٢٠٢٦٠٤١٠_١٤٠٢٢٠.jpg

التالى السابق

Waving the Use of Southern Forces to “Liberate the North” — A New Inferno for Southerners

REPORTS - منذ 7 ساعات

Eye of the South | Special Report.

Each time the flames of conflict intensify in the north, talk resurfaces about “engaging southern forces” in battles that show no clear end— as if the south were destined to be an open reservoir of manpower for every front, neither a partner in decision-making nor a beneficiary of the outcomes.

Despite the past and ongoing efforts of southerners in liberating northern provinces such as Al-Hudaydah and parts of Taiz, Marib, and Al-Mokha—where many southern fighters remain stationed to this day—southerners have paid a heavy price in blood, sacrificing countless martyrs. Now, a new cycle of attrition appears to be unfolding, through proposals to restructure southern forces and merge them into what is called the “National Army,” which Saudi Arabia intends to rely on in liberating northern territories. This narrative, repeatedly revived in moments of crisis, can only be read as an attempt to drag the south into a new inferno—one cloaked in the appealing slogan of “liberating the north,” but in reality aimed at exhausting what remains of the south’s strength and will.

Recent experience remains vivid in the collective memory of southerners, when battles far removed from their geography and priorities turned into a bloody quagmire. They paid a heavy toll without gaining political returns or even real guarantees for their future. Today, with renewed talk of new fronts, the scene appears to be a reproduction of the same scenario, with only the slogans changing, while the expected outcome remains the same: the exhaustion of the south and its diversion from its core issues.

What raises concern is not only the idea of deploying southern forces in northern battles, but also the manner in which it is presented—as an unquestionable duty or an imposed obligation dictated by alliances and regional pressures. This discourse ignores a fundamental reality: the south has a clear political cause tied to identity and the right to self-determination, and any military involvement beyond this framework must be carefully calculated, not an open-ended gamble.

Relying on the south as a tool in the northern conflict carries significant strategic risks. Instead of directing efforts toward building stable institutions and strengthening security and services, human and military resources would be drained in battles that do not serve domestic priorities. Over time, the south may find itself facing a security and economic vacuum, while northern fronts remain unresolved and ablaze.

More dangerously, such calls could create internal divisions—between those who see participation as necessary and those who reject it—threatening southern unity at a time when cohesion is most needed. Disagreements over priorities could evolve into a silent internal conflict, benefiting parties that seek to weaken the south and keep it within a cycle of dependency.

At the same time, a fundamental question arises: what will the south actually gain from engaging in northern battles? Are there clear political guarantees? Is there a vision for the post-war phase? Or are these merely vague promises repeated at every stage without fulfillment? Past experiences suggest that the south is often called upon when needed, only to be marginalized when gains are distributed.

Addressing this issue requires a realistic approach, free from emotion or pressure—one that prioritizes the protection and stability of the south above all else. Any decision to engage in conflicts beyond this scope must be part of a clear strategy, not a situational reaction or a response to external dictates.

In light of these factors, the rhetoric of deploying southern forces to “liberate the north” appears to be nothing more than a new label for an old equation—one in which the south is asked to pay the price without being a true partner in decision-making. As calls intensify and pressures mount, the real challenge for southern leadership lies in avoiding this potential inferno and preserving what remains of strength and will, in a battle that is no longer purely military, but profoundly political.