wtf is this Yemen blowoup?

[ingemann]

The Shias (who belong to another branch than Shias in Iran and Lebanon, who are also two different branches) of Yemen are very moderate in practice (as for in theory; well their slogan are "death to USA, death to Israel"), they have couped the government through a broad multi-religious northern tribal coalition. They're very hostile toward Al Quada. But they also claim some Saudi border areas, which SA occupied/leased in the 1930ties. They're also very hostile toward Wahhabism and Saudi preachers/missionaries. The government and the ones before have de facto been a Saudi vassal (even the old president who was a Shia).

[ingemann]

The "death to the USA" thing aside, the Houthis really don't sound all that bad.

Yes to some degree.

In truth they're a bunch of reactionary "hicks" who are against attempt by the Yemenite government centralising power. But when the alternative is as unpleasant as it is. I will take a backward and reactionary but tolerant tribal alliance over a movement which preach world revolution and embrace slavery and genocide.

As for the whole death to America, let's remember that the old old (not the new old) government, was a American and Saudi ally, and the Houthis was smart enough to embrace Iranian and more important Hezbollah slogans, to make some of their pre-Arabic Spring popularity rub of on the Houthis. It's really unknown if Iran supported the Houthis in the past, but after the collapse of the government they have begun to support them

Another interesting aspect while the Houthis are in theory hostile to USA, they have not been part of the attacks on American or other western targets in Yemen, and USA and them have cooperated in attacking Al Quada in the Arabian Peninsula (USA supporting their forces with drones) unofficial. So if it wasn't for the American-Saudi alliance, the Houthis would be a obvious and willing partner for USA.

[ingemann]

BTW there's also another important aspect in the whole Yemen issue.

North vs. South.

These was two different states historical, but they wasn't like Korea, Vietnam or Germany, where they had a common identity. The North was traditional a decentrale Shia Imanate (fundamental a Muslim theocracy), through a significant minority was Sunnis. The Sunni minority was well treated, mostly because of the power their tribes yield. The Ottomans attempted to conquer North Yemenbut only succeed in making them vassals. As such the tribal authorities are strong in North Yemen, and they function quite well, even when the central government have collapsed.

The South on the other hand was Sunni principalities before it ended up a British colony. As such the tribes still exists, but they lost power versus the central government and the tribal leaders was no more judges and brokers. This mean as the central power breaks down, they lack actors to take over, to keep society running as police, hospitals etc breaks down.

This is a major reason that Al Quada is active in the south and not the north, it's also why conflicts in the north tend to be less violent and destructive than conflict in the south. As the tribal leaders and elders can meet and compromise in the north, while similar institutions have been deconstructed in the south.

[ingemann]

Can someone who knows Yemen better than I do explain whether Hadi was/is as much of an autocrat as Saleh was before him?  When Saleh was kicked out, there was a big deal made about how Hadi was a transitional figure as the country made the move to democracy (these were the naive early days of the Arab Spring).  I know Hadi delayed elections, but is the thinking that he was going to delay them indefinitely, and was basically as much of an autocrat as Saleh was, and would always be one, but that he was simply empowering a different faction than Saleh did?

He was less of an autocrat than Saleh, but honestly Saleh wasn't much of a autocrat either, he simply lacked the power to do much and Hadi was even more powerless. The Houthi takeover are just them using the opportunity of the president being weak, unpopular and illegimate.

[ingemann]

Funny thing about saleh. Is that he is now allied with the houthis and brought about half the army with him. [his son is a major general or something] that is likely why they've had success in capturing parts of the south.

Saleh and his son joining the Houthis have little to do with why they winning, but Saleh and his tribe not protecting the government have everything to do with why the government are losing. While it made a lot of sense to fire Saleh's son, it put Hadi in the position that he really lacked any powerbase (which was why the different Yemenite fractions selected him as broker). Which made him a easy tacket for the Houthis. The alliance between Saleh and the Houthis also make sense, it ensure Saleh that he will gain some power after the takeover, while for the Houthis it remove a potential enemy and is also peace branch to the old regime.

[ingemann]

Are the South Yemeni independence rebels socialist?

I doubt it, but honestly who cares anymore? Even in the past seccessionist movement camoflaged them with different ideologies and it rarery had any real meaning; today? If the southern seccessionists are socialist today, it will not extend outside some rhetoric and slogans, and if they win they will set up some kind of cleptocratic, but capitalistic republic, which will be little more than a Saudi client.

[ingemann]

Also, Saudi Arabia is supporting a relatively secular, democratically elected government. There's really no reason to be outraged about it unless you have a boner for Obama's Iran deal.

I couldn't remember Hadi had been elected, so I checked it, and yes he won a election but.... well....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_presidential_election,_2012

Let's not make him something he's not.