‘Multi-domain’ is the current buzzword and fad of the month
in the US military although, in practice, it seems to just be gibberish-speak
for more computers and more unmanned assets.
That aside, the basic concept is that you wage war not just on the kinetic
level but on additional levels such as the electromagnetic, public relations,
Internet, space, and so on.
Unfortunately, one of the major domains that has the most potential
impact is also the most overlooked and ignored and that is the financial domain.
Consider the current Houthi conflict.
We’re trading shots back and forth with the Houthis and,
clearly, not deterring them in the least.
This is yet another in an endless list of demonstrable failures of
deterrence for those of you who believe deterrence is effective but, I digress …
The point is that our minimal attacks are having little or
no effect. This is quite similar to the
ISIS truck-plinking that we engaged in some years ago and which had zero
impact.
If we were serious about ending the Houthi actions, we’d
focus as much on the financial domain as the kinetic and it would likely
produce far better results. The Houthis
must finance their operations, weapon acquisitions, weapon component
acquisitions, shipping and transport costs, ‘soldier pay’, etc. That financial mechanism is not just a local,
village level network. They’re engaged
in global financial dealings with suppliers, Iran, and others. That financial network represents a major center
of gravity and extreme vulnerability for the Houthis. We have the means to completely shut down
their financial network, halt bank transfers, seize assets, freeze and seize
bank accounts, etc. I’m not a financial
expert so these are just the conceptual, top level ideas that I’m aware
of. I’m sure our government accountants
and financial experts could devise much more extensive and effective
methods. We should also be tracking and
covertly eliminating links in the Houthi financial chains … you know, CIA type
work.
Waging war is not cheap and the Houthis are not above the
financial requirements. In fact, being a
smaller operation, relative to the US, they are more vulnerable to financial
disruptions. Of course, it would help if
we would stop giving billions of dollars to Iran![1]
I know that the administration will claim to be applying
some sanctions against the Houthis but we are a universe away from bringing the
full weight of our financial combat capability to bear. Just as our occasional strikes accomplish
nothing, a few minor sanctions also accomplish nothing.
We need to either bring our full military and financial
might to bear on the Houthis in a true multi-domain fight or we need to leave
the area. What we’re doing is
accomplishing nothing and risking everything.
One lucky hit on a warship and the Houthis win on the global stage.
As with so many things, our military and government (largely
one and the same!) pay lip service to concepts but refuse to actually carry
them out to the maximum extent. We talk
about multi-domain combat but largely refuse to engage in financial combat
which has, arguably, the most potential to produce the desired results.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/11/us-iran-sanctions-waiver-americans-detained-iran
The government backed by the Suadis put out a request that they should receive support to fight the Houthis as a way to combat them. That may or may not be worth looking into.
ReplyDeleteCan they be effective if more directly suuported by the US?
If so, is it worth the cost?
Is it worth probable reputational costs?
How would it affect other actors in the region as far deterrence?
These are some of the questions that our spooks and diplomats should mull over.
One of the major problems the US has is that it treats war as a partial endeavor, the intensity of which is regulated by polls and global opinion. A war should be entered into only if there's a compelling national interest at stake. If that's the case, polls and global opinion should be irrelevant. If there is no compelling national interest then we shouldn't be fighting.
DeleteIs there a compelling national interest at stake in this Houthi scenario? One can certainly make a strong argument for exactly that but until our political leadership lays out that argument, we shouldn't be anywhere near the area.
This is not a political blog so I'll leave it at that. Readers can make their own judgement about whether we have a compelling interest.
"If that's the case, polls and global opinion should be irrelevant"
DeleteI believe his is one of our biggest stumbling blocks...going all the way back to Vietnam. Theres plenty of catchy phrases and memes about being "in it to win it", but thats seriously our problem. The Houthis are an annoyance, like Hamas. If we were serious, we'd go after Iran, and curtail everyones funding!! And while we're there, eliminate all of Irans military capabilities and means of production. Absolutely devastate and obliterate all of it. B-52s, carpet bombing, mass strikes, US DDGs shooting up oil terminals, SSGNs going Wincester, whatever. Then seize every single dollar even remotely connected to them, and use it to resupply the ammo expended, among other things. And if nations, probably in the EU protested, a solid, public "we dont give a rip what you think" should follow. We either retake control of the world order, or we step aside. Either we use EVERY kinetic and other option to destroy and deter future problems...
OR...we just dont get involved.
At this point its hard not to lean isolationist if we wont actually do whats needed...
And as an added benefit of absolutely going postal... Would China be so confident about taking Taiwan or harassing countries like the Phillipines if we showed that we were perfectly willing to use everything we had in a fairly brutal fashion, world opinion be damned, without hesitation??? I think not. THATS deterrence...not the FONOPS and othet silly things we do...
DeleteCorrect!
Delete"If we were serious about ending the Houthi actions, we’d focus as much on the financial domain as the kinetic"
ReplyDeleteIsn't this what the Huti are doing? They force America to deploy mega-billion-dollar assets and expends multi-million dollar missiles to intercept cheap rockets or blow up some used Toyota.
