sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Veteran leftist Robert Reid says New Zealand’s at war with Yemen. Chris Trotter begs to differ

Public Policy / opinion
Veteran leftist Robert Reid says New Zealand’s at war with Yemen. Chris Trotter begs to differ
trothouth

By Chris Trotter*

“Second night of NZ’s coalition bombing of Yemen!” This hair-raising statement, from veteran leftist Robert Reid, was followed by an even more jaw-dropping claim: “So NZ is at war without any debate, mandate, cabinet or parliamentary resolution and while its government is still on holiday!!”

While it is certainly the case that the New Zealand Left is currently in an excitable frame of mind, Reid’s posting on “X”, has taken that excitability to a whole new level.

To describe the countries involved in the air and naval strikes against the Houthi regime in Yemen as “New Zealand’s coalition” is merely the most egregious of the errors contained in Reid’s posting.

According to the statement released by the White House on 11 January, the strikes were launched at the initiative of the USA and the United Kingdom:

“In response to continued illegal, dangerous, and destabilising Houthi attacks against vessels, including commercial shipping, transiting the Red Sea, the armed forces of the United States and United Kingdom, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self- defence, consistent with the UN Charter, against a number of targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.”

Clearly, Reid has mistaken the ten UN members condemning Houthi attacks on vessels transiting the Red Sea with the six states involved in the air and naval attacks on Houthi military targets. Reid, like most New Zealanders, knows that the RNZAF possesses no aircraft even remotely capable of participating in attacks of the sort launched by American and British forces. Nor does New Zealand currently possess the necessary hardware and personnel to participate effectively in the US-led “Operation Prosperity Guardian”.

So, to be clear, New Zealand has not placed itself at the head of any military and/or diplomatic coalition. Nor has it participated in any military strikes against targets located in Houthi-controlled Yemini territory. The nation is not, therefore, at war with anyone. Hence the non-existence of any “cabinet or parliamentary resolution” authorising New Zealand’s participation in the escalating conflict.

Ever since he was a teenager, back in the 1970s, Reid has been involved in anti-military activism. A person of his vast experience knows full well that this country played no part in the US/UK airstrikes. Even assuming it wanted to, New Zealand couldn’t participate. Why? Because it is saddled with a defence force that is currently incapable of participating in anything more rigorous than disaster relief at home and, if it’s lucky, the South Pacific. Reid must also know that New Zealand’s adherence to the aims and objectives of Operation Prosperity Guardian is largely a symbolic gesture of support from the Coalition Government to its Five Eyes partners.

 So, why the loud alarums and inflammatory claims from a man whose powers of political analysis were, for years, celebrated across the New Zealand Left? What is driving old lefties like Reid into the arms of an army of fanatical Shia fighters for whom the destruction of the “Great Satan”, America, and the utter elimination of the “Zionist Entity”, Israel, are goals for which they are only too willing to martyr themselves? Reid and his left-wing comrades used to be aggressively secular revolutionaries who dismissed religion as the “opium of the people”. What happened?

In a nutshell, the enemy of their Twentieth Century ideological mentors – some in Moscow, others in Beijing – became the Western Left’s enemy also. They may not have viewed the USA as the “Great Satan”, but they certainly saw it as the planet’s foremost imperialist power, as well as the world’s most aggressive promoter of globalised free-market capitalism. And, if the USA constituted the world’s greatest evil, then simple political logic dictated that the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, and all the other dubious propositions of the “Third World” and “Global South” must be “lesser evils”. Anti-Americanism became a left-wing reflex – as strong today as it ever was.

Indisputably, the Americans made it easy for them. What was morally arguable in Korea swiftly became indefensible in Vietnam. And then there were the dictators Uncle Sam kept in power: the Shah of Iran, the Somoza family, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, the list is as long as the historical record of those US-supported authoritarian regimes is bloody.

It never appeared to register with Western leftists, however, that they were able to condemn the USA’s actions because they could see them on their television screens and read about them in their newspapers. Moreover, those same left-wing activists could give vent to their moral outrage on the streets without being killed. Unlike the Peronist trade unionists, gunned-down by the Argentinian generals’ goons. Or the protesting students, slaughtered by the Peoples Liberation Army in Beijing’s Tienanmen Square. Hatred of US imperialism and the effects of global capitalism has blinded the Western Left to the much, much worse atrocities committed by the West’s alleged “victims”.

