The Yemen Crisis
In the latter half of the 1960s, a significant fraction of the United States population was mobilized against the War in Vietnam, a proxy conflict considered by many to be unnecessary, immoral and imperialist. The unsuccessful protesters, when faced with the reality of defeat, found solace in the hope that they had forever changed the perception of such foreign wars. But now, fifty years on, several drawn-out foreign conflicts have proven that this nation is unchanged.
Three years ago, in 2015, the Obama administration began military operations in Yemen, an action that has once again placed this matter at center stage. War broke out in March of that year between the incumbent Yemeni government, backed by Saudi Arabia, and the Houthi militia, rumored to be backed by Iran. The decision to enter Yemen, however, was not based in necessity or even moral conviction. In fact, a White House official at the time claimed that the decision was driven merely by the fear that “if we didn’t come to the Saudis’ help . . . that could be the breaking point of our relationship.” And so the United States, since 2015, has sent troops, arms and monetary aid to a Saudi-backed coalition in Yemen, an action that has likely contributed to a humanitarian crisis of remarkable proportions and significance. Thus the question: should the United States government engage in foreign wars merely to strengthen ties with wealthy or powerful allies?
When asked, Bishop Seabury students conveyed an understanding of the complexity of the war. “It is . . . important to remember that much of the factionalism in Yemen today is rooted in British colonization from the 20th century,” says Senior Ella Blake. “This brings up the danger of excess in outside influence.” On the war at hand, Blake says, “I do think the US-Saudi coalition can aid in this process, but I do question the necessity of US engagement in such violent conflicts.” Agreeing with Blake’s second point, many students only shared that the complexity of the issue prevented them from passing judgement.
Some, however, adopted a more severe anti-war stance: “To me it seems that we shouldn’t be involving our country in a conflict, possibly committing war crimes, to appeal to a homicidal government,” says eighth grader Henry Horan. The use of “homicidal government” to describe Saudi Arabia refers to the October murder of anti-Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a crime likely ordered by Saudi leader Mohammad Bin Salman. While not connected to the war in Yemen, Khashoggi’s murder has renewed controversy over American relations with Saudi Arabia.
Others express their dislike for U.S. involvement in all foreign wars. “Wars like these destroy lives, and there are other ways to improve relations that don’t involve sending military support,” says seventh grader Xiangxiang Zhang. On the Yemen conflict, Zhang says, “the US involvement in the war in Yemen is unjustified. Because of the huge humanitarian crises caused by the war, I think the US should withdraw.”
A handful of Seabury students appear to have similar strong opinions on the matter, but the most striking finding is that a majority of students are uninformed. When asked, many declined to comment, citing insufficient knowledge of the topic. Clearly, the pressing humanitarian crisis unfolding in Yemen has been overshadowed by other events. In the 1960’s, the Vietnam War draft forced the issue to the forefront of the public consciousness. This time around, the distant war has not forced a great American reckoning, despite horrific violence and famine. Americans and Seaburians alike must find a way to discuss and debate this nation’s foreign policy, even when a military draft does not threaten to disrupt all order.
