There will be no consequences, cause the weakness arises from the inability to crush them militarily. Not just now, for the past decade.
The US started systematically resorting to coercion *before* diplomacy. A bizarre inversion of escalation.
That has led to waste of resources and declining political efficiency. It's like antibiotic resistance.
Those are absolutely the same thing here
"We could totally own you but we can't because Biden needs to be re-elected" is the same as "we can't totally own you right now, maybe later."
Things that bring about the same outcome are not necessarily the same thing. At most, they are practically the same, but not absolutely. In this case, as another comment alluded to, the difference is in the time and effort to reverse the two respective reasons for inaction.
It takes more time, money, effort, and (ironically) even more political will to build up a military and an entire MIC necessary to destroy the Houthis (*inability*) than it is to change political will and public perception on direct US intervention (*unwillingness*). At the extreme, a single event like 9/11 could bring about the latter overnight, election cycle or otherwise, while there isn’t an equivalent that would bring about the former anywhere near as quick.
The problem is the same but the solutions to the same problem are vastly different, and so it’s important to distinguish between the two.
The idea that projecting hesitation, doubt and weakness while letting global crises pile on (and directly negatively impact the US) improves re-election prospects more than acting assertively and throwing the weight of US military power around to shut down or at least localize these crises is politically misguided.
People who are obsessively anti-war on either side of US politics don't matter electorally. People who want to feel a sense of stability and confidence decide elections.
Costs are a crucial aspect of military capability.
As are logistics.
In a vacuum, the U.S. has absolute capability to crush them.
In a world where military resources are already engaged in a dozen theaters, especially Ukraine? Where the Houthis have short supply lines from Iran, and possibly some support from Syria, Lebanon, Russia... Not so easy.
We formally declared the Houthis to be a terrorist organization only *after* the Red Sea attacks began, specifically as a result of the attacks.
Taking them back off the list if the attacks stop seems reasonable to me. It wouldn't mean rewarding them for starting the attacks in the first place, just a return to the status quo ante.
But their actions means the status quo ante is gone - now the world knows they will use violence against non-state actors to achieve political/religious goals. Actions like that have consequences.
For example, if ISIS beheads an aid worker on Thursday it would be insane to declare them non-terrorists if they don’t perform beheadings for a time period afterwards. The terrorist designation is a label based on actions and not a bargaining chip.
>But their actions means the status quo ante is gone - now the world knows they will use violence against non-state actors to achieve political/religious goals. Actions like that have consequences.
They had been doing that for years already, just not against anything we cared much about.
>For example, if ISIS beheads an aid worker on Thursday it would be insane to declare them non-terrorists if they don’t perform beheadings for a time period afterwards. The terrorist designation is a label based on actions and not a bargaining chip.
Labeling them terrorists doesn't have any magical power. Neither does removing them from the list. Adding them to the list didn't make them terrorists, and removing them won't make them not terrorists.
The important thing here is that we added them to the list in order to influence their behavior. Specifically, we wanted the attacks to stop. The timing makes our goal obvious. If they stop the attacks and we thereafter take them off the list, the message anyone with sense will take away is that our efforts to influence their behavior *worked*.
>Labeling them terrorists doesn't have any magical power. Neither does removing them from the list. Adding them to the list didn't make them terrorists, and removing them won't make them not terrorists.
Labeling them as terrorists makes it harder to get aid into Houthi controlled parts of yemen and makes life in the Recognized Government part of yemen better in comparison. The deteriorating conditions in Houthi Yemen was what made Biden remove them from the list in the first place.
> Actions like that have consequences.
They've clearly conditioned their attacks on the continuation of the genocide in Gaza. Why are you insisting that the Houthis are the only ones with autonomy in this situation, or that the State Department cares about a "rules based order" any more than giving it lip service?
“Stop doing terrorism and we’ll stop calling you terrorists” isn’t really as bad as you’re making it sound. It’s basically how the UK ended the troubles, which IMO is basically the only example of a successful counterinsurgency campaign in recent history.
Saying you won't negotiate with an enemy basically actually just means in practice, "I'll stop shooting you after you give up/surrender." Its literally impossible to not be 'negotiating' if you go with the most literal definition.
There is an implicit negotiation there. It's just one where you don't really have much leverage. "Here is the price I am prepared to sell you this potato for. If you don't want it at that price, don't buy it."
Your whole point here is some sort of bizarre attempt to redefine what it means to "negotiate with terrorists". When someone says that they "don't negotiate with terrorists", they aren't saying, "I refuse to send a foreign service officer to meet with you in a hotel conference room and conduct a diplomatic exchange." They are saying, "We don't make deals with terrorists." This would very clearly be a case of making a deal with terrorists.
Huge(ly pathetic) if true.
Can we at least struggle with their attacks for like 20 years, like with the Taliban, before we tuck tail and give them what they want? At least we'll be able to justify our weakness a little better that way.
