The specific way this has been divided is that "defensive" actions where we kill people to "stop a new ISIS from arising" are still allowed. But we won't do "offensive" actions like.... helping Saudi Arabia bomb things just because they are bored? It's not actually clear what actions couldn't be justified as defensive, but presumably some of them won't be even if they could be.MGuy wrote:Biden is now talking about ending US support from Yemen. Arms sales, seeking diplomatic talks, military operations, etc were mentioned. He also assures that we will continue to defending the Saudis still. A very out of left field thing given that I don't think making this move was even necessary for him. A definite good thing even if defensive support of the Saudis might still give an 'out' to doing unsavory things in Yemen.
However, it's also not "very out of left field." Remember that back when Donald Trump was president Bernie Sanders arranged the passage of a bill in a republican senate to stop the continued support of the KSA war on Yemen.
Trump vetoed it. But you can see why Biden choosing to change the rules now is actually not out of field. Cynically, it means instead of a law stopping us being passed, that the President can always do it again later if he wants. More generously, the consensus has reached the point we don't actually want to continue stopping the worst ongoing war crimes in the world, and Biden has always been a very consensus actor and so he is moving around that consensus.