FILE IMAGE: almasirah.net
On July 10, the Houthis carried out a missile strike on weapons depots belonging to forces of the Saudi-led coalition in western Yemen, the pro-Houthi TV channel Al Masirah reported.
According to the report, the short-range ballistic missile precisely hit its target causing destruction and casualties.
On July 9, the Houthis targeted the main communication network of the Saudi-led coalition in the same part of Yemen with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). According to the existing info, the Yemeni movement used a modified verison of “Qasef-1” UAV to carry out this attack.
In June, the Saudi-led coalition and its proxies made an attempt to capture the key port city of al-Hudaydah, located on the western Yemeni coast, from the Houthis. However, the coalition’s forces have so far failed to achieve their goal.
The Houthis have responded with a series of hit and run attacks on the coalition forces’ logistical lines along the Yemeni coast and have expanded missile strikes on the coalition forces.
Through shear courage the Houthis deserve to win as the Vietcong did in South Vietnam against US and US proxies during that terrible conflict.
You said it all they deserve admiration with the deed they are accomplishing against the scum of the earth.
Well said, they certainly do. But we have to also give credit to the Coalition’s ineptitude that has contributed to Houthi success.
The coalition had no choice but to finally recognize defeat and so pressed ‘pause’. Well since the pause button was pressed, the Coalition have been going nowhere fast – the Houthis seem to have jammed the pause button so it cannot be unpaused.
But there is still one button remaining to be pressed and that is ‘Self-Destruct’.
Since the Coalition has amply demonstrated their expertise in bringing about their own defeat, rest assured that it will be the Coalition that will press that final button.
It will also be interesting to watch the consequence’s of NATO soldiers who have been embedded with the Saudis and Gulf States + their mercenaries.
The vast majority of NATO troops are not psychopaths and I know are ‘uncomfortable ‘ with what they have been ordered to do. They can now see the absolute destruction wrought by the Saudis et al in Yemen that has created a man made genocide on a scale not seen since the Korean war.
In time the NATO ‘advisers’ and combat units, UK Royal Navy Ships etc, will realise what they have done to aid the genocide and will be deeply ashamed. Some are already and this can only further degrade the fighting ability of NATO which is probably a good thing.
Yes agreed. Noam Chomsky commented on how use of regular troops to carry out genocidal actions created problems because they have a conscience. Chomsky remarked that they needed to use ‘trained killers like the French Foreign Legion’ which are recruited from the worst criminal elements in the French justice system – La Femme Nikita. And the French Foreign Legion is romanticised in popular culture.
Clearly there are not anywhere near enough amoral soldiers to do their bidding without question and this applies across time and cultures. And so yes, this is a good thing as it tells us something about human nature that cannot be denied – we are not selfish viscous animals at our core. Humanity in general, has demonstrated consistently that at our core we have a strong sense of justice that has proved ever resistant to being extinguished no matter how hard elites try.
Lastly, I believe the Saudi Monarchy is on the edge of a precipice as the public are not fond of what is being done to fellow Muslims in their name.
So where does Chomsky think that the KSA’s mercs are coming from, if not the “worst criminal elements” from various countries? The West’s greed has no conscience, as has been amply proven in recently Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. They only appear to have a conscience on media exposure. That Chomsky avoids any serious discussion of 9-11 while subscribing to the official baloney speaks for itself.
I refer to regular combat troops as opposed to mercenaries. But I am glad you raised the issue since I should have discussed the important differences between mercenaries and national army troops.
I will not debate here the moral standards of the typical mercenary. Although given their profession, I would not have high expectations. What is important I think is loyalty and indoctrination and how it applies to mercenaries. Mercenaries are not fighting for their country, they are in it for the pay. They are not indoctrinated like US soldiers to take it for granted that the US represents a beacon of hope to the world – although this is changing I think. Mercenaries cannot be relied upon, especially when facing highly motivated troops on their home turf.
Mercenaries are not meant to form the main fighting force of an army or coalition, they can augment but as support role. The regular soldier is needed because they can fight the good fight if they believe in what they are fighting for. But if they lose faith in what they are fighting for, it can be problematic.
When German officers remarked on their poor fighting abilities exhibited at Kasserine Pass, Rommel replied (paraphrasing) that the Americans are very well equipped and learn fast, so expect this to change but above all, if the Americans believe in what they are fighting for as just, they will throw there heart and soul into battle. Unfortunately for us, they believe their fight against us is just.
Vietnam was different. As the war dragged on, US soldiers no longer believed they were fighting the good fight. Soldiers involved in atrocities returned home with PTSD, depression and other disorders. The S. Vietnamese Army fighting for the US installed puppet Diem were ineffective with low morale and high desertion rates to the NLF (Viet Cong). The US could not break the NLF and US soldier moral was tanking while the costs of war were skyrocketing.
We have seen this in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq troops seem now more competent when operating independent of US. Syrian troops effective against FSA and Kurds effective because they believe they are fighting for a homeland – I think that illusion has been shattered.
Basically two important questions. (1) Do the soldiers believe in what they are fighting for – such as for their homeland or liberate others from tyranny? (2) Are they maintaining high moral ground or involved in atrocities? Vietnam started on high moral ground, at least to US soldiers – to fight communism. But over time, the moral high ground was lost as soldiers witnessed atrocities. Mercenaries may not have minded the atrocities, but as I said, they are not fighting for your cause, they are fighting for a pay check.
The NLF in South Vietnam, Taliban in Afghanistan, Houthis in Yemen were or are fighting for their homeland and remain undefeated.
So it comes to this:
Achieving victory over an entrenched insurgency fighting for their homeland is extremely difficult. Mercenaries are not suitable as the main core of a fighting force, especially facing a highly motivated insurgency. Regular troops are needed but have to believe in what they are fighting for. If enough bloodthirsty amoral soldiers could be found to fill out the ranks of military forces, this would have been done. Only on a limited scale has this succeeded such as Azov brigade.
The majority of people are moral if you can believe it. You may not think it looking at the leaders of the nations of the world but that is selection bias. The qualities required are not typical of the general population but there are few leaders nu erically so the right candidates can be found. Despite such poor role models, the regular population maintain a deep sense of justice and this is encouraging.
As for Chomsky, I agreed with him in this particular case.
Chomsky is a disinformer. he never gets at the truth he only floats around it.
Your reply makes complete sense. Every nation in every area has a small percentage of people who lack empathy and enjoy taking what they want at any cost to others.
I would place many politicians in this bracket with the proviso that they are too gutless to fight in real combat though .
Offering suitable convicted criminals the choice of military service has often been a method to create units of ‘expendables’ who are sometimes given narcotics as well to further inflame their instincts of a snake.
The Saudis will never win. Similar to Afghanistan, this conflict cannot be won with weapons.
Agreed.
As important as holding the high ground is in military tactics, I hope it is sinking in that holding the moral high ground is more important.
The Saudis are once again reconfirming that they are an incapable bunch that deserve to be bombed out of existence.
I think they are very capable… at engineering their own defeat that is.
Spot on.
Well since the pause button was pressed, the Coalition have been going nowhere fast – the Houthis have jammed the pause button so it cannot be unpaused.
But there is still one button remaining to be pressed and that is ‘Self-Destruct’.
Since the Coalition has amply demonstrated their expertise in bringing about their own defeat, rest assured that it will be the Coalition that will press that final button.
Yemen e Siria are the revolutionary countries against imperialism. it’s islam shia like communism.