marriage.
That doesn’t mean I’m right, and it certainly isn’t exclusive with Nasserite influence in the assassination. But even if it was there it’s hard to influence people that much if they don’t want to be influenced.
Posted by Turtler
03/27/2015 at 08:15 PM
Forgot this bit, which proves NO ONE has a real clue WHO influenced the Nephew
“Beirut newspapers claimed involvement with drugs as a motivation in the assassination.[citation needed]
Saudi officials began to state that the prince’s actions were deliberate and planned.[citation needed]
Rumours suggested that the prince had told his mother about his assassination plans, who in turn told King Faisal who responded that “if it was Allah’s will, then it would happen”.[citation needed]
Arab media implied that the prince had been a tool of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.[5]
Beirut newspapers offered three different explanations for the attack.
An-Nahar reported that the attack may have been possible vengeance for the dethroning of King Saud, because Faisal was scheduled to marry Saud’s daughter — Princess Sita — in the same week.[11]
An-Nahar also reported that King Faisal had ignored his repeated complaints that his $3500 monthly allowance ($15,400/week in 2014 dollars, $800,000/year) was insufficient and this may have prompted the assassination.[11]
Al Bayrak reported that according to reliable Saudi sources, King Faisal prohibited him from leaving the country because of his excessive alcohol and drug consumption overseas and the attack may have been a retaliation against the ban.
“The entire Wiki on this is mostly all conjecture to say the least.”
So, go ahead and pick your own theories, kind of like the Grassy Knoll.
One more thing, in case anyone is still confused where the Saudi’s stand on Iran:
In April 2008, according to a U.S. cable released by Wikileaks, King Abdullah had told the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and General David Petraeus to “cut off the head of the snake”. Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, “recalled the King’s frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran” and to put an end to its nuclear program.[68] King Abdullah asserted that Iran is trying to set up Hezbollah-like organizations in African countries, observing that the Iranians don’t think they are doing anything wrong and don’t recognize their mistakes. He said the Iranians “launch missiles with the hope of putting fear in people and the world”. The King described his conversation with Iranian foreign minister Mottaki as “a heated exchange, frankly discussing Iran’s interference in Arab affairs”. When challenged by the King on Iranian meddling in Hamas affairs, Mottaki apparently protested that “these are Muslims”. “No, Arabs”, countered the King. “You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters”. King Abdullah said he would favor Rafsanjani in an Iranian election.[60][67]
He told General Jones that Iranian internal turmoil presented an opportunity to weaken the regime—which he encouraged—but he also urged that this be done covertly and stressed that public statements in support of the reformers were counterproductive. The King assessed that sanctions could help weaken the government, but only if they are strong and sustained.
OK, I’m done on this topic for now.
03/26/2015 at 07:39 AM