In terms of money, big win for them.
"Isn't this what the Huti are doing?"
DeleteNo, not really. I doubt they've considered it in that light but, regardless, they're not on the winning side of that cost exchange. A lost dollar is far more important to a man who has only ten dollars than a hundred dollar loss is to a millionaire. While the US is, arithmetically, losing the cost balance in the weapon exchanges, a million dollar missile means less to us than a thousand dollar missile or UAV means to the Houthis unless they're very much better funded than I believe.
So, no, not a big win for them.
That doesn't mean we can sustain throwing million dollar missiles away indefinitely but we're not the ones losing in this exchange, assuming it doesn't go on for years.
"We need to either bring our full military and financial might to bear on the Houthis in a true multi-domain fight or we need to leave the area."
ReplyDeleteThe Houthis and their sponsors Iran, at minimum.
CDR, you are right.
DeleteTo hurt the Houthis financially, we have to hurt Iran which provides the funding.
Houthis don’t view loss of life as a problem, but if we bombed Bandar Abbas so Iran cannot get foreign currency or blocked Iranian tankers from leaving the Gulf to sell oil to China, we could cripple the Houthis in days.
CDR Chip, I trust this helps you see that deterrence is a fantasy of wishful thinking? If a carrier battle group and various other ships can't even deter the Houthis, there is simply no chance that deterrence can be effective against China. This is just one more nail in the deterrence coffin. There is a mountain of real world evidence that deterrence is a false concept.
DeleteLike Mike Tyson once said, deterrence only works if you are willing to throw a hard punch to the face once in a while (or something like that). Unless those carriers launch some strikes and turn something into a parking lot, the deployment only helps the enemy by wearing down the aircraft and crew.
Delete"Unless those carriers launch some strikes"
DeleteI understand the point you're trying to make but keep in mind the point of the post. We have launched carrier strikes but they're nothing more than pinpricks to the Houthis. The point of the post was that you have to not just hit an occasional launch point; you have to hit the launch points, assembly areas, factories, Iranian shipping, bank accounts, money transfers, food supplies, ... everything that supports the Houthi war effort - and you have to do it all at once and continue doing it until there's nothing left of them.
We're attempting some kind of proportional, one for one strike/counterstrike, half measure designed to ... well, I don't know what it's designed to do but it won't accomplish anything except leave us in danger and waster our resources.
All or nothing. There's no other way to wage a successful war. A few carrier strikes won't do anything. We're basically doing the same truck-plinking we did with ISIS and that accomplished nothing, either.
There is a miss understanding among man patriots - the nation lacks willingness, not strength.
ReplyDeleteIran has been under US sanction for a long time already. It does produce something, include some missiles. Houthi has been declared as terrorist group by UN Security Council thus under US sanction for a long time.
Houthi is on a position of nothing to lose as its territory is in destitution economically. To solve the problem, Biden needs to mobilize large number of troops and get Middle East nations to participate. Saudi fought Houthi 8 years under US supports but gone nowhere. Last year, they reached another cease fire after restored foreign relation with Iran. They had enough.
To blockade Iranian missiles and parts to Houthi, Biden needs to send large fleet plus ground troops. Not just Biden, many Americans loath another Afghan War like operation. Worse, other nations are not willing to help. At the same time, Russia is happy to help Iran, thanks to these ignited Ukraine War in hope of topple Putin, split Russia and remove its nuclear weapons.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/united-states-navy-essentially-lost-battle-sea-yesterday
ReplyDeleteI don't mind links but I'd prefer to see some value-added commentary to go with it. How about it?
DeleteIt's an over-generalization to say deterrence doesn't work. More accurately, it doesn't ALWAYS work. Every war is a failure of deterrence, and there are a lot of those, but that doesn't mean deterrence can't be effective. Arguably the biggest success of deterrence was the Cold War: 40 years without a major direct conflict that could have destroyed the world.
ReplyDeleteIt seems more like deterrence can work when it causes rational decision makers to see conflict as a bad choice. In this case, the decision makers in Iran don't see a lot of downside to a US/Houthi conflict in Yemen, so there's not much deterrence leverage. I guess the next logical conclusion is "make the potential pain to the Iranian leadership credible..."
"More accurately, it doesn't ALWAYS work. "
DeleteMore accurately, it NEVER works.
You're laboring under a common misconception, that the Cold War represented successful deterrent against the Soviet Union. The reality is that, despite the passage of decades, the fall of the Soviet Union, the release of untold thousands of documents, etc. there has been not a single document or testimony indicating that the Soviet Union ever planned to invade Europe. Thus, since there was no hostile intent, there could be no deterrence. You can't deter what was never going to happen.
Deterrence has never been proven to work. Admittedly, that's trying to prove a negative which isn't possible. There is, however, an almost endless list of examples where deterrence failed - this Houthi situation being yet another.
To help you come up to speed on deterrence, you'll want to read a summay of a scholarly study that proves that deterrence doesn't work. See, Forward Presence Deterrent Effect Disproved
The failure of deterrence as a viable concept is not even really debatable.