We need congressional debate on Yemen
By Daniel R. DePetris, opinion contributor @ The Hill - 03/28/17

On Sept. 6, 2016, a bipartisan group of senators — Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.) — did something unprecedented in Washington: They challenged the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and convinced more than a quarter of the Senate to stand with them.

At issue was a $1.5-billion-arms sale that, if approved, would deliver a variety of weapons and ammunition to the Saudi military, including 153 Abrams battle tanks, 153 M2 .50 caliber machine guns and 4,256 rounds of training ammunition.

The arms package was explained by the Obama administration as a routine arms sale between two allies. But Paul and 26 of his colleagues simply didn't buy that argument. To them, the sale amounted to a blank check for Riyadh to continue prosecuting its war in Yemen with an iron fist, regardless of the humanitarian ramifications on one of the poorest countries in the Arab world.

Although that sale was eventually approved by the Senate, the bipartisan joint resolution of disapproval forced the chamber to debate America's involvement in the Yemeni civil war for the first time since the conflict began in March 2015.

According to reports, the Trump administration is prepared to approve another arms sale of smart bombs to the Saudi-led coalition. Unlike the battle tanks last fall that one could plausibly argue were for self-defensive purposes, the $350 million package of 16,000 GPS-guided munitions serve only one purpose: maintaining Saudi Arabia's air campaign over its southern neighbor [....]