Nor was its moral clarity improved by the demise of the Soviet Union and the PRC’s embrace of capitalism with Chinese characteristics. With the great engines of proletarian liberation either shut down, or converted to less altruistic purposes, the Western Left was forced to cast about for an ideological substitute. In place of the now defunct doctrines of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, Western leftists found themselves adopting the radically subjective nostrums of the so-called “New Social Movements” – better known today as “Identity Politics”.

Where Karl Marx had made the “proletarians of all lands” the heroes of his revolutionary drama, Identity Politics is driven by the horrendous depredations of its super-reactionary villain – the White Oppressor. All whites are complicit in the vast historical crimes – slavery, capitalism, imperialism – that had made the European peoples so rich and powerful, and the rest of humanity so weak and poor.

In this new ideological narrative, the pale, stale, former Marxists find themselves stripped of all positive agency. Immobilised by their “white guilt” and “white privilege”, Western leftists cannot hope to be the “good guys” of the ID-Pols’ emancipatory drama. Indeed, the only way they can avoid being lumped in with the “bad guys” is to back unreservedly the struggles of the non-white victims of Europe’s cultural cancer.

And so it is that we find Reid prophesying war with an almost reckless disregard for what is actually unfolding across the Middle East. A Left enthralled to the notion that the oppressed are always guiltless, and the oppressors guilty by definition, will not hesitate to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Houthis and Hamas.

As the British MP, Tom Tugendhat, lamented only yesterday on “X”: “It’s extraordinary to watch young men and women – who I’m sure would tell you they believe in freedom and equality – supporting groups like the Houthis who have reintroduced slavery, and systematically violate the rights of women and girls.”

Extraordinary, too, that the Palestinian poet, Mohammed El Kurd, can say “Our day will come. We must normalize massacres as the status quo”, and be cheered by his Western left-wing “allies” at a weekend pro-Palestinian rally in London.

It’s almost enough to make one wish that Robert Reid was right. That New Zealand was, indeed, unleashing war upon such reckless hate.


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

105 Comments

Must protect trade. The Royal Navy undertook Operation Kipion in the Red Sea and approaches during the 1980s Iraq/Iran conflict. HMNZS Canterbury was senior ship during some of that time, which didn’t seem to be of much great concern back home. Go back earlier,  the Royal Navy sailed blithely up and down the Yangtze protecting merchantmen in the 1930s  while the Japanese invasion & genocide raged all around. Yes must protect trade.

Up
6

Trade is essential for our wealth and health. As an ideology it is very grounded in reality and promotes pragmatism. 

Up
6

Chris Trotter mocks Robert Reid: “Second night of NZ’s coalition bombing of Yemen!” This hair-raising statement, from veteran leftist Robert Reid, was followed by an even more jaw-dropping claim: “So NZ is at war without any debate, mandate, cabinet or parliamentary resolution and while its government is still on holiday!!”

However, Reid's statement is essentially true, even though he describes it colourfully.

Richard Harman in Politik writes of how, of the 14 countries that signed the first statement calling for the Houthis to stop attacking ships, only 10 signed up to the second statement endorsing the use of force. New Zealand was one of those 10. He writes:

THE  MISSING SIGNATORIES
On January 3, the Governments of the USA, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom called for the immediate end of the Houthis attacks ships passing through the Red Sea.
“The Houthis will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and free flow of commerce in the region’s critical waterways,” the statement said.
“We remain committed to the international rules-based order and are determined to hold malign actors accountable for unlawful seizures and attacks.”
The UN Security Council last Wednesday approved a USA-Japan resolution condemning the Houthi attacks.
But (importantly) the resolution did not authorise the use of force to counter the attacks.
Nevertheless, 10 of the 14 countries who signed the January statement issued another the day after the Security Council resolution endorsing the use of force against the Houthis.
The statement said: “The armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, consistent with the UN Charter, against a number of targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.”
Interestingly, four states did not sign this second statement: Belgium, Italy, Japan and Singapore.
In recent years, it has been unusual for New Zealand to take a different course of action from Singapore.
That it did so on this matter raises questions about the direction the new Government is taking with its foreign policy.

And here are Peters and Collins:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/506575/new-zealand-backs-uk-us-att…

Up
4

While we may have indicated that the use of force was justified, that in itself does not place us as being "at war" as Reid has claimed.