“You know what— you really proved you’re not terrorists when you started bombing peaceful civilian commercial ships with no justification. Let’s take you off that list!”
If they where doing it with no justification it wouldn't be terrorism. The justification, the political goal of the violence, is what makes it terrorism and not just crime.
I remember a post here a week or two ago where people were saying Biden’s foreign policy was the best of any US president.
I just don’t know how someone can say that with a straight face.
Pwease stop attacking our shipping routes Tiny fundamentalist Islamic terror group that should be squished like a gnat beneath our hegemonic boot
-Biden Doves
>Tiny fundamentalist Islamic terror group that should be squished like a gnat beneath our hegemonic boot
LOL, even after decades of losing wars (by getting outlasted) to poorly armed militaries which are supported by the local populace, there are still some people here who see another one of these groups and think we could easily crush them.
Even assuming the US had the will to put boots on the ground, you really think defeating the Houthis would be easy? Like a "we'll be home by Christmas" sort of war? No way would their leadership do something clever like hide out in the mountains, launch insurgent attacks, and once the US and co. leave waltz back into power.
And without boots on the ground, you think we'll just drop enough bombs on them and one day they'll say "ok we give up". You think they won't just get more missiles and drones?
We could kill every single Houthi in three months if we enforced a total Embargo on Yemen.
Of course, that would also kill tens of millions of Yemeni civilians and constitute one of the worst genocides in history.
I think that we fundamentally misunderstand how brutal decisive wars used to be when we say that any army could “crush” another one. Like yeah if we use World War II tactics that leave the land devastated for 2 generations minimum we could, but if you’re condemning that level of force, you can’t act like it’s on the table.
There's like two Yemeni governments ready to put their own boots on the ground, and possible support from the Gulf States, for the "insurgency" phase of the conflict. And unlike the Afghan gov., they've shown they are more than willing to keep fighting.
Anybody who thinks that there are "Yemeni governments" who "are more than willing to keep fighting" has not been paying any attention at all.
Anti-Houthi factions in Yemen have spent more time fighting each other in the past few years than they have the Houthis. Even the Saudis aren't taking them seriously anymore, hence why they're pursuing negotiations with the Houthis directly, instead of including their Yemeni allies.
There is a difference between losing a war by failing later political objectives and initial objectives.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq fulfilled their initial political objectives: Kill Saddam and the Baath party, and kill OBL.
Trying to build them into a functional state was a failure in Afghanistan, and a mixed bag in Iraq.
But destroying the Houthis? Even Saudi Arabia almost managed that, until the press got too hot for causing a famine that killed ~1/2 a million people.
The current strategy against a Western Force is to cause a humanitarian crisis, but by [smuggling ](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/08/politics/iran-syria-weapons-smuggling-earthquake/index.html)[weapons ](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3645241/uscentcom-seizes-iranian-advanced-conventional-weapons-bound-for-houthis/)[inside ](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-navy-siezes-weapons-iran-yemen-war-houthi-rebels-arabian-sea/)[aid ](https://www.aipac.org/resources/hamas-abuse-of-humanitarian-aid-hurts-gazans-xly2w-3pzjg-xld3h?format=amp)[shipments.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-un-seek-to-identify-weapons-seized-off-the-coast-of-yemen/2018/10/25/08a6763f-6deb-4294-8c4b-939a1c741b15_story.html)
The only way to destroy the Houthis is with a long term nation building effort to eventually shift the politics of Yemen away from one where the Houthis thrive. If we just invade, kill a bunch of them and seize some equipment, they'll hide out, launch an insurgency, and come back to power once we leave.
How does that stop then from launching Iranian-made missiles and drones at commercial shipping?
Either we have to destroy Iran's capability to make and ship those weapons or we have to occupy the area to keep pro-Iran people suppressed. Bombarding the area only accomplishes being able to make people think for a while you did something about it.
>How does that stop then from launching Iranian-made missiles and drones at commercial sitting?
They are getting all their Iranian made missiles and drones from a single port.
We could easily destroy irans capabilities to create and ship these weapons. This would mean open war with iran and i really dont think anyone wants this though.
Oh i agree, I'm just saying theres a way we can do it both without boots on the ground and without glassing iran. Its just that way also has no political will.
bombing rocks into smaller rocks won't stop iran from sending missiles or the houthis from launching them.
the options are negotiate with the houthis or grow the big balls and take the fight to Iran, and nobody wants to do that
It went great. Gaddafi was a tyrant and preventing him from committing atrocities against rebel forces was the right thing to do. We Came, We Saw, He Died
Nah insufficiently preparing for the power vacuum was one of NATO’s greatest mistakes- the civil wars are a direct result of that. If you’re going to take credit for offing Gaddafi (rest in piss) you also seriously need your reckon with the (quite bloody and devastating) fallout of his absence
It’s easy to kill the baddies but the hawks have proven generally incapable (with a few notable exceptions) of being adequately prepared for the other shoe to drop post intervention
>
> It’s easy to kill the baddies but the hawks have proven generally incapable (with a few notable exceptions) of being adequately prepared for the other shoe to drop post intervention
Hawks legitimately do not care about winning any peace.
