Speaking of cognitive dissonance, the editors of the Washington Post seem to have succumbed:
Both the Obama and Trump administrations have offered limited support to the Saudi coalition, while trying to restrain reckless bombing and the exacerbation of the humanitarian crisis. When the Saudis imposed a crippling blockade on Hodeida last year, President Trump issued a statement calling on Riyadh to “immediately†allow “food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it.†The blockade was soon suspended.
Now, as part of its stepped-up campaign against Iran, the administration is pledging more support for the Saudis and Emiratis; despite stiff resistance in Congress, it is seeking to sell another $2 billion in munitions to the allies. It ought instead to be insisting that the Saudis take the peace talks seriously — and that the Emiratis halt their advance on Hodeida.
I seem to recall that the Washington Post supported President Obama’s drone war which fomented this whole mess in Yemen to begin with. Recommending that we not expand the munitions we’re selling to the Saudis is pretty weak tea. There’s plenty of other alternatives. We could end our “limited support”. Stop giving them intelligence, military advice, and logistical support. We could stop selling them munitions entirely. We could create a “no-fly” zone. We could blockade Saudi Arabia to prevent them from being resupplied. We could start calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia. We could arm Shi’ite rebels in Saudi Arabia. We could bomb Riyadh.
This editorial is the journalistic equivalent of a stern démarche. It’s what you do when you want to be seen as doing something without actually having the guts or will to do anything.