The question that must be answered is what is the appropriate response to the Houthi actions? And of course this question rapidly expands to cover Israel and Hamas. Politics is obfuscating what is actually happening. 

While I disagree with how Israel treats Palestinians in general and specifically in the creation of settlements in occupied territories, how do we challenge their response to Hamas turning Gaza into a rabbit warren where the militants and their sociopathic leader hide behind their own women and children, and then drives a major assault against Israeli civilians, especially women and children. And then consider the verified acts of torture, rape and murder against many of those young females? While the Palestinians hold up the bodies of their children for the world to see, we conveniently forget the Israeli children who were the victims of Hamas when they started this phase of the conflict. And those Palestinians hosted and shielded Hamas in Gaza.

There is an Islamic belief in a prophecy of a global war against the infidels from which Islam (and Allah) emerges victorious, and one could suggest that they are trying to ignite that conflict. If Israel is not restrained they might succeed.   

There must of course be a ceasefire, not a pause or temporary break in hostilities. But the people who must stop shooting first is Hamas.

Up
3

Some quotes from a Sephardic Rabbi from Israel, not exactly moderate on their side either

 

"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

"Those evildoers, the Arabs — it says in the Gemara [Talmud] that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael.”

Up
2

Evidence that religion is toxic poison?

Up
1

FG. Back then in more simple times there was still relatively fresh memory of how hostile enemies could choke off our lifelines, many having experienced the Japanese attempts at blockade of NZ during WW2. Recent immigrants from the UK had lived through a Britain brought almost to her knees by Nazi U Boats. That awareness has faded and these days I doubt that the great unwashed generally understands the extent to which our prosperity and very way of life is so dependent on freedom of the seas.  

Up
10

It is good to see some discussion of this in an NZ media that is more interested in an ex-prime minister wedding than the serious situation in the Middle East. Anyone interested in this situation has to rely on the BBC or Al Jazeera. I have just read Rory Stewarts book Occupational Hazards about the occupation of Iraq. What I learned from it is that the West needs to be careful when it tries to impose "our" values on the Middle East, as it likely to provoke actions that lead to the opposite outcome to those intended. As NZ has no meaningful offensive capability and historically reasonable relationships with Iran and the USA, couldn't our role be that of a neutral broker for peaceful resolution in the region? We can condemn Hamas attacks against civilians and Houthi attacks on shipping while also recognising the illegal killing of Palestinian children by Israel and the terrible economic and social conditions in Yemen, that have led to the Houthis having nothing to lose in a fight with the US and UK.

Up
16

Once the Ottomans were ousted and in the highly  intensifying interest of oil, borders & boundaries were imposed on a  region of centuries on centuries of a sprawling nomadic tribal existence. Only 100 years or so of that cannot unravel and dispel, that culture, the heritage of that ancient history including all its warring and vendettas. This was well illustrated in Don Rather’s interview of Saddam Hussein who in explaining how the West had no real idea about any of this,  said something like -  all my enemies intend to kill me, and will, unless I kill them first. Broadly speaking that is what Hamas is remorselessly saying about Israel and that is how Israel is responding.

Up
7

Yes. The plans drawn up to implement the secret 1916 Sykes Picot agreement between the French and British to divvy up the Middle East once the turks had been ejected, was a cynical and treacherous exercise that casually drew lines on paper across complex tribal and nomadic zones. The reverberations of this allied incompetence continue to this day.      

Up
10

Anyone interested in this situation has to rely on the BBC or Al Jazeera.

BBC didn't broadcast the case for the prosecution (choosing only to broadcast the defence) so these actors are reading it for you: Link

Up
1

I should have said the BBC and Al Jazeera. I don’t trust any single outlet to give the full picture. It seems as though few NZ journalists, commentators or politicians have much interest or expertise in foreign affairs. We are becoming almost as parochial as the US. 

Up
5

Best not to rely on X for news. BBC has published the full case laid by South Africa.

South Africa files ICJ case accusing Israel of 'genocidal acts' - BBC News

 

Up
6

Thanks for the link.  Deeply ironic that Israel has moved from a system of apartheid against Palestinians to something more resembling Holocaust

Up
2

Really? How would you solve the issue?

Israel clearly can't leave Hamas in charge as they raison d'etre is to destroy Israel.

So what do they do?

