Syria and Yemen; Cambodia and East Timor

When I first started to read Noam Chomsky, I noticed that he had a most disconcerting habit.  He responded to any mention of Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia by downplaying them and by changing the subject to East Timor. 

What is East Timor?  East Timor is an island belonging to the same archipelago as Indonesia, but a former Portuguese colony, whereas Indonesia was a former Dutch colony.  While Indonesia gained its independence following WWII, East Timor remained a Portuguese colony until 1975, at which point it attempted to establish itself as an independent republic.  Indonesia did not take kindly to the attempt and invaded.  Its bloody attempt to subjugate East Timor continued at least ten years, and the occupation did not end until 1999.

At the time, invariably changing the subject from Cambodia to East Timor seemed like a case of "whataboutism."  Chomsky was wrong to dismiss or minimize atrocities in Cambodia which were, in fact, on a greater scale than the ones in East Timor.  He did, nonetheless, have a point.  In the end, there was not much we could do about the Khmer Rouge.*  Indonesia's atrocities, by contrast, were being committed by an allied government that we were arming and therefore actively abetting.  Furthermore, no US interest was actually served by Indonesian's actions, so it would cost us nothing to restrain our ally.  We did not.

This comes to my mind whenever I read Daniel Larison.  Larison differs from Chomsky in accepting that it is reasonable and acceptable for the US to pursue its interests (Chomsky considers it evil an illegitimate).  Nonetheless, he responds to all talk about atrocities in Syria by changing the subject to Yemen.  Yemen is a country on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula that is experiencing a civil war between pro-Saudi and pro-Iranian factions.  The pro-Iranian faction seized power in 2014.  Saudi Arabia has been attempting to restore its faction since 2015.  Saudi Arabia has been blockading Yemen, leading to famine and disease, and at least sometimes bombing civilian targets.

The situation Syria/Yemen is not unlike Cambodia/East Timor.  Two bloodbaths are going on.  The more severe is being committed by a hostile power.  We are passively allowing it to take place.  On the other hand, stopping it would require military intervention with uncertain prospects of success and the real risk of a super power confrontation.  The lesser one is being committed by an ally, armed and equipped by us, but not serving our interests in any meaningful way.  We could, presumably, put an end to it by refusing to abet it any further.

Which should be our priority, the worse bloodbath, or the one that we can more easily stop?

________________________________________
*And, ironically enough, when the Khmer Rouge was finally swept from power by the pro-Soviet Vietnamese, our response was to support it as a resistance in the name of resisting Soviet power.