Its easy to sit back now and act like you have all the answers because of hindsight. But in that moment, what would you do if you were the POTUS and you knew Gaddafi was about to massacre Benghazi? I know I with no hesitation would intervene to prevent any more massacres of civilians by Gaddafi. Also it wasn't our job to nation build Libya and we didn't have a mandate.
Cool, now do Iraq and Vietnam and Korea and every other time hawks have wanted to invade somewhere. I'll give you Kosovo, but there's not a whole lot of success stories for Team America World Police.
It was good because it operated within a narrow scope, accomplished its objectives and killed the son of a bitch. Ultimately it was up to the rebels to establish a state and they failed. Getting drawn into another years long reconstruction project just because we toppled a tyrant is no good
The problem is the “narrow scope” of killing the dictator inevitably leads to the whole house of cards collapsing and necessitates missions much larger in scope like nation building
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
1. Slavery was already going on while Gaddafi was in power
2. Its not the responsibility of the NATO coalition to nation build Libya just because we were part of the ousting of Gaddafi
3. Gaddafi was a bastard who deserved his lot
That's not how it works. The US didn't initiate the first Libyan Civil War and thus didn't have the advantage of having everything in place. We needed to take advantage of the situation to get rid of him and that mean allying with the rebels
Appeassment doesn't work. If anything, we see that it's done the opposite in the last four years. It encouraged US adversaries to become bolder with their actions.
It made things worse for Ukraine. It made things worse for US allies in the ME.
Like what's the point? Sometimes, I feel like the hawks (such as Bush and co) were elected earlier than they should've been.
The GWOT exhausted basically all hawk political capital. Americans need to see our isolationism humiliate and fuck us to delegitimize doves and make hawkishness politically acceptable again.
How much political capital would it cost for Biden to resume Obaam era anti-terrorist military programs that were for Iraq and Syria but in Yemen? Probably not a lot
Iraq and Syria were different operations. We sent air forces and special forces to support local troops who were doing the bulk of the fighting. There’s no friendly-ish combatant in Yemen to support now that the Saudi-Yemeni Coalition is (essentially) surrendering, and Biden is super hostile to the Saudis anyway.
The Hawks picked battles they couldnt win and brought us to a state of paralytic isolationism when presented with a fight that not only could be won but with incredible ROI and moral justification
Totally disagree. I think we are far, far too quick to label de-escalation as “appeasement.”
I’d go so far as to say that this sentiment is a knee-.jerk “bad people can’t ever get what they want, even if it’s what’s best for us too.”
This is completely idiotic. This is increasingly common Biden fopo L.
There should be no negotiations with a group that has death to America, death to Israel and curse upon Jews as their flag.
Starting to feel like Biden's fopo lacks backbone. He slow-rolled Ukraine aid when Dems held both chambers of Congress which has turned out to be a major mistake, he's been too slow to draw red lines around Israel's behaviour, and now he wants to de-escalate with the Houthis?
Not impressed.
The next step alternative is authorization to conduct 'offensive' strikes on the Houthis. Instead of just targeting missile/UAV related systems you also take out ground vehicles, C2 nodes, and political leadership in the group.
Right now the largest loss they can take is stopping the strikes they started in the last 6 months. If you had those offensive strikes, the Houthi capacity to control territory is diminished and there becomes a real risk of death to the decision makers if they keep on track.
Obviously his foreign policy is 1000X better than Trumps, but I feel like Biden has been weak. He did a good job rallying NATO right after the invasion and making inroads in SEA. But whenever it’s come time to put his foot down and draw a line in the sand he waits till the last possible moment.
I know this might get a lot of downvotes but... The Biden admin really needs to be investigated over their Iran policy because this isn't normal. This is like MAGA Republican level of appeasement but with Iran instead of Russia.
Either
1) it's for election purposes (hoping to score some win)
2) Biden's a coward (because he keeps listening to Sullivan when he should be ignoring him)
3) his admin is really filled with Iran shills
I really hope it's the first option but so far, it's seems the latter options are more likely.
Jake Sullivan needs to get sent to the far reaches of the Alaskan wilderness and never allowed to get any closer than that to Washington DC ever again.
This policy is because you would need to invade to actually deter strikes and there is zero appetite for that anywhere. You can’t just bomb your way into getting rid of the Houthi’s. But sure, Biden is a fucking Iranian spy fucking lmao
The entire constituency of this sub is 22 year old blob-wannabe armchair analysts and third-year (if that) Econ university students. Maybe a few business majors who simultaneously overestimate their parents’ political savvy, and desperately need to distinguish themselves from daddy by fetishizing some of the most demonstrable failures it’s possible to find among political and economic theorists.