1) Try and destroy Hamas by force in hope there can be a better form of governance in Gaza? (current strategy)

2) Build a bigger wall, further restrict cross border movement and have  afar tighter blockade to prevent smuggling of weapons 

3) ?

Up
2

No, none of those which only address the symptoms of decades of repression suffered by Palestinians.  Until they have freedom, dignity and a viable and internationally recognised state nothing will change.  So illegal settlement activity must be stopped, land returned and people compensated for their bulldozed houses.  

Up
1

Can’t see how either Israel or Hamas will let that happen though. 

Up
0

Exactly, lets say Israel hand back the West Bank and remove the blockades. What do Hamas do then?

Maintain the status quo only with a more porous border and better access to weapons?

I don't see how that helps the Palestinians?

Clearly Hamas need to be removed somehow.

Up
0

Waikato. The Houthi rebels are but pawns in the Shia/Sunni religious clash in the Arabian gulf. Poverty and 'nothing to lose' are not the primary drivers. Iran, out of expansionist ambition, fomented the Yemen civil war that has slaughtered probably around 200K Yemenis, as part of its ambitions to create a Shia theocratic launchpad bordering Sunni Saudi Arabia and to menace that country's Red Sea passage.      

Up
8

You forgot to mention one of the richest countries in the world, Saudi Arabia, trying to bomb Yemen for five years, one of the poorest countries in the world, back into the stone age, with the full support of the USA and UK. Further, Ansar Allah (the Houthis) are certainly supported by Iran, but they have their own agency, culture and priorities. Last thing. The Houthis have made it clear that they are campaigning on behalf of the Palestinians being genocided by Israel. All the west has to do is pressure Israel into a ceasefire and the Red Sea will be open for trade again.

Up
2

Thanks Chris. It's always so much easier just to take one side, then you don't need to think about it. As Lloyd George said about a fellow MP; he has sat on the fence so long, the iron has entered his soul.

It is surely possible to both support the existence of the state of Israel, while criticising/condemning some of its actions. The state was born in the blood of many Palestinians and the current government is extreme, yet Hamas is quite rightly deemed to be a terrorist organisation, dedicated to wiping Israel from the map, so I too straddle the fence.

Up
2

I think I dimly recall Chris Trotter being an apologist for Zionism way back in the early 1970s, only a few years after Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War. If so, he gets a prize for consistency in his apologias for Israeli oppression of Palestinians, even if his socialism has turned into a reported drift to NZ First.

Up
4

.

Up
0

Well if you start a war but are so incapable it’s all over in a few days then you deserve to lose territory. 
 

the West should be thankful we have Israel in a region where terrorism is the core industry. 
 

and I’m proud we played even a very small part in bombing more of the lowlifes. 

Up
15

Interesting comment Te Kooti.

I can imagine the same thing being said by the British towards Maori during NZ's settlement.

Up
5

Not forgetting the half of Maori who wiped out the other half before signing up to the protection of the Crown 

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2020/03/unrestrained-slaughter-mao…

Up
4

KK(K), I wouldn't click on your red neck flat earther link for all the tea in China.

Up
0

I don't draw any equivalence between the two whatsoever.

Up
0

Cognitive dissonance?

Up
2

JT. Your comment that Israel 'seized' the West Bank requires context. In 1947 the UN earmarked this area for a future Arab state but this was opposed by the Arab states. Jordan unilaterally annexed the territory in 1950. In 1967 Jordan launched an attack on Israel, including from the West Bank, while the latter was engaged in a war with Egypt. After a bitter struggle Israel prevailed. 

Up
6

In 1947 the UN controlled by the US and the western powers decided that the Palestinians were to hand over the majority of their land to a tiny number of Jews and to do so with no recompense. Unsurprisingly the Arabs objected to this outright colonial theft and war was declared. 

Up
2

Have a look at the Balfour declaration, it goes way back before 1947

Up
0

While Zionist beliefs, notably a homeland for Jews, did inform the Balfour declaration, another key element of the declaration was the hope it would cultivate favour with Jewish American influencers who would in turn help accelerate US entry to the war. Ironically this aspect largely failed as the targeted Jewish intellectuals and industrialists were mostly internationalists who did not subscribe to Zionist founder Theodore Herzel's philosophies.    

