Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: It Is Outrageous That the US Is Supporting a Genocidal War in Yemen

Over 5 million children are facing starvation and a cholera outbreak is raging in Yemen, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, yet the US continues to support the Saudi bombing and destruction of the country, says Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, in this

SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.

The child protection group, Save the Children, has just released a report stating that as many as five million children face starvation in Yemen due to food shortages and soaring prices. The reason for this crisis, which the U.N. has called the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, is going on for three years now in the war in Yemen between the Houthi ethnic group and a coalition of countries led by Saudi Arabia that includes the United States. U.S. has been providing the bombs, the planes and strategic and logistical support for this war. Last month, Saudi forces bombed a school bus, killing forty children, and Saudi Arabia called that attack legitimate.

The Progressive Caucus in the U.S. Congress is trying to evoke the War Powers Act and war powers that they have to put an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen. Let’s listen to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard introducing this resolution.

TULSI GABBARD: Today in Yemen, our military continues to wage this interventionist war alongside Saudi Arabia unauthorized by Congress. The time for crocodile tears and baseless platitudes is over. Enough is enough. The U.S. must end its support for Saudi Arabia and stop waging interventionist wars that increase destruction, death and suffering around the world, drain our resources here at home and threaten our own national security.

SHARMINI PERIES: Tulsi Gabbard is the United States representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District. She was also vice chair of the Democratic National Committee until 2016, but she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. Important to note here that Representative Gabbard served a twelve-month tour of duty in Iraq in 2004, and she was a part of Hawaii’s National Guard. And in 2015, she was promoted to Major in the Hawaii’s National Guard. Today she serves on the House Armed Services Committee and she joins us today from Washington.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, aloha.

TULSI GABBARD: Aloha, Sharmini, thank you. Wonderful to talk to you.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Congresswoman. Let’s start with why we are engaged in this horrendous war and what Congress can do to stop it.

TULSI GABBARD: Well, first of all, it is absolutely outrageous that the United States has continued its support for years now for Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent Yemeni people and caused mass starvation and suffering, a cholera epidemic, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world in Yemen, all turning a blind eye while continuing to refuel Saudi planes, provide them with intelligence and provide them with the bombs that they’re using to drop on Yemeni civilians.

Congress has now for a very long time given up its responsibility to declare war. And this war in Yemen is a perfect example. So, I and a few of my colleagues are introducing a resolution that will take back our congressional authority and responsibility that’s given to us through the United States Constitution to stop this, our illegal participation in this Saudi-led genocidal war in Yemen. And our resolution would very simply and clearly reassert our congressional authority and remove U.S. military troops from any kind of support for Saudi Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, you have managed to garner bipartisan support for this bill. One would think it would be easy to get it on the floor to debate, because it’s really about Congress taking back the power it has over war measures. And so, this is not just about Yemen, although Yemen is the critical question at hand. But why is it so difficult to get this on the floor to debate so that we can hear the different perspectives out there as to why they would not support it?

TULSI GABBARD: Well, that’s really the point, Sharmini, is there has not been very many opportunities to really have a real debate. In order for Congress to exercise its constitutional authority, that provides that platform to make that determination of whether or not to declare war, whether or not to involve our troops in these wars. And that just hasn’t happened. Unfortunately, we saw several months ago when the Senate tried to pass a similar resolution, the administration came out very strongly against it and was actually asking senators to vote against that resolution so that the United States could continue to support Saudi Arabia in this genocidal war.

We are seeing now in the House, we are trying to introduce this resolution, again, to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia there and to force this debate. I think that’s really the point here, is to force this debate. We saw a news report come out just this morning that Secretary of State Pompeo basically made the decision to recertify the U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen out of concern of losing a two-billion-dollar weapons deal with Saudi Arabia and the UAE jeopardizing our ability to sell more precision missiles to these countries that are dropping them on innocent civilians.

So again, outrageous when we consider that people in Washington who have power are more concerned about making money than they are about the lives that are being lost, the people being killed and the people who are suffering as a result of this illegal war we’re waging in Yemen.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, Secretary of State has indicated that they have spoken with the Saudis and that the Trump administration is convinced that the Saudis are going to take appropriate measures to minimize damage to citizens in Yemen by improving their targeting, or they are also willing to include no strike zones, areas where they may not bomb. What do you make of these responses on the part of Secretary of State Pompeo?

