As you are no doubt aware, there have been a recent flurry
of reports of drones and missiles, fired by Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen,
against various naval and merchant ships.
Multiple US Navy ships have reportedly downed several drones and
missiles in self-defense. A normal
response would be to destroy the attackers.
Instead – and unbelievably - , the administration’s response is to
attempt to create some sort of international group to “tamp down” the attacks.
Our response to direct attacks is not to destroy the attackers but to “tamp down” the number of attacks???? So, apparently, there is some number of attacks that we consider acceptable as long as they’re “tamped down”? And we wonder why our forces aren’t deterring China, Iran, Russia, or NKorea?
History tells us with absolute certainty that appeasement
only begets more attacks.
______________________________
Last week, White House officials said they were working to create an international force to tamp down attacks.[1]
Our response to direct attacks is not to destroy the attackers but to “tamp down” the number of attacks???? So, apparently, there is some number of attacks that we consider acceptable as long as they’re “tamped down”? And we wonder why our forces aren’t deterring China, Iran, Russia, or NKorea?
https://news.usni.org/2023/12/11/lethal-drones-from-yemen-attacked-french-frigate-in-red-sea-say-officials
This is just my opinion, but I think that we are paralyzed by circumstances and too timid to act here.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama/Biden administrations seem to prefer to ally with the Iranians long-term in the Saudi-led vs. Iran-led cold war in the middle east. So they appear to be willing to put up with a lot of shenanigans so as not to damage that relationship.
They are also probably reluctant to act against Iran because Iran is a significant supplier of oil to China, and they don't want to upset that applecart either.
So they are at an impasse, and do nothing.
Again, just my observations.
Lutefisk
This dives into politics but ill try and skirt them...but do you think the US leadership is so compromised that Iran isnt viewed as the bad actor it is and the target it should be?? The way i see it, Iran has needed to get hit for a long time, and if their oil shipments to China stop...cool!! The clear ties between Iran, Hamas, and the Houthis says all i need to know to hit them and the Houthis. Israel doesn't need help wirh Hamas. But its long past time to remove the majority of Irans military capability, and id certainly target arms production sites and their oil export infrastructure as well. They should feel the pain thats brought about by their misdeeds...
DeleteThere is an unavoidable aspect of politics to this but we'll try to stick with the military aspects as much as possible. For example, from a military perspective, it is beyond stupid to place US forces in harm's way without aggressively responding to direct attacks. That can only lead to disaster. 99% successful defense is a failure. It only takes a single successful attack to result in dead sailors and sunken Burkes. No defense is 100% successful so disaster is assured. This is militarily stupid beyond belief regardless of the politics.
DeleteI really want to avoid partisan politics in my answer and just kind of say what I think I see.
DeleteI assume that the State Dept has factions within it. Some of those favor the Saudi coalition and others Iran.
There is something to be said for each approach, mostly negative.
The Iranians are major mischief makers and their actions are pretty well known.
But the Saudis are no angels themselves. They export a lot of chaos through their Wahhabi buddies (9-11 for example).
It's a choose your poison situation.
But US policy keeps swinging back and forth depending on who eeks out a narrow electoral victory.
The Bush's and Trump seemed to be Saudi oriented while the Obama/Bidens lean towards the Iranians.
In my opinion, the Iranians are more dangerous. And American support only seems to have emboldened their aggression, not tempered it.
If it was my choice to make, I'd hammer the Iranians by bombing their nuclear program and their oil shipping facilities.
That would put a big kink in international oil availability. But let's be honest, we don't need middle eastern oil anymore.
It makes no sense to me to coddle Iran as they launch proxy wars against our allies and we prop up the security of oil shipments to China.
That doesn't seem like a coherent strategy to me, but who am I anyway?
Lutefisk
Absolutely ridiculous. While there are a lot of things I think we probably shouldnt have done in past decades, one thing Ive always felt is that attacks should always be responded to with absolute, overwhelming force. Overkill doesnt exist (short of nukes). This lil Houthi problem shouldve been eliminated immediately. Its not like we have no idea where the missiles and drones are coming from!! With the sheer number at this point, at least some of them are clearly aimed at US assets. Thats all the reason I need to create multi-acre parking lots out of every single launch site. Destroy everything and kill everyone. Thats how its done. And collateral casualties?? Oops, sorry. Maybe the locals will tire of having groups like this in their midst...