Up
0

Without condoning Israel's actions I also view the published casualty figures with scepticism, given they are published by the Hamas-run hospitals. While only the military wing of Hamas is deemed a terrorist organisation by the NZ government, I still think the differentiation is a bit disingenuous.

Hamas has every reason to exaggerate figures and aggregate military and civilian casualties to foment anti-Israel discord. So while I don't doubt there are high civilian casualties, and there is a true humanitarian disaster unfolding, I wouldn't bet $1 the reported numbers are accurate to within 25%. Fog of war.

Up
8

WWH. There can be no doubt that given the Hamas strategy of placing their fighters among civilian populations, ordinary Gazans are being killed in sickening numbers. Casualties no doubt exaggerated as you say but by comparison with other bombing of military forces within civilian areas the number killed is not excessive after allowance for actual Hamas fighters. The Russian orchestrated bombing of Aleppo one example.        

Up
7

The army’s chief spokesman, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, said Israel would not tolerate attacks on civilians.(except Palestinians?? unsaid)

“The price will be extracted not just tonight, but also in the future,” he said.

 

No hint of irony???

Up
1

None. Get the job done.

Up
4

And then do it all again when the next generation of freedom fighters/terrorists they’ve just created arcs up. 

Up
2

So what do you do then? Just let them attack again and again using all the aid to fund rockets and tunnels?

At least there's a chance for future generations if they can remove Hamas.

Up
2

They can't. Also Israeli reports say that the IDF expects 12,500 to 20,000 Israeli soldiers to be disabled by the end of the year. Note that the Jewish population in Israel is around the size of the NZ population.

Up
1

What does who do?

Neither Israel or Hamas want peace with each other so about all we can do watch them fight. 

 

Up
0

"terrorists they've just created". The thousand plus year history of Islamist (fundamental and political Islam) oppression and violence suggests something else. An unequaled pathological hatred of other ethnic and religious peoples?

In light of the ongoing oppression and genocide of Zorastrians, Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Khurds, and Armenians (by the Ottomans) in the Middle East, the Christians and Jews in North Africa, the Hindus in India  (by  the Moghul empire) and the the Christians of sub Saharan Africa (Boko Haram) it's pretty obvious where the problem lies. It's not with Israel defending itself. 

Up
1

‘Next generation of freedom fighters/terrorists’

If you’re going to quote something you need to quote all of it. 
 

But, are you trying to suggest Israel are innocent in this ongoing shit-fight?

Up
2

Nah mate, they've only been bulldozing, barrel bombing , displacing and shooting and burning and starving Palestinians since before1948

They are fighting and murdering like hell to retain this right and will kill anyone who disagrees,such as Hamas, and anyone anywhere near.

 

Up
2

Murdering/genociding Palestinian muslim and christian alike.

Up
0

The Israelis know history, what has happened to peaceful non Islamic communities in the past (as I outlined above), and what they're up against today. They will do what they have to do to survive. You can't appease crazy.

Up
0

But you can make "them" , or anybody,"crazy" by pinching their land...

Up
0

Trace - a little side note that might be of interest; my grandfather was part of a commando force that in 1918 attacked the Turks in the southern Caucuses. He personally witnessed the horrific aftermath of the brutal genocide (in the proper meaning of the word) by the Turks against Assyrian Christians who previously lived there. Turkey to this day denies it massacred these non Muslim minorities. The worlds indifference to the Turkish slaughter of 1m Armenians was twenty years later to inspire Hitler.   

Up
2
Up
0

Interesting that Middleman has neglected to mention that the IDF has now killed one in every one hundred Gazans. A large majority of whom have been women and children given Gaza's young demographic age structure. And by all reports Hamas' fighting ability is barely dented.

Up
3

How do you remove Hamas then? Any strategies you can share?

You obviously can't leave them in power.

Up
1

You can't.

Up
1

Hamas does not represent Palestinian people and Israel has no right to attack Palestinian civilian population.  We are witnessing genocide; unbelievable that many in the West are supporting it

Up
2

Hamas are using them as shields, how do you propose Israel deal with Hamas? They may not represent the Palestinian people but they are in control of them. Do you think they want to be controlled by Hamas? If not, what do you do about it?

Up
2

You've asked a lot of pertinent questions in this article and received little in the way of answers.  

I don't have any answers for you either which gives me reason to pause any judgement I might be tempted to make.

Up
0

Thanks Murray, I don't have many answers either. It's those who are so sure of their opinions that probably haven't thought it through.

