Yemen Crisis/Conflict & the "Decisive Storm" Coalition

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Yemen is pretty full of weapons already, think also of the $500 million worth the US happened to loose there recently, so it is most unlikely that Iran would think it necessary to send even more. I would call this "news" propaganda.
Oh. make no mistake, Iran wants to further arm the tribesmen. And if they can...they will do so.

Most of the US equipment is not direct arms...and those that are, are mostly in friendly hands already.

But I will grant you this master delft, the US carrier and the AEGIS cruiser accompanying it are not there to enforce the embargo. The Saudi frigates, Egyptian frigates, and Burke destroyers in the area are very much more than adequate and capable of doing that.

That carrier is there to give the US and its allies more significant "options, should they choose to execute them.

Oh, they may make a show of them being involved in the other...but they are not necessary to it. They are there to:

1) Make a statement, and a strong one.
2) To give the US commanders more options in dealing with the crisis if needed.

I believe that is what is going on,.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
How many Scud factories are there in the World and why would a sixty year old liquid fuel military rocket still be produced?
Well, we do not know how many there are.

As to why? It's simple.

Even if not too accurate, they work...and they are a low enough technology that they can be produced in such places.

Then, when it becomes clear in such a situation that they are being produced, the opposition tries to take them out so they cannot be fired.

Now...my guess is that you are moving towards a theory that the entire thing is somehow a lie...that there was no Scud factory and that the Saudis or others attacking it were really not after Scuds at all.

Well, clearly there was something there. And we know from people on the ground that what was hit was a base held by Houthis rebel forces at the time. Whatever the air raid hit, it produced that massive secondary explosion. That indicates that whatever the aircraft were after...they go it.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Actually, delft, it is not.

Aside from their use in Gulf Strom by Saddam Hussein against allied forces, later, in the 1994 Yemen Civil War I is well documents that both sides fired Scud missiles. Well documented. The have been able to build them there fro some time.

But we need not go back so far.

In August 2011, during the Libyan conflict, a confirmed Sucd launch/attack occured on August 15th as anti-Gaddafi forces encircled the Gaddafi-controlled capital of Tripoli. Libyan forces near Sirte fired a Scud missile at anti-Gaddafi positions in Cyrenaica over 100 kilometers away.

On December 12, 2012, the Syrian Army began using short-range ballistic missiles against rebels. US, UK and other intelligence groups, confirmed that surveillance and reconnaissance assets detected the launches of six unguided, short-range ballistic missiles on that date from near Damascus. The trajectory and distance travelled indicated that they were Scud missiles

On February 22, 2013, three districts in the rebel-held eastern part of Aleppo and the city of Tel Rifat were hit by the same short range ballistic missiles, destroying about twenty homes and structures in each places hit. The rebels and a human rights watch inspector claimed they were Scuds, though the Syrian government has denied it...but clearly Scud ballistic missiles were being launched and used in that war...over 30 of them have been reported.

So...it is really not BS at all. Scuds, to this day, are available...and in some places built...for forces to use in the event of conflict.
 

delft

Brigadier
Actually, delft, it is not.

Aside from their use in Gulf Strom by Saddam Hussein against allied forces, later, in the 1994 Yemen Civil War I is well documents that both sides fired Scud missiles. Well documented. The have been able to build them there fro some time.

But we need not go back so far.

In August 2011, during the Libyan conflict, a confirmed Sucd launch/attack occured on August 15th as anti-Gaddafi forces encircled the Gaddafi-controlled capital of Tripoli. Libyan forces near Sirte fired a Scud missile at anti-Gaddafi positions in Cyrenaica over 100 kilometers away.

On December 12, 2012, the Syrian Army began using short-range ballistic missiles against rebels. US, UK and other intelligence groups, confirmed that surveillance and reconnaissance assets detected the launches of six unguided, short-range ballistic missiles on that date from near Damascus. The trajectory and distance travelled indicated that they were Scud missiles

On February 22, 2013, three districts in the rebel-held eastern part of Aleppo and the city of Tel Rifat were hit by the same short range ballistic missiles, destroying about twenty homes and structures in each places hit. The rebels and a human rights watch inspector claimed they were Scuds, though the Syrian government has denied it...but clearly Scud ballistic missiles were being launched and used in that war...over 30 of them have been reported.

So...it is really not BS at all. Scuds, to this day, are available...and in some places built...for forces to use in the event of conflict.
The fact that F-16 is a fighter wouldn't bring you to call it a Mustang even while they happen to be built in the same plant. The Scud, NATO name, is also called SS-1 and is a child or grand child of the V-2. The Soviet Union followed them up with short range rockets called Frog, free rocket over ground. These were solid fuel rockets and therefore militarily much more practical. The fact that hostile propaganda uses the name Scud doesn't mean they are still used in Syria or anywhere else.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Okay...whatever Delft.

It is obvious that there are "actual production Scud" missiles, and missiles that are built on the same principle, to the same size and scale, etc. that you might call something else.

Big deal.

The fact is that there are Scud missiles as in a class or type of missile as opposed to specific serial numbered missile manufactured by the Soviets.

I know full well the history of the actual missile that the Soviets built and how they got there.

In terms of the impact (literally on the ground), in terms of their ability to do damage, or their range, or their not being precision weapons at all, or their being used by nations in conflict with one another...the difference is, in essence, meaningless.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "Straining at a gnat?"

In terms of wanting to be so exact about this in order to deny what is happening...that's what is going on.