ReplyDeleteWe have the worlds most powerful military, and we act like we're terrified to use it. The bad guys should fear us, and have lots of reasons to do so, including lots of dead compatriots. Theres a balance between judicious use and overuse of course, but the lack of will to even eliminate these pinprick clowns is absurd...
>" Its not like we have no idea where the missiles and drones are coming from!!"
DeleteDo we know where the attacks are coming from? My recollection (which seems to match prior posts by our host here) is that when there were a handful of similar incidents back in 2016 (also involving the USS Mason), the Navy wasn't even able to tell for certain if there had actually been attacks. (On the USS Mason, that is - the Swift, operating under a UAE flag at the time absolutely was hit by a missile.)
Have US capabilities grown or deteriorated since 2016? It seems possible to me that we (the United States) cannot decisively determine the details of how the attacks were launched, which could mean the administration is faced with a choice between vague retaliation (last time we claimed to have destroyed several radar sites), significant escalation (i.e. a large bombing campaign), or some political handwaving (like "tamping down" attacks via some sort of international cooperation).
I don't think any of those are particularly good options. But if our Navy and other branches of our military aren't capable of precise response, I don't know that there are better ones. In the long term, I suspect most readers here would agree with a need for purposeful top-down overhaul of our military, but even if the Biden administration had the desire and will to carry something like that out (which seems unlikely) it wouldn't address the immediate situation.
Yes im going to say we DO know. There are relatively small enclaves of Houthis. Do you think that with the large number of launches and interceptions, nobody has bothered to get some satellite intel of the area? It cant be that hard to retrace the tracks of the drones and missiles thatve been intercepted. Im not suggesting our intel is all-seeing, but if our military DOESNT know where the launch sites by now, its because we didnt look.
DeleteI'm not saying this is right, but I think the argument for restraint goes like this:
ReplyDelete- The Arab/Muslim world is incensed by the conflict between Hamas/Israel, and US support for Israel. The risk of losing US allies or governments friendly to the US in the region is real.
- The US attacking an Arab/Muslim country would make that situation worse.
- The risk to US Naval ships from Houthi rebels is much smaller than the risk to US Army forces and US support across the Mid East if tensions increase.
- So, at the moment, it's better to show "restraint" and act "with international partners" than to unilaterally bomb Yemen.
Again, I'm not saying it's the right choice, but it is an argument for the current path.
This is the stupid situation you get into when US forces are deployed across the region without a strong purpose and with their hands tied. In addition, the Europeans (not the US) should be taking the lead in safeguarding their commerce through the Red Sea, not the US. Pull the US out of the Middle East, and let the Europeans step up to defend themselves. Bad decisions lead to worse decisions - start with a coherent and consistent foreign/defense policy and avoid these confused wishy-washy quagmires with no upside. I seem to remember something about avoiding "foreign entanglements" somewhere...
" I think the argument for restraint"
DeleteI realize that the political aspect of this is unavoidable but we'll try to stick with the military aspects as much as possible. That said, you've offered a cogent argument for restraint whether I would agree or disagree with it. The flip side of the argument is that restraint (appeasement being another world for it) only breeds more aggression and is, therefore, ultimately a failure.
" the Europeans (not the US) should be taking the lead in safeguarding their commerce through the Red Sea, not the US."
I have to disagree with this to an extent. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that European countries should be doing much more, however, I would point out that ALL commerce, whether US-flagged or not, ultimately impacts the US economy. There is almost nothing being shipped on any merchant ship of any country that does not, in some way, shape, or form impact the US economy. That widget that is going to Spain is incorporated into a device that eventually winds up in a product sold in the US. And so on. The fact that the raw materials or component elements are not being shipped directly to the US on US-flagged ships doesn't mean that they aren't integrated into the US economy. The world is truly a gloal economy. So, we do have a vital interest in defending the sea lanes. To return to your point, it is disappointing that other countries are not shouldering a larger share of the responsibility and actions. We should be pressuring them to do so and we should be extracting a 'fee' (in whatever form) from those countries that do not contribute a fair share of the defense.
"This is the stupid situation you get into when US forces are deployed across the region without a strong purpose and with their hands tied."
DeleteAbsolutely. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. And if you stupidly do so, don't let it last for 20 years,
"While there are a lot of things I think we probably shouldnt have done in past decades, one thing Ive always felt is that attacks should always be responded to with absolute, overwhelming force."
Absolutely again. If you think it through, proportional force can only result in eternal quagmire.
If it's worth going in anywhere, then it's woth going in full bore, no holds barred, kill everybody who needs killing, break everything that needs breaking, and after whoever is left understands that if they don't behave we'll be back to kill them, then GTFO and stay TFO.
