Looks like we're going to be attacking...

Come come now. I answered your question in my own way - a genuine response. Your answer however is simply commentary on the nature of the exchange. A meta-answer if you will. Let me ask again.

Should Britain be the only country other than the US that is lobbing missiles into Yemen?

that is all very well as an observation. But asking that question as a Yes/No is avoidance, because everyone* would prefer and can sign up to a wish that shouldn't be the case. 

The reason t's a cop out is it simply repeats what all would want, while avoiding the difficult questions of "Who?" and "But what if?".

If one is of the view that no-one should be, including the US, then that is a valid and thoroughly debatable point.

If one is saying it mustn't be  then it is also incumbent on one to say who else should/must be be on board. The only answer I saw previously included two countries each with a population less than 1/10th that of the UK, who simply do not have anywhere near the same level of force projection capabilities that the UK has (and even that is now getting pretty ropey). That is not an expectation or wish that is rooted in military reality.

The list of the 'able' is a pretty short one. It would include France. They have decided to not be involved.  

So yes not all those that are able have got involved. Hence the next question is: given that, should the UK have also refused to get involved ? If one's answer to that is yes, then essentially that reduces the position to:

1. Nothing should be done, and the attacks on both merchant ships and our own naval vessels should go unanswered
or
2. there should be a response, but we should rely on and leave it solely to the US to shoulder.

if that question isn't answered, then "we shouldn't be the only ones" is a hollow statement: we can all agree with it, but it says nothing about what position to take in the event that.


*who thinks that some action is reasonable

Maybe we should paint French/Italian/German etc flags onto the missiles we "lob"

there has to be a diplomatic / economic answer ie you lob missiles at boats no-one trades with you till you stop, and I include aid payments / deliveries in trade

If only it were that simple .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016-present)

you could have argued the same in South Africa and elsewhere that sanctions tend to hurt the poor and disadvantaged 

Honestly I believe that the Houthis wouldn't be using drones etc to attack shipping without explicit instructions from the paymasters in Iran, indeed I would go so far as to suggest that IMHO it is likely they are supplied by Iran

A couple of things we should bear in mind:

1) It is not Yemen - as in the recognised state - that is launching the attacks. And indeed the formally recognised govt. has condemned them.

2) It is the Houthis, who - in terms of international recognition - are not the actual government. 

3) While they are an anti-Yemeni govt. movement, they are also an anti-US, Israel (and Saudi Arabia) movement. I'm not sure they are as much into 'economic planning' as they are into creating chaos amongst the heretics.

4) Yemen is a failed state (see 1,2 and 3). As such actions calibrated to impact at a country level are not likely to be appropriate/effective

5) Yemen is a bit of a humanitarian disaster (see 1,2,3 and 4). This is one of the reasons that Biden had removed the 'terrorist movement' label that the Trump administration had placed on the Houthis: better to enable both aid and dialogue. Of course recent actions have prompted a reversal of that decision. 

OK, that's 5 things.

EDIT: I had originally read keitha's post as perhaps suggesting that restricting water supply to the country was potentially being suggested. This was in the context of prior post talking about 'economic action'. It is possible that wasn't being suggested, and was more about commentary on reasons for their being a famine (water use for cash crop).  Nonetheless my comments I think are valid in their own right.