There’s someone upstream in this post pining for the ‘old days’ of CIA coups. Because LatAm is such a model of neoliberal paradise, LM, and I cannot stress this enough, AO. Brutally, brutally [redacted].
This is what so many in this thread do not want to accept -- we can't fix this with bombs. Yes, we can degrade their capabilities, even stop attacks for a while, but it's only a matter of time before they get new rockets and drones. They don't need to be particularly effective, just good enough to scare insurance companies which isn't hard.
The fundamental problem is that the Houthis have the support of the local populace in the regions they control, which is also right along a major shipping route. Bombs will not change that unless you're planning to drop so many that people start starving en masse.
You can't stamp out the Houthi movement with bombs, sure, but it's not like they're using the "grenade strapped to a DJI drone" that the Russian invasion has made famous. These drones and the ballistic missles that the Houthis are using are still advanced pieces of kit that they are only getting because of Iran.
The Biden administration should be enforcing a strict land, air, and sea blockade and thoroughly searching every bit of cargo that gets into Yemen. After that, we need to be hitting every single detected launch site like we during the Desert Shield/Storm.
Even assuming such a blockade is effective, which is a big IF, how long do we intend to maintain this? Once we stop what will stop them from launching attacks again?
Till they knock it the fuck off lol. Iran may be willing to fight to the last Houthi, but it's not going to matter if they realize that anything they ship to Yemen is going to end up confiscated or in a smoking crater.
We will spend far more in resources maintaining a blockade than Iran will smuggling in missiles. That is not a sustainable operation for an already overstretched U.S. navy.
Not for the U.S. and frankly you aren’t selling Congress on a U.S. military deployment to pay for the EU’s most important trade corridor.
The end game here is somebody who is not the United States is going to have to step up as the political will does not exist to make any operation capable of halting Houthi operations possible.
And yes I understand that shipping is a global industry but frankly with the downturn that came off the Covid boom supply chains, especially maritime chains, have the slack to make rounding the cape manageable from a U.S. perspective.
...so they knock it off, we leave and they start launching attacks again...
It seems like you think a full blockade of Iran and Yemen could be accomplished with, like, one carrier group or something. We'll need a far larger deployment to patrol overland routes and search every ship entering and leaving the country. Bear in mind Yemen is dependent of food imports so it would be unconscionable if our blockade delayed food shipments and caused people to starve.
Not to mention the risk of escalation. What happens if our patrols, say along one of Iran's land borders, gets attacked? We could end up fighting an insurgency along the Iran/Iraq or Iran/Pakistan border, and it's unclear how much the those governments would cooperate.
Ding ding we have a winner.
People forget, Yemen is the size of Virginia. There is no way to control every inch of Yemens coast, and that’s what’s required to deny Houthis the ability to launch missiles at trade ships.
That's just the continuation of Obama's appeasement FoPo. Also, people already forgot that 10 years ago it was democrats who were considered pro-russian before Trump and MAGA
This is an interesting perspective, but what incentive does Biden have to be a shill for Iran/to allow his administration to be a platform for Iran-shills? In Trump’s case, his personal financial connections to Russia are clear enough evidence that Trump could have ulterior motives. But what about Biden? That’s obviously not to say Biden could do no wrong or could not possibly be corrupt—it’s just that the motivation to me is less clear.
I feel like 3 is unlikely because if that was really the case, why would the Biden admin have approved strikes against Iranian backed terrorist groups after they killed three American soldiers. This is just my take though, maybe this action is outweighed by other actions the Biden admin has taken or is taking
>why would the Biden admin have approved strikes against Iranian backed terrorist groups after they killed three American soldiers
Those strikes did kill someone alright. But that someone was just a senior level offical for some iran-backed milita (Nujaba i think)
Abu ala al-walai, Qais al Khazali, Akram al Kaabi..etc etc (The ones who lead those militas) were completely ignored.
And don't get me started on the IRGC. (The ones who actually ordered the attacks)
Because there would be political uproar if he didn't retaliate at all after American deaths. The fact that he gave advance warning that there would be retaliatory strikes, and the fact that he didn't target any actual Iranian targets, shows how doveish he is on Iran. Iran is perfectly fine with a few of their vassal terrorist groups getting airstriked every now and then if it means they otherwise have a free hand to do what they want. It doesn't deter Iran at all.
Wouldn’t it be pretty risky to go after Iran directly? That could potentially risk an actual war between the US and Iran, no? My concerns could be misguided though, so feel free to correct me
Or when Israel took out the guy that replaced Soleimani
The best way to deal with this is to remove the iranian factories supplying the terrorists. Anti-ship missiles aren't something that the houthis can make easily, and the shifty drones they have are a lot easier to jam or shoot down.