Ill agrer with that- get in/get out. Make the threat of coming back a credible one. With the actual capability we have, Im not above us being terrifying. People and countries can/will learn, if only we had the will to prove our rhetoric...even once...
DeleteComment deleted. While there is a political aspect to this, I won't allow blatant political policy comments. We'll discuss politics only as they directly relate to military/navy matters.
DeleteEconomics of the situation in the red sea are about to get real for Europe. Maersk line has said today they will no longer be sending ships through the red sea and the canal. A few more shipping lines follow suite and Europe will start feeling the pinch from longer shipping routes and delays. Just in time for Christmas and the New Year.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what shipping insurance rates are doing right now?
DeleteLutefisk
Shipping capacity is fungible so it is about to get real for all of us.
DeleteOnce done carpet-bombing the Houthis, the Iranian Navy should be sent to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. If you don't want to be attacked by proxies, the best way to stop that is to attribute any proxy attack to the principal (Iran) and to punish them accordingly. In my view, an appropriate punishment would be sinking Iran's entire fleet.
ReplyDelete-Huskers1995
While I would happily toss current US military "leaders" into an active volcano, this is first and foremost a political issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is the sort of situation where the military is supposed to ask civilian/political "leadership" for what to do and THEN find the best way to achieve those goals, whether the orders are 'get the hell out of there', 'conquer the whole damn place', or anything in between.
The problem of course is that most politicians are just as clueless and moronic as their military counterparts, so...
"the military is supposed to ask civilian/political "leadership" for what to do and THEN find the best way to achieve those goals"
DeleteYes, of course. However, wouldn't it be nice if the military were able to provide solid, viable, well thought out military options for the non-military-professional politicians to consider BEFORE making decisions?
Let's be honest, our military professionals are not exactly demonstrating their professional expertise recently, are they? The politicians are then left to imagine courses of action without the benefit of good military input.
Our military leadership is focused on everything but war.
Its called WOKE.
DeleteOur military leadership is focused on matters trivial compared to war which is what their focus should be on. Every single flag officer should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty and then fired.
DeleteI have always appreciated ComNavOps attempts to avoid politics. But....here goes,
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Sun Tzu "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
In the western tradition the belief is that governments (hopefully, but not necessarily, democratic in nature) determine war time strategy and then communicate it to the generals who then decide how to achieve the goals they have been given. This belief is a myth.
In fact, just as military operations and tactics change in reaction to the enemies actions, strategy changes in the face of shifting political, economic and military circumstances. The same adaptable generals who can easily adjust to changes in enemy tactics can find it difficult to understand changes in direction from the political leadership. By the same token few politicians have much expertise in operational and tactical military matters.
I don't think what we are seeing here is Strategy at all, I think we are seeing evolution. I think we are entering a new world. A world in which, almost alone among nations, the United States, since achieving energy self-sufficiency, does not need the rest of the world to survive.
The United States, having grown weary of their role as world policeman and having entered into a political/economic phase in their history where they do not believe they can afford that role, are stepping back from the post World War II order they created which has for so long sustained global order and prosperity.
The closing of the Red Sea to commercial traffic, and the response to it have nothing to do with Strategy, or even politics, in fact this is our future.
"I have always appreciated ComNavOps attempts to avoid politics."
DeleteAnd ... I'll continue to do so. However, on occasion, such as this, it becomes necessary to delve into just the 'tip' of politics in order to discuss military matters. Let's face it, politics and the military are inextricably linked.
"belief is that governments ... determine war time strategy and then communicate it to the generals"
You may be saying what I'm about to say but in different words and, if so, I apologize. Governments do NOT determine war time strategy. They determine geopolitical strategy (how we want to interact with other countries) from which derives military strategy from which derives operation planning.
We currently have no coherent geopolitical strategy and, to be fair, rarely ever have. Compounding that lack is the fact that our professional military leadership has never been so inept as it is now which makes formulation of any kind of military strategy an exercise in nonsense.
"The United States, having grown weary of their role as world policeman"
As a point of interest, the US has always had strong isolationist leanings as our delayed and much debated entry into WWII clearly demonstrated.
"We currently have no coherent geopolitical strategy and, to be fair, rarely ever have. Compounding that lack is the fact that our professional military leadership has never been so inept as it is now which makes formulation of any kind of military strategy an exercise in nonsense."
DeleteAmen to both assertions--no coherent geopolitical strategy and inept professional military leadership.