TULSI GABBARD: Sharmini, we’ve been hearing these arguments for years. Ever since the United States got involved to support Saudi Arabia in this war, we’ve been hearing two very different stories. One is the narrative that you have just shared that the United States is trying to help Saudi Arabia and minimize these civilian casualties and so on. And on the other hand, when Saudi Arabia drops a U.S. made precision missile on a bus filled with forty children in Yemen, the United States, this administration then says, “Oh, well we have nothing to do with their targeting, we have no input on their targeting.”.

So, what’s the real answer here? How involved are they? Because it seems that their story changes when it serves their purpose. There are a few bottom line points here, is that the United States policy in Yemen supporting Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war has failed. We have not seen the Yemeni people moving closer to peace for all the years that we’ve been supporting this war. Quite the contrary. The humanitarian disaster facing the Yemeni people has worsened to be the worst in the world. And as this conflict continues to escalate, we are only seeing their suffering increase, which is why I and my colleagues are pushing very hard and strongly to draw the line to end the illegal US participation in this war and to stop our troops from supporting Saudi Arabia’s atrocities.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, you have now managed to get some senior ranking members of Congress to support this resolution, such as Bernie Sanders, Adam Smith, as well as of course yourself and Congressman Ro Khanna from California and many others who endorse and support this bill. So then, why is it so difficult for you to get the rest of the Democrats and Democratic Party behind this resolution?

TULSI GABBARD: Well, we are urging them to join this effort and to take a stand for peace. I think that it’s important for people to be informed and aware, and I think more and more members of Congress are becoming aware of the consequences of the United States alliance with Saudi Arabia in this war and the devastating impact that it’s having on the Yemeni people. Ultimately though, it will be up to the leadership of the House to make that decision to bring this resolution to the floor.

Now, this resolution that we are introducing is a privileged resolution which will essentially provide the procedural mechanism to force a vote on the House floor in case the House leadership decides not to bring it to the floor themselves. So, our hope and our goal is to be able to force this debate, to force members of Congress to take a position on the record, to fulfill our constitutional responsibility and actually make a decision on this, and to stop our U.S. troops from supporting Saudi Arabia, to stop our money flowing into Saudi Arabia.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, you very eloquently nailed it when you said the interest of arms sales to Saudi Arabia is determining what we do there in terms of our policy in this horrible war in Yemen. But the Trump administration has very close ties to the Saudis. Tell us a little bit more about what else is determining this decision.

TULSI GABBARD: You know, this is where there is unfortunately a lot of hypocrisy, is that you have members of this administration and previous administrations, you have leaders in Congress who tout the necessity of the United States alliance with Saudi Arabia while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are the number one propagator of the Wahhabi Salafist ideology that is driving terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. And they are spending hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars spreading this ideology around the world and supporting these terrorist activities.

So, you cannot say that on the one hand, Saudi Arabia is our great ally in counterterrorism while on the other hand, Saudi Arabia is the number one country that is fueling the ideology that’s driving these terrorist groups that exist around the world. So, we have to hold leaders accountable for the decisions that they’re making and the policies that they’re furthering and continue to push them on the hypocrisy of these positions, continue to push leaders in Congress to remove this support of Saudi Arabia, and to stop spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on fueling this humanitarian disaster in Yemen.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been on our network talking about the way in which the Trump administration is pulling out dusted plans that Bolton had had advising the former Bush administration, bringing those plans forward. First it was Iraq, then it was Syria, then Iran is next. And the rise of Saudi Arabia’s power in the region has a lot to do with being able to implement this plan from the former Bush administration. So, most people are anticipating that this Saudi-U.S. alliance will mean that the next thing will be the war with Iran. Do you think that is an accurate assessment?

TULSI GABBARD: You know, there’s no question about how individuals like John Bolton in this Trump administration have long been wanting to start a war against Iran. There is no question we have to realize and recognize that this administration and leaders in the United States government are essentially taking sides in this generations-long Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict that we are seeing continuing to play out today in many of the countries that you’ve just stated, with countries like Saudi Arabia wanting to put extremist Sunni leaders into these different countries and use the United States and our military to continue to conduct these devastating and counterproductive regime change wars to benefit Saudi Arabia, not to benefit the people in these countries, not to benefit the United States.