Up
0

Hamas won 44% in the 2006 Gaza election. Difficult to say what the true level of support would be today given Hamas dismantled democratic institutions soon after. Support for Hamas has recently surged among West Bank Muslim residents, claimed by some Palestinian researchers to be now over 40%. Pre the latest settler incursion issues and the 7 October Hamas terrorist attack, Hamas struggled to achieve double digit poll support among WB Palestinians.      

Up
0

Worth remembering that Israel supported Hamas in the early days to undermine Arafat and the PLO and as recently as 2017 Netanyahu stated publicly that Hamas needed to be given financial support. In the long game Israel knew that Hamas in charge of Gaza killed any possibility of a two state solution as the Israeli Government could always claim that it had no one legitimate on the Palestinian side to negotiate with.

Up
2

As mentioned above, address the causes not the symptoms.  A 2 state solution is the only solution. The conditions imposed on Palestinians by Israel over past decades, the theft of their little remaining land, bulldozing of their houses - all of this obviously leads to resentment and violence.  Which Israel meets with even greater violence, perpetuating the cycle.  

Up
0

That’s a great read, thanks Mr Trotter. I’m glad you are published here as I suspect you will be banned as some sort of class traitor pariah at certain left leaning sites you once appeared on. Lucky we don’t have “show trials” here (yet). 

Up
14

Spot-on article!  Says it all.

Up
8

Many ideologues tend to be extremists in their arguments at least. There has been times in the past when I considered CT to be one (perhaps he himself considering some of his earlier works would agree?), but Reid is perhaps becoming more extreme in his dotage? It has always amused me somewhat that the left wing in NZ while lauding the likes of Beijing or Moscow seem to be able to ignore there respective internal security agencies who are well known for their jackboots on the throats of their own people.

CT describes Reid as "Ever since he was a teenager, back in the 1970s, Reid has been involved in anti-military activism." I wonder would Reid be offended if someone pointed out to him the size and application of the militaries of those places he puts out as ideals?  

The best reaction to people like this is to just dismiss them as nutters.

Up
11

It's always easy to pass judgment on wars and fighting and how this should be done and how they should do this. While sitting in the comfort of your own lounge sipping a glass of wine and able to hit the off button on your remote. Totally different when bullets and bombs are wiping out your family and friends. Always remeber a guy who was in the territorials saying easy to shoot a gun bloody scary when bullets are shot at you. 

Up
7

Even flying a Typhoon over Yemen would be quite anxiety inducing as you wouldn't want to have to eject due to engine failure or something.

Up
0

Tornado. Typhoons were WWII. As an aside many years ago I met a kiwi typhoon pilot who bailed out in WWII. Had to invert prior to leaving the plane. Stud.

Up
1

I originally wrote Tornado in my draft thinking the same as you but my fact checking revealed they used Eurofighter Typhoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

The picture in Trotter's article is a Eurofighter.

https://youtu.be/ZtvBqH2L9uc?si=qmDrMnteuHNXjbjY

Up
1

My error. I was thinking of Tornados being used in the first Gulf War circa '91.

Up
1

Have a read of Typhoon Pilot by New Zealander Desmond Scott. A Group Captain (brevet) at 26. Extraordinary story of courage, skill, tragedy and humour. Wasn’t the only one of course. 

Up
1

The Brits had their problems in the 70s keeping the Chinese backed insurgents in Yemen from reaching in to Oman. It took a staged palace revolution and thus a new Sultan,  plus some pretty heavy fighting by the SAS & RAF types to retain control and then eventually the like of Jordan and Saudi woke up and committed militarily to ensure Oman’s independence. 

Up
2

Exactly. All the experts passing judgement and advising how things “need” to go. Unless I ask for advice, I don’t appreciate being told what I need to do, or should be doing. There is a deep rooted and well anchored hatred on both/all sides that is going nowhere soon, if ever. That’s just how this current species of human, roaming the planet, operate.

Up
3

Yes, bullets sound differently when they are going away from you, than towards you.

There seems to be this inability for many to not only have empathy for the individual and the group, on both sides, but to understand how they themselves might act if in the same situation, and what they would be prepared to do to protect themselves, their families, and country if required. If the fight is to be had, do we wait until they are kicking down our front door, or do we stop it at their door.