My thoughts about coherent geopolitical strategy include:
- We are in Cold War II and the enemy is China.
- Russia is still a danger because of its nuclear arsenal, but Russia no longer has the ability to be a true peer opponent, and its power is shrinking daily due to demographics.
- We won Cold War I because Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Soviet expansion into western Europe, and 40 years later Reagan put enough pressure on the USSR economy to bring down te Evil Empire. I think that might be a model for tis one as well. Bribe up an alliance among the countries threatened by China's nine dash line claims, and then once that is in place put pressure on Chima's economy. Despite robust appearances, there are some serious underlying problems. Apply pressure and China couldeasily fold.
- A policy of triangulating Russia against could be very useful.
My thoughts about military leadership would be to exercise a preference for warriors in promotion and command selection, and fire flag and general officers who don't meet that standard.
"As a point of interest, the US has always had strong isolationist leanings as our delayed and much debated entry into WWII clearly demonstrated"
I would advocate not an isolationisrt but rather a non-interventionist, approach. To describe thhe difference, North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Like Switzerland, we can have very robust economic and other interrelationships with many nations without wanting to become tied up in their daily affairs and internal workings.
I think a good rule would be, "Never fight a war that you don't intend to win." If it's not important enough to take whatever risks are imposed by fighting to win, then it's not important to fight over at all. In to win, or don't go in.
The objective would be to have the world's most powerful military, bar none, and never have to use it because nobody dares pick on us and we don't go around picking on them.
Apparently, the attack on the MV Platinum 3 is the first recorded instance of an ASBM (Anti-ship ballistic missile) being used in combat on a moving vessel.
ReplyDeleteWell I see where most of the major shipping companies are not going to use the red sea/canal route. (can't blame them). So a bunch of camel jockies with little effort and no loss to themselves (other than hardware expanded) just shut down one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. meanwhile the vaunted techno superior navies of the US/NATO sail around pounding their pud. What a pathetic bunch of losers (political and military). Dear China and Russia, you got nothing to worry about, go ahead and take what you want.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have some sympathy with your post, there is no reason to be racist as part of it.
DeleteIn reality, camel jockeys are largely 10 year old boys, which if you had spent any amount of time in the middle east outside a war you would know. Also, a lot of racing camel training is undertaken by robots.
So yeah, we don't like Houthis. But they have a reason they are fighting, and frankly they are kicking ass on the Saudis who we should really have a hard look at as allies.
Lots of dead civilians for what? Is it any wonder that the Houthis are trying to gain attention and perhaps support from the broader world order?
I question their methods, but if you look at the underlying problem, they have a point.
If you want to look at the broader military aspects, the home of fifth fleet in Kuwait is an easy target designation. so is Centcom at Al Udeid. Hell, I drove past it for years when I was working in Qatar.
And the one thing that the Iranians do is fairly accurate ballistic missiles, and lots of them. You can assume that every land based US affiliated target is mapped to the inch.
Iran as a strategic target is a freaking nightmare. I have spent years up on that border. Its either a farming swamp down in the delta with few defined roads capable of heavy transit, or serious mountains on the way out of the swamp, with only one path through it that is tank capable.
While we might be able to cause a lot of hell to the Iranian Navy, good luck with anything more serious. I've spent enough time there back in the day to understand the immediate issues, and how the Iranian people think. Most of them don't like the current theocratic leadership, but if you want to solidify them just start a war.
All right, that'll be enough of both the colorful descriptions of people and the culture/politics. We'll stick to military matters and, for this post, a bit of politics as it directly relates to military matters. Thanks for your cooperation.
Delete"Iran as a strategic target is a freaking nightmare."
DeleteThis is potentially fascinating although, I confess, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. You appear to be describing the difficulties in entering or moving a military force around Iran? Iran can be entered anywhere along the Iraq border or anywhere along the southern coast. Also, any difficulties you might imagine in moving around the country would be equally shared by Iran.
If you recall, prior to the start of the ground offensive in Desert Storm, it was predicted that the US would be lost in the vast, unmarked deserts and yet that's exactly the path we chose.
Iran presents many viable options for an attacking force.
I would also note that Iran can be beaten (depending on your definition of beaten) almost without requiring ground forces. Beating Iran consists of decapitating its leadership and that can be accomplished remotely using cruise missiles while simultaneously destroying relevant HQs and bases.
Decapitate the leadership, neuter the military, and leave the country alone and let the people come up with whatever government they want, if any. What we shouldn't do is attempt to occupy the country or impose a government.
