The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have been attacking Western shipping in the Red Sea. Over at National Review, Charles Cooke says we need to teach them a lesson:
We’re trying to get on with our lives peacefully, and they’re interrupting it. And if the consequence of us dealing with it is that they escalate it, then we escalate it further until we blow them out of the water. It’s just very simple. This is statecraft 101.
Well, maybe not quite so simple. Most of the Houthi attacks are coming from ground-based drones and missiles, not ships on the sea. We're trying to destroy this capability, but it's virtually impossible to get it done solely via air attacks. To truly eliminate the threat you have to eliminate the Houthis, and that means boots on the ground.
And even that might not work. After all, Saudi Arabia has been fighting the Houthis for close to a decade with no apparent effect. The Houthis continued lobbing missiles into the Kingdom the entire time until a precarious truce was negotiated in 2022. The Saudis never even came close to destroying Houthi missile capability.
This is the problem with the default conservative position on war, which is basically "Hulk smash." It sounds good, but even the US has limits. We can't escalate every conflict infinitely, and the last couple of decades have surely taught us that even when we try it doesn't always work. Who runs Afghanistan these days after 20 years of American war and 2,400 American dead?
Maybe it's time for statecraft 102?
"[T]he default conservative position on war, which is basically "Hulk smash.""
That's a good way to put it.
You got that right. The U.S. reserves the right to bomb the shit out of anyone anytime we feel like it. What's "declaring war" got to do with it, especially when you're talking about a buncha ay-rabs?
Remember back in 1964 when those North Vietnamese torpedo boats harassed our destroyers? Boy did we teach them a lesson. They never expected us to send 500,000 troops over and stage B-52 raids on their cities. Only problem was, we still lost.
One of the bestest losses ever.
An old pilot friend, PanAm, was a pilot in WW2 and told me of flying French troops into Hanoi after Japan surrendered. Hope we learned the lesson to not fight other peoples wars. So far we have kept out of Ukraine.
I was in Vietnam in 1967 with a team investigating battle damaged M113's. My opinion after that trip was the best way to protect the troops was to bring them home. Sometimes you win big by losing. Russia may have the same result in Ukraine.
We had to relearn the Vietnam experience in Afghanistan. If the locals you support won't fight, don't fight their wars for them.
I agree with Kevin’s skepticism. The prospects for a military successful solution are small. It would be monumentally stupid for us to get involved in yet another Middle Eastern war. But at this point we already have. I hope Joe knows what the fuck he’s doing, because his presidency might well depend on the outcome.
"…his presidency might well depend on the outcome."
Not just "his presidency". Our democracy is at risk.
"We're trying to get on with our lives peacefully..."
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
I know, right? Peacefully supplying arms at huge profits to hostile states across the region. wtf indeed.
Well said Kevin.
I was under the impression that the Houthis were doing Iran’s bidding. If that is the case, why would we attack the puppet instead of the puppet master?
And no, I’m not advocating to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. But I suppose there are other non-combat related things we could do. Perhaps Biden is pursuing such things using diplomatic channels.
we don’t attack Iran because it’s got 80 million people and is 3x the size of Texas. we’d have even worse results there than in Yemen.
I don't think this is about eliminating the Houthis, though Cooke and other conservatives may believe in this. And there is no reason to declare war on the Houthis.
It seems to me, the Biden doctrine is all about slowly escalating our response to see at what point either (1) the Houthis (or name your favorite adversary) can't take it anymore or (2) they do something that gives Biden, by way of widespread American support, the green light to unleash hell.
The only point where we would put boots on the ground is if we hit that second part. If we hit that second part, we're likely going to war with Iran as well. Again, Iran really doesn't want to get into a war with us; they would be wiped out relatively easily.
"Iran really doesn't want to get into a war with us; they would be wiped out relatively easily."
Yeah, just like we wiped out the communists in North Vietnam, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and planted a flowering democracy in Iraq.
I forgot to put in the reason why Iran does not want to get into a war with the US, which I've done previously.
Iran wants US out of the ME so that it can extend its power and influence over it. If they get into a hot war with the US, all that goes away. They will have their military wiped out and lose most of its influence in the ME.