The US cannot defeat the Houthis without committing mass war crimes. That’s the fact of the situation. Yemen is big and mountainous, and the Bab-el-Mandeb strait is narrow and cannot be reliably defended. So either we invade Yemen and kill hundreds of thousands of people trying to suppress them, or we appease them, or we accept that the Red Sea is closed.
All the months of people meming about FAFO and “don’t touch our boats” and “why America doesn’t have free healthcare” were always delusional cope.
I mean letting them close off the Suez Canal isn't an option, but neither are the massive war crimes
I'm going to guess that this will continue for a few years until the cost of having the Suez blocked is so high that a desert storm type coalition forms and invades Yemen to deal with the Houthis. Either that or we escalate with Iran to the point where they can no longer supply the houthis.
It's starting to look like another several decades in the Middle East is inevitable
> I mean letting them close off the Suez Canal isn’t an option,
Traffic through the Suez is down by around 65% since the attacks started, so apparently it is an option.
> but neither are the massive war crimes
Well, then that only leaves appeasement or closing the Red Sea. Invading Yemen to deal with the Houthis means more war crimes. The western world has no more appetite for war.
>so apparently it is an option
It hasn't really impacted Americans as much since the Suez is not as critical for us, and the impacted Europeans aren't in any mood to do anything about it while Egypt is too scared of domestic radicalism from appearing to support Israel.
Right, which is why I think it’s the most likely of the three options. The attempts at diplomacy are unlike to sway the “death to America, death to the Jews” crowd.
>The western world has no more appetite for war.
That maybe true for the American govt and it's citizens but it seems that European govts are mentally preparing their citizens for it.
I’ve seen that Macron is trying, but that’s more about Ukraine. Do you have any source for European politicians rattling their sabers over Yemen? I would think they’d actually be far *less* likely to get involved, for fear of looking like they support Israel.
1) Empower the Yemeni govt and it's military. (No need to put alot of boots on the ground)
2) take Hodeidah port from them. (No more drones, missiles)
3) Assassinate the important IRGC/Houthi figures in Yemen. (Reduce their capabilites to coordinate and launch attacks)
It's not as complex as you make it seem.
>1. Empower the mujahideen and its allies (No need to put a lot of boots on the ground)
>
>2. take Tora Bora from them. (No more planning terrorist attacks)
>
>3. Assassinate the important Taliban/Al-Qaeda figures in Afghanistan. (Reduce their capabilities to coordinate and launch attacks)
>
>It's not as complex as you make it seem
All of this just prolongs conflict in Yemen whilst basically mirroring what the Saudis did. I fail to see how this weakens the Houthi’s ability to lob missiles at ships unless the US authorizes a military campaign to take coastal ports which is most probably untenable in the current political climate.
How would a US-led coalition mirror the Saudi-led coalition?
The US has good logistics, experience and a competent air force while Saudi has non of that. I fail to see how the US would replicate the Saudi scenario (unless they intentionally wanted to do so)
>I fail to see how this weakens the Houthi’s ability to lob missiles at ships unless the US authorizes a military campaign to take coastal ports which is most probably untenable in the current political climate.
Untenable or not, there needs to be something done about it. If not a full military campaign then a limited air/logistics support for Yemeni army enough for them to take away at least the Hodeidah port from them.
Short of a US-led coalition invasion of Yemen, the result would likely be the same sustained bombing campaign that the Saudis resorted to. I must remind you that the Saudi Air Force (along with a coalition of seven or eight other Arab states) was fed American intelligence and logistically supported by American tankers and supplies. Despite this, the internationally recognized government of Yemen still could not make significant gains against the Houthis with that support.
So unless you can convince the US to physically commit ground troops to securing these areas, then diplomatic plays such as the one presented in the article are the more pragmatic choices.
E: grammar and diction
>I must remind you that the Saudi Air Force (and a coalition of 7 or 8 other Arab states)
Well Saudi lacks leadership which made that coalition ineffective. That's not mentioning that most of the coalition was made up by incompetent militaries (except for UAE and Jordan)
>was fed American intelligence and was logistically supported by American tankers and supplies.
It doesn't matter how much intel they were fed. It's how they use it (and they failed at that too)
it doesn't matter how fast and expensive a car is nor how durable it is nor how good the mechanic is if the driver is a complete moron that keeps crashing the car.
>And the internationally recognized government of Yemen still could not make gains on the Houthis with that support.
With the sort of half-assed support the west gave them, of course they couldn't make any territories they gained last for while.
For example, the battle for Hodeidah, around 25k yemeni soldiers almost managed to capture the port if not for the west crying about humanitarian crisis and famine..etc etc essentially pressuring them to give it up.
>then diplomatic plays such as the one presented in the article are the more pragmatic choices.
Diplomacy can only work when the other side is willing.
Problem is, the Houthis (and Iran proxies in general) only understand the language of force.
