Foreign Policy Analysts' Betrayal on Yemen War Powers Resolution

The most campaigned and successful avenue for removing the U.S. and its role from the conflict in Yemen is being shot down by some foreign policy experts. Why?

The war in Yemen has been receiving less attention due to a cessation of hostilities since a ceasefire was declared last April, but a precarious situation remains. The conflict has been waged by Saudis and Emiratis against the rebel Houthi movement, a Yemeni Islamic militia, since they captured the capital Sana'a in 2015. The war perpetuates an ongoing humanitarian crisis that has been called the worst in the world. U.S. support for the war has been vital to Saudi and Emirati military operations, which includes logistical support, mid-air refueling of fighter jets and extensive weapons packages. With this support, the Saudi Royal Air Force has routinely targeted civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools and food production centers.

War Powers Resolution

Efforts to end U.S. support for the war have been ongoing since the conflict began, with the most successful attempt being a War Powers Resolution, a federal law that bars the president from engaging in a war without approval from congress. The legislative tool to constrain the legislative branch’s power gained bi-partisan support to pass congress in 2019 but was vetoed by the Trump Administration. The War Powers Resolution was again to be put up for vote last December by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but was struck down by the Biden administration before there was a vote. If evoked, it would halt future U.S. maintenance and sustainment of Saudi Arabia’s offensive air campaign if such a campaign were to continue.

Opposition to Resolution

Now, longtime proponents of ending U.S. support for the war, Kate Kizer and Scott Paul, writing for foreign policy media outlet War On The Rocks, have come out criticizing the Yemeni War Powers Resolution as an ineffective solution to the conflict. Former proponents of the Resolution, they have used their platform and expertise to downplay the most popular and realized method at ending U.S. support for the war, citing its potential to divide Yemenis and instead proposing “accountability” for war crimes. As victims of the 20+ yearlong crusade of the War on Terror will tell you, accountability rarely comes, and even rarer still is a viable legislative opportunity to end involvement in foreign conflicts. By criticizing an achievable tool that invokes Constitutional balance of law, the only thing Kizer and Paul achieve is slowing the momentum of a viable solution. The Yemeni War Powers Resolution would not only keep America out of the war in Yemen but would pave the way for other War Powers Resolutions.

What Constitutes Belligerency?

Kizer and Paul admit that although America’s previous operations of maintenance and sustainment “have supported offensive airstrikes and could support them again, the argument that this constitutes participation in hostilities — particularly since it has been more than 10 months since the last coalition bomb fell in Yemen — strains credulity.” There’s a few problems with this: the situation is not static, and a new U.S. administration or changing dynamics on the ground could once again influence the level of Washington’s participation. A War Powers Resolution limits not only baseline levels of support but any escalations that the U.S. may find themselves entangled in. As the situation amongst factions in Yemen remains unsolved and a ceasefire expired, hostilities could easily break out again as they have done before. Additionally, beyond the debate of what constitutes participation in hostilities or not, this support to the Saudi military has still contributed greatly to the crisis of the Yemeni people. Whether we are in the cockpit pulling the trigger for them, or merely giving their operation basic sustainment, any participation in such a genocidal campaign should be stopped, period.

Sowing Political Division?

Kizer and Paul also are concerned about the blame game politics in Yemen. If America admits that they have been supporting the Saudis and Emirates in the war through a War Powers Resolution, “it risks legitimizing and amplifying partisan propaganda in Yemen that inflates America’s role in the war and pins overwhelming responsibility for the humanitarian crisis on Saudi Arabia."

Partisan propaganda of America has been fueled by years of open U.S. support for the war campaigns of their neighbors. It is naïve to suggest any congressional legislation limiting U.S. support would amplify division more than waging an eight-year war to appease the Saudis. Besides, there are no qualms in Yemen about America’s role. In a televised speech given this week, Abdul-Malik Al-Houthi, the leader of the Houthis said “The Saudi and Emirati regimes are aggressive, and the Americans come to direct them, and they are obedient and enforceable.” He went on to say: “the American is in the position of the occupying aggressor, and he must remove his soldiers.” Given these statements, and that the Houthis have declined to extend the truce it seems that trust in America is so eroded that any direct intervention only deters the Houthi’s from negotiating peace deals or furthering diplomatic relations. Instead, international peacekeepers such as those of the U.N. can be used to mediate conflict. Additionally, there is no case for a continued U.S. military presence in Yemen.

There is also no case for a Yemen War Powers Resolution to pin responsibility on Saudi Arabia. It is Saudi Arabia’s actions that pin responsibility on themselves, they should be held accountable for their war crimes as much as any other party should be held accountable. Maintaining a relationship with Saudi Arabia should not be done at the expense of the American Constitution’s checks and balances, or the lives of Yemeni people. Any attempts to appease the Saudis at the expensive of the Yemenis has not won over their loyalty. If it did, they wouldn’t have declined U.S. phone calls at the outbreak of the Ukraine war or have been looking to trade in other currencies than USD.

Fragmented Conflict

Another reason given for opposition to the War Powers Resolution is it “downplays the reality of fragmented conflict between Yemeni groups.” This is a non-sequitur— withholding support for an offensive air campaign has nothing to do with downplaying the division in Yemen. As it stands, the U.S. directly and indirectly meddling with internal Yemeni conflicts has only inflamed and emboldened sectarian violence among Yemeni groups, employing bait and switch tactics that stoke conflict.

Originally, American military aid given to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, intended to target Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), had been used against the Houthis during the George Bush Administration. After the election of the one name on the ballet, President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, former President Saleh then aligned with the rebel Houthis of which the U.S. also supported before the Saudi-led collation against them began in 2015. America’s support for the subsequent campaign against their former allies, the Houthis, have only led to more infighting among Yemenis and strengthened AQAP.

This disastrous campaign of foreign meddling from the executive branch ought to be limited by constitutional checks and balances. Out of anything America has done to involve itself in the conflict, our previous shifting support for opposed factions has been a driving factor in the division of Yemeni groups, of which a War Powers Resolution would affirmatively halt.

Accountability

The solution that Kizer and Paul have given for what Yemen needs instead is accountability for war crimes committed. They fail to see the hypocrisy in also saying a War Powers Resolution would place “disproportionate blame” on the powers involved. It is exactly the tool that has a chance at succeeding in bringing congressional action where past attempts have failed, and a good legal and political beginning to further prosecution of war crimes if possible. But perhaps there is too much of a faith in our bureaucratic institutions here — if the likes of Dick Cheney and Colin Powell have still not been held accountable for the lies and war crimes of the much less covert Iraq War, it is a far cry to suggest that those responsible for America’s policy in Yemen will face any of the punishment they so well deserve. Being savvy on America’s middle eastern policy, they should know better.

Although unlikely, some of the ideas that Kizer and Paul have about Yemen are good solutions. More congressional oversight and recalibration of our relationship with the Saudis and Emirates are undoubtably a good thing. We can all be armchair policy experts and talk about what Yemen needs in an ideal world, but there are only so many tangible solutions that are within reach, have bipartisan support, and could stop future hostilities — a War Powers Resolution checks all of those boxes. Although it is far from a complete solution, nor will it immediately help the Yemenis on the ground, it should be implemented with other policies that administer aid, facilitate peace deals, and reduce our military presence in the region.