You mentioned Iraq. Iraq is certainly no longer the influence and power broker it was under Saddam. Neither is Libya after Gaddafi.
The US is not going to occupy Iran; they're just going to wipe out the IRGC and take out the military, disempowering Iran's Ayatollah, if not removing him.
Although I agree with Kevin on this, I’d also like to make a slightly different point. I think we should try reaching out to the Houthis diplomatically. They are, after all, fighting against Saudi Arabia, which country essentially attacked us on September 11th but which has completely escaped the consequences of that attack by essentially bribing our elites.
We are in a position to offer the Houthis far more aid than Iran. This will achieve two important objectives. First, we will reduce or eliminate attacks on shipping in the area. Second, we will be able to begin the process of taking our revenge against the Saudi regime which needs to pay for the death and destruction it inflicted upon us.
The Saudi regime is no fan of Al Qaeda. When they get hold of these people they tend to kill them after a very unpleasant interrogation.
The Houthi slogan (Ansar Allah) is: "God is Greatest. Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews."
They are tightly linked with Iran, religiously as well as financially. We're not gonna be able to walk in and say, "Hey, we can give you a few bucks more. Friendsies?"
Cooke imagines US military power is unstoppable. You're awfully close to imagining US economic power is unstoppable. Both have limits, and it's the height of arrogance to imagine otherwise.
Whoops, left off a line of the Ansar Allah slogan. The last line should be "Victory to Islam".
"Saudi Arabia, which country essentially attacked us on September 11th but which has completely escaped the consequences of that attack by essentially bribing our elites."
No. Saudi Arabia revoked Osama bin Laden's citizenship years before 9-11. And the rest of the bin Laden family disowned him, again, years before 9-11. There's a reason he was living in a hut in Afghanistan rather than in a mansion in Saudi Arabia like the rest of his family.
I am by no means favorable to Saudi Arabia, but on this issue I share the view of every presidential administration since the attack: the Saudi government was not behind 9-11. You can read "The bin Ladens" by Steve Coll to learn more about this.
Above comment was meant as a reply to Mitch above.
I personally think that the repeated invocation of the State Secrets doctrine together with the statements of members of congress regarding the suppression by the American government of evidence of Saudi involvement in September 11 (the infamous 28 pages, for example) suggests very strongly that the Saudi government knew of the plot, supported the plot, and basically funded the plot. We needed to take reprisals against the Saudis then and we should not let them escape the consequences of 9/11.
I would say that we should strongly support the Houthi in their war against Saudi Arabia both on the merits and also as a way of hitting back at our enemy.
Agree.
Don't you think theb first step would be to have better evidence that the Saudis wereb behind 9 11 than just the fact that the US is not releasing all of it's information about what happened?
You're omitting a critical fact: Osama bin Laden absolutely HATED the Saudi government. He repeatedly called them corrupt infidels, and worse, and clearly meant what he was saying. He stuck to that message even after it cost him his family, his fortune, and his home.
But now you are suggesting that the government of Saudi Arabia colluded with him to execute 9-11? Please. I note that you are not presenting any actual evidence to support this - you are pointing at a blank, and telling us to wear tinfoil.
Depends on what you mean by "the Saudis." If you're talking about the government at the highest levels -- the king, the top princes, military generals, etc. -- then no, I don't think there is strong evidence "the Saudis" were "behind 9/11." But there were clearly elements, some quite powerful, in the KSA who were supporting Al Qaeda and Islamic radicals in various places either directly or indirectly to whom the government and security services more or less turned a blind eye. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
+1
Diplomacy is enhanced by credible military threat. Perhaps a blockade of everything except food and medicine, cruise missile attacks against Houthi leadership targets of opportunity, and limited special forces actions? (Of course, the last two might require intelligence we do not have --- the US is not omniscient and getting the information to do these things takes time and is not guaranteed to be successful).
The real problem is Iran, but I think we low on sticks short of war to hit them with. But a nice target might be to try to separate the Houthis and Iran some.
While true that the Houthis enjoy Iranian support, this facile "the Iranians control everyone" viewpoint is an entirely fabricated western talking point put forward with the sole purpose of instigating direct conflict with Iran.
If there were only someway to know why the Houthis are doing what they are doing...hmm how to find out?
