Meanwhile in a country far far away.....

January 8, 2017 1:03 PM

U.S.-backed Saudi War in Yemen Fuels 'Largest Food Security Emergency in the World'.
American Special Operations Forces Are Deployed to 70 Percent of the World’s Countries.
Related; The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War.

Jack Satan’s the greatest of gods
And Hell is the best of abodes.
’Tis reached through the Valley of Clods
By seventy beautiful roads.
Ambrose Bierce, from A Sole Survivor.

posted by adamvasco (17 comments total)

All of this will in no way lead to any unintended consequences in the coming decades.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]

Guess this is one of Obama's legacies that won't quite make it into the retrospectives for a while.
posted by anarch at 1:27 PM on January 8, 2017 [12 favorites]

It's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious.
posted by grobstein at 1:49 PM on January 8, 2017 [5 favorites]

IFPRI piece warning in 2012 about food insecurity in Yemen.

Current projections, of course, are far more grim, with the entire MENA region being engulfed with this level of climate disruption by 2050. Note the key detail about aquifier loss at the end.
posted by mrdaneri at 1:52 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]

The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War.

Remind me again, is it Eurasia or Eastasia that we've always been at war with? My memory's been going down the hole lately.
posted by radwolf76 at 3:49 PM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]

We are currently at war with Eurasia; Eastasia is a key trading partner. This may flip shortly.
posted by mrdaneri at 3:52 PM on January 8, 2017 [6 favorites]

I recently asked a climatologist friend how fucked we were by climate change, how long we had to live, etc.

She answered that we were not fucked. The (global) poor would suffer, as they always have.
posted by signal at 7:15 PM on January 8, 2017 [9 favorites]

That 70 percent article is too much. It's heartbreaking
posted by gt2 at 8:21 PM on January 8, 2017

This is important. Thank you for sharing it.
posted by Sleeper at 12:20 AM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

The day our rhetoric and our actions match up with social and economic justice, I will start to have faith in this country as the theoretical Reagan "city on a hill".

I know Reagan was old, but I'm not sure he was around in either 17th century Massachusetts or 1st century Jerusalem.

She answered that we were not fucked. The (global) poor would suffer, as they always have.

Of course. The money will be found to reinforce London and Manhattan. Bangladeshi farmers, not so much.
posted by atrazine at 4:35 AM on January 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

Here's an awkward exchange on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yvwVltyPc

Matt Lee is great by the way.
posted by shala at 8:43 AM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

"A shining city on a hill" is a phrase Reagan used in his farewell address in 1988 to describe the sort of influence that the US should have on the rest of the world.

He didn't invent it that though, he's quoting John Winthrop (writing in the 1630s) who is referencing one of Jesus' sermons. I don't see why we should let a cowboy clown take credit for it.
posted by atrazine at 3:38 AM on January 10, 2017

And used in modern political discourse by Ben Chifley, who I'm sure needs zero introduction as the great Labor wartime leader .
posted by wilful at 4:07 AM on January 10, 2017

I am disappointed in seeing this framed as a US backed Saudi war. That framing would seem to place too much responsibility for this conflict on the USA and remove agency from the direct combatants. The Houthis, recognized government, forces associated with the prior regime, AlQaeda in Arabian Pennisula, ISIS, tribal groups, KSA, The gulf states and Iran are perfectly willing to keep the murder going regardless of US participation.
posted by humanfont at 5:36 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

I am disappointed in seeing this framed as a US backed Saudi war. That framing would seem to place too much responsibility for this conflict on the USA and remove agency from the direct combatants.

This is the Corleone defense. Our indirect complicity in no way absolves us from involvement.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 8:23 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

I am disappointed in seeing this framed as a US backed Saudi war
PRI: The US-backed Saudi war in Yemen could leave ‘an entire generation crippled by hunger.’
Intercept: Former U.S. Diplomats Decry the U.S.-Backed Saudi War in Yemen.
Vox: Why the hell is the US helping Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen? A brief guide.
posted by adamvasco at 1:38 PM on January 10, 2017 [2 favorites]

This is the Corleone defense. Our indirect complicity in no way absolves us from involvement.

You're both right.

From the point of view of American political discourse, "US backed Saudi war" is both helpful and correct because it aligns with the reader's own locus of responsibility and of (indirect) influence. An American reading this knows that they are partially responsible for this and that they should contact their elected representatives if they want it to stop.

At the same time, it's an unhelpful framing to use outside of the American context because, as humanfont points out, it removes any agency from the actual belligerents. You can't fully understand the war without going into Saudi domestic politics and power struggles within the royal family.
posted by atrazine at 2:50 AM on January 11, 2017