So, we have to be honest and real about what the real motives are here, and the fact that many of these regime change wars that have cost the American people trillions of dollars since 9/11 alone have not only made the lives of the people in those countries worse, have not only increased their suffering, but have proven to be counterproductive to the United States interests, both in the increasing and strengthening of terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, but also in the fact that by spending trillions of American taxpayer dollars on these wars, that means we do not have those resources to invest in rebuilding and strengthening our communities right here at home.

Communities like mine in Hawaii that have dire infrastructure needs, communities like Flint in Michigan where kids and families and communities are continuing to be poisoned by their water source, and so many other things that we have in our country that are desperately needed. So again, we have to look at what the real cost of these wars are, who benefits from them, and make sure that our leaders are changing those policies so that we’re actually making decisions that serve the best interests of the people in our country.

SHARMINI PERIES: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, I thank you so much for joining us today and we hope to continue this conversation and keep the pressure on, as you do with the resolution in the House. I thank you so much for joining us today.

TULSI GABBARD: Thank you, Sharmini, wonderful talking to you.

SHARMINI PERIES: And you for joining us here on The Real News Network.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

17 comments

  1. Disturbed Voter

    True. If we had no allies, we wouldn’t have to be their bitch. George Washington was right, about avoiding foreign entanglements. And his policy toward Morocco was advanced for its time (we are traders, not crusaders). But the US has resumed being part of the British Empire since about 1938, thanks to the good cop/bad cop routine of Herr Hitler and PM Churchill. Our isolationism was to blame for the near victory of the Axis (so we are told), so we have had an interventionist Anglo-American policy since then.

    And that is why we were involved in the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and today’s War on Islam.

    The War on Islam came about because we took our eyes off the ball, in Afghanistan, and didn’t remain engaged with the terrorist allies we had supported there.

  2. Ignacio

    Saudi Arabia is also the main non-NATO weapon buyer in the world. It has been debated in Europe whether EU countries should stop selling weapons to the Kingdom.

    In the case of Spain there is a signed contract to deliver missiles

    Sources said that if the matter had not received public exposure, Spain could have found a technical pretext to avoid delivering the missiles without mentioning the Yemen conflict, which the Socialist (PSOE) administration of Pedro Sánchez has been sensitive to.

    This is interesting, if Cadena Ser wouldn’t have reported the true reasons for cancellation, the sale of bombs could have been cancelled on technical reasons. But then this then give us a clue on where the limits of solidarity are. It seems that saving a few hundred jobs on the shipyards is well worth to kill the debate about selling weapons to an agressor country practicing the logics of genocide wars.

    I am not feeling proud about how this issue has been handled.

    1. PlutoniumKun

      I think this is the achilles heel of all arms exporters. Once a few thousand jobs depend on orders from wealthy foreign countries, they pretty much control your political agenda. The Saudi’s in particular have known this for decades, hence their apparently random pick and mix approach to buying weaponry from all over the world. They don’t buy weapons, they buy alliances.

      Countries are caught in a paradox that they want their own arms industries in order to ensure domestic control and independence (and create jobs), but find that these industries themselves become a source of weakness in international relations. Not to mention that to operate internationally, arms manufacturers almost always have to be corrupt – you don’t sell weapons if you aren’t willing to pay bribes. Even the Swedes discovered this.

      1. Tomonthebeach

        Don’t overlook that We have been using the Saud family to keep the natives in line while we pump their oil and make them rich. If we do not suck up to them, they might jihad Israel. That might be a unifying force for Islamic genocide given that all Israel’s neighbors want to kill them off. Iran might become the super power of the region which would be terrible, because Persians have far more in common with the US both culturally and racially (not Arabs).

        But hey, even though Sauds made 9/11 happen, they are close personal friends of the Bush clan. That has to count for something, right? Plus, Big Oil would be terrified if we left the Saudi’s unprotected – it might speed the pace to electric cars – then where would they be?

      2. steelhead23

        Excellent. During the Cold War the U.S. excused its military support for brutal regimes on the argument that if they failed to provide arms, training, and intelligence, the Soviets would and we couldn’t have that. But today, the truth of what you say is obvious to all. I believe that the vast majority of Americans would support Tulsi Gabbard’s bill. It would not necessarily solve the problem of the U.S. acting in support of genocide, but at least we would have the debate.