I may be misunderstanding what your point was so feel free to expand on it.
Iran is a very difficult country to gain access to. Particularly when you limit your access routes to US friendly territory. The access across the Euphrates next to Basrah or Abadan is severely limited and easy to cut off. Try to get off the road and end up in marshland. Hence the nightmare that was the Iran-Iraq war. Once you get further upstream you are dealing with the Zagros mountains that make large-scale armor transport almost impossible. I spent quite a bit of time there in 2010, working for WesternZagros on the Kurdamir 1 discovery well just West of Sulaymaniyah and it was quite an education. Armed convoys and all just to get you to work. Later in 2014-15, I worked for Odjfell Well Services and we had just about everyone else as clients. Again, quite an education as many times we were so close to the border I connected to an Iranian cell tower. There is largely one pass through these mountains, and I can't imagine trying to get a convoy of tank transporters through there carrying Abrams in the face of any kind of opposition.
DeleteI have a ton of photos of this area, but no way to post them to the blog. In short, I would rather plan an invasion route through the Canadian Rockies than try it through the Iraq-Iran border.
If you want to invade from the Gulf, you can do fine over the coastal plains, but then you will hit the southern mountains and again you have a very limited choice of passes to get through. I was up in those mountains in 1976 fighting a huge gas well fire at Pazanan 49. Burned Sedco Iran 5 to the ground. Got to spend a lot of time with Iranians. Very nice people. Except at the time you didn't make jokes about SAVAK as the Shah was still in power. Now the name has changed but the agency is still there, much like the Russian KGB.
DeleteTransport in and out was "interesting" for values of interesting. I agree that a decapitation strike is the best way to go, but you better get everyone important on the first try. Iran/Persia has never been a soft target, and historically they usually find a way to strike back and make your life miserable.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the area, and I defer to those that have more knowledge.
DeleteBut I will say that I see no reason whatsoever to invade Iran.
We don't want to own that country, just to damage their economy so as to reduce their ability to make mischief.
Destroying their tanker loading facilities would stop their exports (and their smuggled exports).
The Iranian economy isn't going to function very well without oil income.
That would cause one heckuva ruckus internationally. The Chinese especially would howl in outrage at losing their 1mbd+ from Iran.
I would also simultaneously try and destroy their nuclear facilities....simply because that is something that really needs to happen.
I think that Israel is the only ally worthy of the name in the entire region, the rest are more trouble than they are worth.
After I got done hammering Iran, I'd drastically reduce our presence in the region.
Let the Iranians and the Saudis slit each others' throats, they don't need our help to do that.
Lutefisk
A further thought. Why isnt the marines trying out their new littoral concept there. Dijibouti is just across the way from the Houthis, the Navy can provide the targeting data and the new missle shooters can shoot. They wrecked the Corps. to be something new, lets see it in action.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, one of the problems with the Marine 'makeover' is that it is so narrowly tailored as to be generally useless outside of a China war and a very specific version of a China war, at that. Specifically, the Marine's missile shooting is for ANTI-SHIP missiles, not land attack. They don't have anything relevant to shoot with. They also have no targeting capability. Yes, I know you said the Navy could provide targeting but I don't believe the Navy has launch-quality targeting data, either. The Navy has no survivable surveillance/targeting assets such as a stealthy surveillance UAV.
DeleteYour question/comment exposes a host of problems with our current naval/marine force structure.
These situations are where we should have ships with artillery.
ReplyDeleteHave the Iowa's available with their 16" guns, have new Des Moines' with fast firing 8" guns, have destroyers with multiple 5" guns.
Those would be far more effective at wrecking coastal infrastructure like oil loading facilities than aircraft.
It would also be extremely intimidating for an enemy to see an Iowa on the horizon.
We are missing those tools in our arsenal.
Lutefisk
We're also missing the will to use any tools. An Iowa that we refuse to use wouldn't intimidate anyone. We're being directly fired on, repeatedly, and we're not responding. We have tools - perhaps not the ideal tools - but we refuse to use them.
DeleteThe Salem (Des Moines class) is still around. Its a museum ship in Quincy Mass. Of all places the museum of naval shipbuilding.
DeleteYep, not only are the plans available for the Des Moines but an actual ship is there to study.
DeleteThey could do great things building an updated version of that ship.
Lutefisk
" We have tools - perhaps not the ideal tools - but we refuse to use them."
ReplyDeleteHard to argue against that reality.
Lutefisk