Western intelligence has been all over this for a decade or more and the Western talking point about Iranian influence on these groups is probably based on that. See, there is a good chance that we already know why the Houthis are doing that and that.
Your idea of some sort of plot makes no sense in that the US even under Trump did NOT want a general war with Iran and would have no incentive to set something up, there have been good reasons to strike Iran for literally decades, and it presupposes a completely and inaccurately cynical world where the USG is Putinesque in its levels of deception. Please.
Seriously? It's not a mystery why they're doing this: They gain prestige by attacking and humiliating their two greatest foes (The US and Israel). The mystery would be if they *weren't* doing this.
“Get on our lives peacefully” as we fund and empower an apartheid state in the midst of a pseudo-genocidal tantrum.
Too true.
Marie Antoinette would be so proud...
Lobbing a few missiles at targets in Yemen as reprisal for attacks on merchant shipping is to be expected. The Houthis certainly expected it. Let's not contemplate any more aggressive action on out part. It would be stupid.
My feeling is that Saudi Arabia is more of our fundamental enemy than Iran. They, and Israel, have long been eager for us to fight Iran. As the old saw goes, they themselves are willing to fight Iran to the last drop of American blood and the last bit of American treasure.
I rejoiced at the Obama administration's nuclear pact with Iran. It was a great piece of diplomacy. It put off Iran's nuclear arms development and invited them back into the world a bit with a reduction in sanctions. Maybe, maybe relations could have thawed enough that the Iranian nuclear threat would disappear. Maybe our relationship could be normalized.
In his hatred of all things Obama, and with the encouragement of the Saudi's and the Israeli government, Trump blew the deal up. Since Putin was the big winner in this, I've always assumed he was behind it too. Relations between Russian and Iran probably got much closer when the deal was scuttled.
Why Biden hasn't reinstated the deal is a mystery to me. Maybe it is domestic politics. Maybe it is because the Iranians know that no deal with the US means anything if it isn't a treaty. A treaty requires 2/3rds approval by the Senate and Joe isn't even going to get that for declaring December 25th Christmas.
Why Biden hasn't reinstated the deal is a mystery to me.
I believe they've tried to restart some talks via backchannels, etc., but the Iranians have just told us to get bent at this point. They're not interested in sticking their necks out again only to have another US president like Trump fuck them over. Can you really blame them?
What will Statecraft 102 teach us?
That some trivial Middle Eastern population can just keep it up no matter what?
The only thing that can have any effect is if you bomb them into near extinction beacause their aesthetic is that they're already bombed into near extinction.
That or you would have to remove their capacity to do anything at all, which means you would have to bomb Iran into near extinction.
But now I'm wondering how does Iran keep them supplied? Is it really that hard to isolate them?
Afghanistan is hardly an argument fire de-escalation. Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban because Bidden wanted to deescalate by withdrawing US troops instead of escalating to fight the Taliban.
No, Trump signed the withdrawal agreement in 2020, when Biden was a private citizen, which freed 5,000 Taliban fighters. Then he reduced US Troop presence from 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued attacks on the Afghani government and welcomed al-Qaeda into their leadership.
Biden (not Bidden) was implementing the Trump plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Smarter trolls, please.
Yes, if only Biden had escalated the fight against the Taliban then it finally would have been successful. 20 years of evidence to contrary being ignored of course. Is that you Rip Van Winkle?
Isn't Cooke English? Maybe he should review how the escalate-and-be-damned principle he's plumping for worked out in Cape Town back in the day, or on the frontiers of the Raj. In case he's forgotten.
Looking at WWII data, the last clear war win, (imo), 6% of the total Japanese population died as a result of the war, Germany fared worse, 11% of total population.
Yemen has a population of 52.9M, taking a close Medial of 9% total deaths, would mean approximately 2.97 Million Dead Yemeni's.
The same problem obtained in Afghanistan...44M population, need to kill 4+M Afghani's.
Doable in all instances, but hard on the soul.
BTW I blame Ronald Regan for all of this...efforts to curb or voluntarily restrain world populations were directly blocked by him and his administration.
Further, see the pop numbers for Gaza over time, they are ridiculous.