Call it an official Scud or Scud-like if you will...that fact is that short range, non-precision ballistic missiles are being used, and have been used in those time frames. That is what people are talking about...and I think you are aware of it..
 

delft

Brigadier
Btw If the target in Sanaa had been a Scud factory there wouldn't have been a large explosion because Scud is not a solid fuel rocket so fuel is not filled in the factory.
 

delft

Brigadier
An article in WaPo about the scaling back of Saudi bombing:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Saudi Arabia says it will scale back its military campaign in Yemen

By Ali al-Mujahed and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
April 21 at 7:01 PM

SANAA, YEMEN — Saudi Arabia said Tuesday it is scaling back its military intervention in Yemen, after more than three weeks of punishing airstrikes failed to drive back the Shiite rebels that have plunged the Arabian Peninsula nation into chaos.

At a news conference in the Saudi capital, Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri announced that the coalition led by Saudi Arabia would begin a new operation in Yemen that focuses on addressing a worsening humanitarian crisis, combating terrorism and finding a political solution to the fighting.

He maintained that the initial phase of the campaign had achieved its military objectives by successfully eliminating threats to Saudi Arabia’s security, including the destruction of the rebels’ supply of missiles and heavy weapons.

The announcement marks an end to what has been the largest military operation ever conducted by Washington’s Persian Gulf ally. Dubbed “Decisive Storm,” the campaign is part of a more aggressive regional policy assumed by Riyadh that in part has been motivated by frustration over a fledgling U.S. rapprochement with Iran.

But the change in direction comes amid rising doubts among Riyadh’s allies over the objectives and fallout of the conflict, which has further destabilized Yemen, helping radical groups such as al-Qaeda expand their influence there.

The coalition, consisting of primarily Sunni Arab countries, will still target the rebels, called Houthis, Asiri said. Riyadh considers them to be a proxy for its foremost nemesis, Shiite Iran. But Asiri did not specify what that targeting might entail.

The coalition
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that began on March 26 have killed nearly 1,000 people, more than 300 of them civilians. In addition, a naval and air blockade has choked off supplies of food and fuel to the impoverished country of over 25 million people, which aid agencies say has worsened Yemen’s already dire humanitarian situation.

Even after the Saudi announcement, the roar of planes and the booms of what were apparently antiaircraft weapons could still be heard in Sanaa, residents said. The capital has been subjected to intense bombardment by the coalition, including an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on an arms depot Monday that killed dozens of people, including civilians.

Rumored talks with Houthis
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni powerhouse, has grown increasingly alarmed over the rising influence of Iran in such Arab countries as Iraq and Syria. Further, its government views a possible nuclear accord with Washington as a potential green light for Tehran’s continued expansion in the region.

It is unclear how the coalition intends to deal with the Houthi rebels, who still control vast amounts of Yemeni territory they have captured in assaults over the past year.

Some Houthi officials and their supporters were defiant after the Saudi disclosure.

“This announcement of a halt to this operation is nothing but a shameful defeat for Saudi,” said Mohammed Meftah, a prominent pro-Houthi politician who lives in Sanaa. He added that Riyadh would have to pay billions of dollars in reparations for the damage caused by the airstrikes, saying that Saudi Arabia bears “criminal responsibility.”

Before the Saudi announcement, however, rumors had swirled that intermediaries were helping the Houthis and officials in Riyadh set the terms for a possible cease-fire and peace talks.

Analysts said that the Houthi advances crossed a red line for Saudi Arabia, which sees Yemen as part of its back yard. Iran’s perceived attempts to extend its influence there were unacceptable to Riyadh, they said.

Abdul-Ghani al-Iryani, a Yemeni analyst who lives in Sanaa, expressed doubt that the Saudi-led coalition would succeed in returning Yemen’s president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, to power. After the Houthis toppled his government in February, Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia, where he and a number of officials opposed to the rebels have tried to plot their return to Yemen.

“Hadi’s rule has come to an end,” Iryani said.

The coalition’s initial war aim of driving the rebels out of major urban centers, including Sanaa, the capital, has not been achieved. The rebels control most of northern Yemen, and they still threaten to take the southern port city of Aden, which has been decimated by the fighting.

Concerns about airstrikes
A senior official from one of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries backing the Saudi-led operation said the objective of the airstrikes, and collateral damage, was “becoming an issue,” especially at the United Nations. “All of them want to see an end to this war,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“The objective is not to create misery for the Yemeni people, but to make sure the political process is intact,” the official said. “We don’t want to see a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and it was getting very bad.”

While the Houthis have remained publicly defiant, the official cited signs in recent days that the rebels’ allies — forces loyal to former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh — had begun to fracture and draw away from the fight. “The Houthis were hurt” by the strikes, “but not as much as Saleh,” the official said. “Now is the time for a political solution.”

In Washington, a spokesman for the National Security Council, Alistair Baskey, said that “the United States welcomes” the Saudi announcement.

“We continue to support the resumption of a U.N.-facilitated political process and the facilitation of humanitarian assistance,” he said.

U.S. officials have grown uneasy about the coalition’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the shift in focus away from Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has taken advantage of the chaotic situation to expand its activities.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter has had several telephone calls in recent days with his Saudi counterpart, Mohammad bin Salman, and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of U.S. Central Command, spent Thursday in Riyadh to consult “with the Saudi leadership on their campaign plan,” said Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Naylor reported from Beirut. Karen DeYoung in Washington contributed to this report.
Clearly WaPo doesn't believe that the Saudi actions have been successful.
 
Top