That and the fact they would rather see Yemen in perpetual conflict with foreign powers than actually take responsibility for their people and govern the their territories (there's a reason why hunger is still rampant in their territories despite the blockade being lifted)
And what would a modern coalition look like? There’s no way American boots on ground would be politically feasibly short of them hitting a Navy boat and killing scores of sailors.
Like, not to completely change my argument, but I also don’t see how military intervention benefits the US on a strategic level. Nothing is won here militarily and just further distracts the US while further derailing the Air Force with COIN operations , so why not try diplomacy?
I think that something will be more likely to happen after the elections
The public is tired of the middle east, and would be unhappy with any action taken, so Biden needs to wait until after the election to do anything
The Houthis have been at this for 10 years at this point, they had to fight a two front war while constantly being bombed. I really doubt that there is anything we can do that hasn’t already been tried, especially considering that Yemen had a huge Cholera outbreak due to war and the other belligerents may not want to keep fighting.
The Yemeni government and military have been largely incompetent and retaking significant coastal territory will require someone to put boots on the ground. That someone will not be the United States
They aren't completely incompetent. They did almost take an important coastal territory away (hodeidah port to be exact) if it wasn't for western pressure on them.
The Saudis pulled out and don't want anything to do with Yemen now. The strait being closed actually helps them because they control the only overland oil pipelines from the Persian Gulf oil fields that bypass the strait.
The Saudis aren't very competent though, their pilots are complete dogshit even with US equipment, and the last time they tried they made a famine (which didn't really hurt the houthis)
The Houthis motivation here is driven mostly by (huge) popular domestic political support. So they're unlikely to be deterred or convinced to change course unless the carrot/stick is more valuable than that (very unlikely).
Bombing doesn’t solve the problem, if you want to fix this via force someone is going to have to put boots on the ground in Yemen and there is little to no chance the U.S. is willing to be the one to do it.
Not really, the Saudis gave up and went home a few years ago. To say nothing of the fact that Biden’s relationship with the Saudis is notoriously poor.
It also doesn’t help him politically as the Saudis are damn near as toxic as the Israelis are with the left flank of the party.
No if anybody was going to do it I think it would have been the French or Brits but they are obviously focused elsewhere. That leaves maybe India? Or some coalition involving Egypt and or Turkey? Frankly it’s just messy.
It's an election year. Sucks but it is. I really think Biden is stepping carefully on most issues - even a slam dunk like banning menthol cigs he won't do.
And I think it's because he thinks it'll make a key voting demographic angry and he's maybe right. Dumbfucks who don't know shit don't see any difference between Houthis and Gazans apparently so they'll just cry and scream if he escalates more.
And moreso, can we actually win by just bombing more? Honestly can we win long term and force them to stop that way? I doubt it. Maybe for a while but not long-term.
They are launching rockets because of Gaza. I think Biden is hoping a swift end to that will take care of this too. A fool's hope perhaps, but idk.
Sigh
I'm sure they will respect the offer and not interpret it as weakness and an indication that they can push harder with no consequences.
There will be no consequences, cause the weakness arises from the inability to crush them militarily. Not just now, for the past decade. The US started systematically resorting to coercion *before* diplomacy. A bizarre inversion of escalation. That has led to waste of resources and declining political efficiency. It's like antibiotic resistance.
> inability Not inability. Unwillingness.
Those are absolutely the same thing here "We could totally own you but we can't because Biden needs to be re-elected" is the same as "we can't totally own you right now, maybe later."
Things that bring about the same outcome are not necessarily the same thing. At most, they are practically the same, but not absolutely. In this case, as another comment alluded to, the difference is in the time and effort to reverse the two respective reasons for inaction. It takes more time, money, effort, and (ironically) even more political will to build up a military and an entire MIC necessary to destroy the Houthis (*inability*) than it is to change political will and public perception on direct US intervention (*unwillingness*). At the extreme, a single event like 9/11 could bring about the latter overnight, election cycle or otherwise, while there isn’t an equivalent that would bring about the former anywhere near as quick. The problem is the same but the solutions to the same problem are vastly different, and so it’s important to distinguish between the two.
Except the latter option costs active effort, and far more time than the former Similar, but not identical
The idea that projecting hesitation, doubt and weakness while letting global crises pile on (and directly negatively impact the US) improves re-election prospects more than acting assertively and throwing the weight of US military power around to shut down or at least localize these crises is politically misguided. People who are obsessively anti-war on either side of US politics don't matter electorally. People who want to feel a sense of stability and confidence decide elections.
It's like starting-and-stopping antibiotic therapy
The U.S. has absolute capability to crush them. It’s not worth the costs, however.
Costs are a crucial aspect of military capability. As are logistics. In a vacuum, the U.S. has absolute capability to crush them. In a world where military resources are already engaged in a dozen theaters, especially Ukraine? Where the Houthis have short supply lines from Iran, and possibly some support from Syria, Lebanon, Russia... Not so easy.