Traveller
...I apologize, the current population of Yemen is 34.5M, the number in 2020 was 32.9...I mistyped a 5 for a 3...(stuff happens). Sorry. Best Wishes, Traveller
There are not many accusations about the CIA that one can make that aren't deserved, but for maintaining our imperial dominance in places like the Middle East, covert actions are both necessary and useful. The danger lies in letting covert forces have free rein in places like Afghanistan, or in this case, the Red Sea. I think that Biden knows this -- and he learned much in the Obama administration about it. More than Obama, I suspect, because of the slowdown in drone assassinations.
The problem is that even with a competent administration in the White House, the CIA can pull some s*&t that will throw a wrench into the works. I trust the security forces of the US a little more than those of many foreign countries, but I don't trust the Houthis or any other armed militants in the Mideast at all. That includes Israel, which is now the mirror image of Hamas (thanks, Hamas!).
Question: Why should the U.S. get involved in this particular regional conflict? What do we stand to gain from interference? What do we stand to lose? In short, is the candle worth the game? Per Paul Krugman's latest, it doesn't seem so.
Krugman is an economist. He makes a very good case that allowing this disruption of trade will have little effect on US inflation.
But there are other costs, less tangible but no less real. Allowing a small, semi-state player to shut down a major trade route would be an awful precedent. It'd be a pullback from US support for international order, as well as an abandonment of a US ally.
Perhaps you think we should abandon Israel? If so, we should do so explicitly, giving our reasons for doing so. Just ignoring our responsibilities would be...very Trumpian. Imagine Trump had proposed this, what would you think? I'd oppose it wholeheartedly.
We should ask them nicely to stop.
Good manners will be certain to calm the whole situation and make things easier for everyone.
The math seems simple to me, the most recent US strike destroyed 4 Houthi ballistic missiles (plus launcher, and other infrastructure needed to attack ships), using 1 Tomahawk missile, is probably cheaper than using 4 air defense missiles after they are launched at shipping in the Red Sea.
Seriously, the economic cost of disrupting 10% of all worldwide trade volume is a significant, and after 27 mostly indiscriminate attacks on shipping, something needed to be done. I see no desire or need for the US/UK to engage in broader actions other than destroying, from the air, the Houthi missiles, drones, and radar assets used to attack ships. Hopefully they can significantly degrade their capabilities and impart an unacceptable cost for continuing theses attacks.
When the Houthis sink a USN aircraft carrier, that could be considered a 'Hulk smash.' One the rest of the world will recognize as a signal.
What I've seen about Saudi air capabilities is that their air force is kind of a playground for bored semi-royals who like to fly fast jets. So I don't think it's material that they weren't very effective against Houthi emplacements, especially when you consider how complicated and convoluted allegiances must be in the farther reaches of the kingdom and how people there might react to Saudi big-footing in Yemen. I don't think it's bragging to say that our capabilities against these emplacements are a quantum jump better than the Saudis'.
But they're not immaculately effective, and we just have to accept that. There's no ground role for US forces there. Even SEAL-type raids would be a stretch I wouldn't want to see us take. The Arabian peninsula might look empty on a map but as Traveller points out, there are as many people in Yemen as in California. They're not friendly to Americans, and the terrain isn't favorable for how we like to operate. Overall, ground operations would be a recipe for disaster, no matter what Cooke might have in mind. And lucky for us, Biden is extremely wary about ground involvements in non-Western parts of the world.
When forces do what the Houthis are doing, you have to respond in ways that make sense for who you are, what you have, and where you want to end up. Have to have that in mind from the start.
In general, the Saudi armed forces are well armed but totally ineffective. The work is too dirty and they just aren't interested in doing it.
If the Houthis attacked a USN carrier, that would be remarkable. How would they even get close without their forces being wiped out? It hasn't been done since 1945.
If you start from the position "The National Review's positions are always based on either stupidity or dishonesty" you're at a pretty good starting point.
Sounds about right. Myself, I figure our genial host goes there for rage fuel (well okay, for the gamut from mild disappointment to apoplectic outrage-- maybe a guessing game of anticipating just where on the scale any given piece will take him).
Pingback: Weselsky investiert in eine neue Brandmauer für Lindners Chipfabrik, um den Sprachwandel aufzuhalten - Vermischtes 23.01.2024 - Deliberation Daily