The, 'but he had a rough upbringing', is not a thought that generally goes through your mind, in their defense, while you are trying to defend yourself from their attack. Or worry about the appropriate level of response as you try to protect yourself. There is little point in moderating your response, only to make them more angry.

As many a good samaritan will tell you, in stepping in between two people who want to fight, chances are you will wear blows from both sides. Sometimes your choice at the time, is not that there is a better third way, but to be on the side you least disagree with, even if that is a choice, when it is really about being on the winning side.

Rephrasing the Lloyd George comment someone made. 'sitting on the (picket) fence, can be more painful than just standing on one side.'

 

 

Up
1

This guy is the best opinion writer in the country right now.

Up
5

Go Kiwi's ....smash em.

Up
1

 New Zealand is part of the war effort because we are a member of the "Anglo-Saxon" group. The Russians have taken to calling us Anglo-Saxons as a derogatory slur in an attempt to divide the West. Our government does support the strikes on Yemen:

Joint Statement from the Governments of Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, and the United States

The English speaking members of the West are at the forefront of Western military activity. Our culture does have a  glorious view of war. Who isn't thrilled when they see an F18 launching from a carrier or an RAF Typhoon from an airstrip in Cyprus? The great battle fleets, armies and air forces of the US along with the armed forces of all "Five Eyes"  are the most formidable power on Earth. We can also count on France, Germany and Japan and others if things become existential. None of our potential foes have such good friends.

That said, it is difficult to achieve anything militarily meaningful in Yemen with air strikes alone. This is more like a warning shot to see what happens next. 

 

Up
4

Meanwhile down at the cricket the protestors highlighting atrocities in Pakistan are.................absent.

Perhaps they are meeting over the next protest march against Putin.....

Or maybe not.

 

 

Up
8

Myanmar,Niger,Ivory Coast,Sudan,Syria,Ethiopia,Sudan,Azerbaijan,DR Congo,Libya... The list goes on.

Up
8

As long as the Pakistanis don't try to bowl underarm..... wars have almost started for less.

Imagine what they would be getting up to in Pakistan if they didn't have the civilizing influence of Cricket.

Up
0

dp

 

 

Up
1

Great paper Trotter!

Up
2

I lived in Yemen 2009-10. They kidnapped and killed 6 of my colleagues. And three of their children - Two of whom were rescued 3 years later. Anyone who thinks the Houthis are a moderate group who have any right to authority in a free world needs to read more on their track record and manifesto. They are the Shia equivalent of ISIS. I don't dare make foreign policy calls from my armchair, but I am only concerned the offensive wasn't strong enough.

Up
17

Westerners need to realise that the colonial days of English preaching in the Middle East are long over. The Aden province of Yemen evicted the British Army in 1967, that history should have been instructive to you and your colleagues. By the way, ISIS was supported by western backed powers Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey in an attempt to overthrow Assad and divide up Syria. So it's ironic you refer to them now. 

Up
2

I lived in Iraq from 2017 to 2021 and what you say about the west backing ISIS is not even the slightest bit true.

Also the Houthis never existed in Aden or south Yemen. So the point you make about British ruled Aden is literally a reference to another country. South Yemen was taken over by the Soviets and most South Yemeni look back nostalgically o  their days of British rule. The well preserved statue of Queen Victoria in the Aden centre is testament to that.

How you conclude that a British occupation in a neighboring country 50 years earlier should have stopped my colleagues and I from working in a hospital in the rural north is bizarre

Up
7

Invaluable to read about these real life experiences. Colonial Viper is free to believe whatever nonsense they like because they live in the fabulous and free West. I used to be somewhat like Colonial Viper until I realized the West really does look after its people and has kept us largely free and at peace and prosperous for 80 years. We are not perfect but we are surprisingly ruthless when it comes to our own prosperity. We are not as weak as some people think, quite the contrary, and we have strong bonds of friendship with the most just and sensible nations on the planet.

Up
5

Post WW2 the West strategised pretty concisely with the Marshall plan in Europe and MacArthur’s restructuring and redevelopment of Japan. Resultantly in the shuffle what were once the enemies the Axis, became allies and vice versa for the WW2 allies the USSR & China. Would suggest that the circumstances and the management by China of the covid outbreak with international borders and trade closing down caused a revisitation and consolidation of security, understanding and trust between the  traditional allies of the West including the new entrants. 