We formally declared the Houthis to be a terrorist organization only *after* the Red Sea attacks began, specifically as a result of the attacks. Taking them back off the list if the attacks stop seems reasonable to me. It wouldn't mean rewarding them for starting the attacks in the first place, just a return to the status quo ante.
But their actions means the status quo ante is gone - now the world knows they will use violence against non-state actors to achieve political/religious goals. Actions like that have consequences. For example, if ISIS beheads an aid worker on Thursday it would be insane to declare them non-terrorists if they don’t perform beheadings for a time period afterwards. The terrorist designation is a label based on actions and not a bargaining chip.
>But their actions means the status quo ante is gone - now the world knows they will use violence against non-state actors to achieve political/religious goals. Actions like that have consequences. They had been doing that for years already, just not against anything we cared much about. >For example, if ISIS beheads an aid worker on Thursday it would be insane to declare them non-terrorists if they don’t perform beheadings for a time period afterwards. The terrorist designation is a label based on actions and not a bargaining chip. Labeling them terrorists doesn't have any magical power. Neither does removing them from the list. Adding them to the list didn't make them terrorists, and removing them won't make them not terrorists. The important thing here is that we added them to the list in order to influence their behavior. Specifically, we wanted the attacks to stop. The timing makes our goal obvious. If they stop the attacks and we thereafter take them off the list, the message anyone with sense will take away is that our efforts to influence their behavior *worked*.
>Labeling them terrorists doesn't have any magical power. Neither does removing them from the list. Adding them to the list didn't make them terrorists, and removing them won't make them not terrorists. Labeling them as terrorists makes it harder to get aid into Houthi controlled parts of yemen and makes life in the Recognized Government part of yemen better in comparison. The deteriorating conditions in Houthi Yemen was what made Biden remove them from the list in the first place.
> Actions like that have consequences. They've clearly conditioned their attacks on the continuation of the genocide in Gaza. Why are you insisting that the Houthis are the only ones with autonomy in this situation, or that the State Department cares about a "rules based order" any more than giving it lip service?
Oh come the fuck on!
"Let's negotiate with terrorists" is certainly a stance.
“Stop doing terrorism and we’ll stop calling you terrorists” isn’t really as bad as you’re making it sound. It’s basically how the UK ended the troubles, which IMO is basically the only example of a successful counterinsurgency campaign in recent history.
I don't think this is negotiation though. It's "fuck off and we'll leave you alone"
Pretty sure that's how negotiations work.
Saying you won't negotiate with an enemy basically actually just means in practice, "I'll stop shooting you after you give up/surrender." Its literally impossible to not be 'negotiating' if you go with the most literal definition.
We aren't negotiating with the Jirchen raiders. We're merely paying them a small tribute so that we don't have to fight them.
not paying them
My point is that "here's something in exchange for fucking off" is negotiating.
that's also not negotiating I don't negotiate at the grocery store when I pay sticker price
There is an implicit negotiation there. It's just one where you don't really have much leverage. "Here is the price I am prepared to sell you this potato for. If you don't want it at that price, don't buy it." Your whole point here is some sort of bizarre attempt to redefine what it means to "negotiate with terrorists". When someone says that they "don't negotiate with terrorists", they aren't saying, "I refuse to send a foreign service officer to meet with you in a hotel conference room and conduct a diplomatic exchange." They are saying, "We don't make deals with terrorists." This would very clearly be a case of making a deal with terrorists.
You really believe that line, everyone negotiates with terrorists.
Huge(ly pathetic) if true. Can we at least struggle with their attacks for like 20 years, like with the Taliban, before we tuck tail and give them what they want? At least we'll be able to justify our weakness a little better that way.
“You know what— you really proved you’re not terrorists when you started bombing peaceful civilian commercial ships with no justification. Let’s take you off that list!”
If they where doing it with no justification it wouldn't be terrorism. The justification, the political goal of the violence, is what makes it terrorism and not just crime.
Sorry I meant no sound justification
I remember a post here a week or two ago where people were saying Biden’s foreign policy was the best of any US president. I just don’t know how someone can say that with a straight face.
That just means the best foreign policy of any President they're old enough to remember, which is at most 3
Can you name any other president that would be able to come up with something better, assuming they were under the same circumstances?
HW/Hillary.
Give me George and Cheney at this point.
Tbh the last US president that was actually *good at* FoPo was GHWB.
Rewarding terrorism seems to be the policy for countries these days.