  3. a different chris

    …it is completely unsurprising that the United States has continued its support for years now for Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen that

    Fixed it for Tulsi.

  4. Eureka Springs

    Over 5 million children are facing starvation and a cholera outbreak is raging in Yemen, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world…

    Lesson learned from this type of statement. If you are an adult, your life/death/suffering doesn’t count. Even when millions of you are in peril too. Especially if you are male. Left, center and right writers do this all of the time.

    Although watching social media explode when a puppy gets hurt yet say nothing when a story like this pops up says even more to me.

    1. Donald

      Your point is valid, but I wouldn’t read too much into this as far as the antiwar types are concerned. They aren’t saying that men have it coming. They are taking into account the problem you identify. The reason for stressing children is that warmongers are generally willing to rationalize the killing of adult men as justified because they are automatically assumed to be fighters. The Obama Administration claimed a remarkably low number of dead civilians from drone strikes because they counted every military age male as a “ militant” if killed by one of our drones. Which is complete nonsense and dehumanizing, as you say, but Americans are all too willing to shrug their shoulders and ignore the issue.

      But you can bypass the rationalizing by simply pointing out that children are being killed, though even there people will try to argue that child soldiers are being employed and so they deserve to be killed. I have heard people say this about Vietnam and about Palestinians. However, not even the most bloodthirsty types will look at photographs of starving children and try to justify that ( Madeleine Albright aside) —instead, they will try to blame the other side. Albright herself, with the Iraqi sanctions, tried to walk back her statement saying the sanctions policy was worth the dead children.

    2. louisXVII

      I live in northern California, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of acres of burned land, and many thousands of people who were burned out long before the fires began.

      Late stage capitalism is everyone against everyone else and it’s going to get tribal.

  5. oaf

    Where does Congress stand regarding U.S. support of genocide against Palestine?
    Presumably; the same general motivations apply…

  6. Chauncey Gardiner

    I agree with Rep. Gabbard. The policy of U.S. military support of Saudi attacks on Yemeni civilians should never have been implemented and needs to be ended. Further, it has become clear from this and other conflicts such as Afghanistan that the war powers of the executive branch need to be terminated and restored to Congress in accordance with the Constitution, and justification of future military actions being done in our name publicly revealed and publicly debated. This is a leadership failure.

    Beyond the ongoing obfuscation of U.S. military involvement, I have read or heard a number of different arguments by the policy’s proponents. They range from depriving enemies and potential enemies of control of a key strategic naval chokepoint and military bases, to preventing Iranian expansion or that of others in the region from becoming a threat to U.S. allies, to jeopardizing huge weapons sales and U.S. dollar hegemony if the U.S. were not to support these actions by the Saudi regime. There may also be other unstated arguments that reflect the values of executive branch policy makers and that are evident in the magnitude of this humanitarian crisis. None persuasively relate to U.S. security or the predominant values of the American people. In fact, it appears to me that the reverse is true.

    Yes, let’s do hope the Progressive Caucus in the U.S. Congress succeeds in evoking the War Powers Act and war powers that they have in order to put an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen.

    1. a different chris

      >I agree with Rep. Gabbard

      Yeah as do all thinking people. But we need a majority!

      Sigh, all kidding aside, we need a majority of the 1%. I little doubt that we have a majority of everything from college freshman to Deplorables, even likely the 90->99%, but that doesn’t count for anything at all.

  7. VietnamVet

    There is no confusion. It was stated plainly. “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo backed U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia… a cutoff could jeopardize $2 billion in weapons sales to Gulf allies”. This and the occupation of Eastern Syria for Israel to cut the Shiite Crescent are incredibly dangerous. Americans are damned lucky that it was Syrians who shot down the Russian Il-20 during the Israeli attack; not a SNAFU by the US military starting WWIII. Not protesting this is complicity by inaction.

    1. Edward E

      I always look to see what your take is whenever possible. Saudi ambassador to Russia on BUYING S-400 from Moscow : “HOPEFULLY, NO ONE WILL IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON US FOR DOING THAT”

  8. Procopius

    It has long been admitted that the U.S. military provides “intelligence” to the Saudis in their war, but from news about the bombing of the school bus we learned that there were American officers in the Saudi operations center at the time. It appears we are, in fact, providing them with targeting choices, too. Of course, Dyncorp and Raytheon are strongly opposed to bringing the war to an end.

Comments are closed.