Up
0

Zachary of course we felt wealthy in the west, because we took resources and labour from other countries on the cheap, and if they didn't supply it to us under those terms, we would bomb and invade them. That's not working any more and western governments have been undermining their middle classes for decades.

Up
0

It’s continuing.  Planes taking off from Minhad last few evenings

Up
0

Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. All roads lead back to Iran.

Up
6

Yeah, amazing how a dirt poor hellhole like Yemen can have all that firepower; I guess Iran is sending them "guns before butter"

 

"All roads lead back to Iran"; and Putin...

Up
5

This article makes me wonder what CTs position on apartheid South Africa was. He might be a racist ethno-supremist apologist or he might not know his own mind. The Houthi of Yemen may have more faults than us in the sophisticated and civilised West, but they did say they would cease their bloodthirsty maritime blockade when Israel ceased its genocide in Gaza. Seems like an easy fix if it wasn't for the ideologically putrid zionist psychopaths in Israel and the west.   

Up
1

Matter of opinion certainly but be that as it may, hardly limited to the West is it. For instance, Israel may well consider that Putin of Russia has created a precedent of sorts in so far that any retaliation to the Russian incursion into Ukraine that is deemed by him to be an existential threat,  will invite the use by Russia, of nuclear armaments. 

Up
0

Except their bloodthirsty maritime blockade began long before the current conflict in Gaza. So to believe the Red Sea will open up again when there is a ceasefire is optimistic to say the least.

Up
2

It didn't and it's not. 

Up
0

There were hundreds of piracy attacks on ships between 2000-2016. While most of them were launched from Somali Puntland, at least 20 were launched from the Houthi controlled port of Hodeidah. These were more dangerous as the pirates were armed with Iranian weaponry.

Up
1

There has been maritime piracy in this region for decades, probably because the Somalis are dirt poor and desperate. But what you're referring to is separate and prior to ansar allah humanitarian blockade of shipping in solidarity with the Gazans who are been subjected to genocide by fundamental zionist nut cases. If the global north wants to free up the shipping lanes and global trade, stop the genocide, as simple and moral as that.

Up
0

The origins of piracy in the area lie with the large international commercial fishing companies which have stripped the coastal waters of life, turning them into the marine version of deserts. Most of the local population living in the coastal areas subsisted on a fishing industry, but when those waters were raped and turned barren they had no way to provide for themselves. Nothing else to do. 

Up
1

NZ has a history of starting wars. WWI! The Dominion of NZ declared war on the Germans before everyone else!

"...telegram announcing that the United Kingdom had declared war on Germany was received in New Zealand at 11.45 p.m. on the night of 3 September 1939. At that point, New Zealand followed suit and backdated its declaration to the same moment when the United Kingdom had declared war (9.30 p.m. on 3 September). " 

Up
0

New Zealand has been described as "The Prussia of the South Pacific". We practically had an empire with mandates over many Pacific Islands and down to Antarctica.

Up
0

Ansar Allah (the Houthis) now have the option to escalate against the US and UK but are currently holding back in terms of a very disciplined escalation management. The US and UK have not been able to ensure safe transit through the Red Sea and in fact after their strikes on Yemen even more shipping is avoiding that route as it is now a war zone. So more than a little counter-productive. By the way, the easiest and quickest way to open up the Red Sea again is to force Israel to commit to a Gaza ceasefire. Notice how all the western countries have refused to do that in favour of dropping even more bombs and more missiles on the Middle East.

Up
3

Yeah great idea, leave all the civilians of Gaza to be controlled by jihadi terrorists who use all their aid for rockets and tunnels!

Notice how all the western countries aren't so naive?

Up
3

Israel just wants the wealth of the trillion cubic feet Gaza Marine gas reserve for themselves.

Up
1

And all the Biblical lands

Up
0

This comment didn't age well. Within 12 hours of posting, the Houthi's attacked another civilian ship.

The Houthi's were disrupting Red Sea shipping long before the current conflict with Gaza. I doubt very much that an Israeli ceasefire will free up the Red Sea now.

Up
2

Oh? I think my comment was proven quite correct. Of course the Houthis attacked another Israeli/US/UK related ship, that is what they have publicly promised to do. Western air strikes and hundreds more Tomahawks cannot stop them and Ansar Allah will not stop until Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Up
2

So much noise made by the radicals, which achieves nothing other than proving Orwell right about the use of language.

Up
0