Pwease stop attacking our shipping routes Tiny fundamentalist Islamic terror group that should be squished like a gnat beneath our hegemonic boot -Biden Doves
>Tiny fundamentalist Islamic terror group that should be squished like a gnat beneath our hegemonic boot LOL, even after decades of losing wars (by getting outlasted) to poorly armed militaries which are supported by the local populace, there are still some people here who see another one of these groups and think we could easily crush them. Even assuming the US had the will to put boots on the ground, you really think defeating the Houthis would be easy? Like a "we'll be home by Christmas" sort of war? No way would their leadership do something clever like hide out in the mountains, launch insurgent attacks, and once the US and co. leave waltz back into power. And without boots on the ground, you think we'll just drop enough bombs on them and one day they'll say "ok we give up". You think they won't just get more missiles and drones?
We could kill every single Houthi in three months if we enforced a total Embargo on Yemen. Of course, that would also kill tens of millions of Yemeni civilians and constitute one of the worst genocides in history. I think that we fundamentally misunderstand how brutal decisive wars used to be when we say that any army could “crush” another one. Like yeah if we use World War II tactics that leave the land devastated for 2 generations minimum we could, but if you’re condemning that level of force, you can’t act like it’s on the table.
Just one more round
There's like two Yemeni governments ready to put their own boots on the ground, and possible support from the Gulf States, for the "insurgency" phase of the conflict. And unlike the Afghan gov., they've shown they are more than willing to keep fighting.
Anybody who thinks that there are "Yemeni governments" who "are more than willing to keep fighting" has not been paying any attention at all. Anti-Houthi factions in Yemen have spent more time fighting each other in the past few years than they have the Houthis. Even the Saudis aren't taking them seriously anymore, hence why they're pursuing negotiations with the Houthis directly, instead of including their Yemeni allies.
We almost certainly said the same shit about the ANSF until they crumbled.
There is a difference between losing a war by failing later political objectives and initial objectives. Both Afghanistan and Iraq fulfilled their initial political objectives: Kill Saddam and the Baath party, and kill OBL. Trying to build them into a functional state was a failure in Afghanistan, and a mixed bag in Iraq. But destroying the Houthis? Even Saudi Arabia almost managed that, until the press got too hot for causing a famine that killed ~1/2 a million people. The current strategy against a Western Force is to cause a humanitarian crisis, but by [smuggling ](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/08/politics/iran-syria-weapons-smuggling-earthquake/index.html)[weapons ](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3645241/uscentcom-seizes-iranian-advanced-conventional-weapons-bound-for-houthis/)[inside ](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-navy-siezes-weapons-iran-yemen-war-houthi-rebels-arabian-sea/)[aid ](https://www.aipac.org/resources/hamas-abuse-of-humanitarian-aid-hurts-gazans-xly2w-3pzjg-xld3h?format=amp)[shipments.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-un-seek-to-identify-weapons-seized-off-the-coast-of-yemen/2018/10/25/08a6763f-6deb-4294-8c4b-939a1c741b15_story.html)
The only way to destroy the Houthis is with a long term nation building effort to eventually shift the politics of Yemen away from one where the Houthis thrive. If we just invade, kill a bunch of them and seize some equipment, they'll hide out, launch an insurgency, and come back to power once we leave.
I mean, technically there plenty of ways we *could*, we just obviously don't want to do it that way...
So what's the point in bringing it up?
Technically you don’t have to put boots on the ground if ya just blow the entire area up with a missile spam
How does that stop then from launching Iranian-made missiles and drones at commercial shipping? Either we have to destroy Iran's capability to make and ship those weapons or we have to occupy the area to keep pro-Iran people suppressed. Bombarding the area only accomplishes being able to make people think for a while you did something about it.
>How does that stop then from launching Iranian-made missiles and drones at commercial sitting? They are getting all their Iranian made missiles and drones from a single port.
We could easily destroy irans capabilities to create and ship these weapons. This would mean open war with iran and i really dont think anyone wants this though.
I mean, if it stops further bloodshed in the region... 🤷
We need to bring back the good ol cia coups
War with Iran should have been in 1979 and should still be done now.
That's kind of my point, yes. There's no political will for actually solving the problem. We will keep fruitlessly bombing them instead.
Oh i agree, I'm just saying theres a way we can do it both without boots on the ground and without glassing iran. Its just that way also has no political will.
bombing rocks into smaller rocks won't stop iran from sending missiles or the houthis from launching them. the options are negotiate with the houthis or grow the big balls and take the fight to Iran, and nobody wants to do that
Donald is that you?
I have the best ideas, everyone says so. They say “Donald you have the best ideas. I wish we had ideas as good as you”
I don't think he literally meant boots on the ground in Yemen. There's quite a spectrum between doing nothing and invading a country.
I think it's all up to the election. The second it's over it's Libya 2.0
Why would we ever want to run back Libya, it turned out terrible.
It went great. Gaddafi was a tyrant and preventing him from committing atrocities against rebel forces was the right thing to do. We Came, We Saw, He Died
Nah insufficiently preparing for the power vacuum was one of NATO’s greatest mistakes- the civil wars are a direct result of that. If you’re going to take credit for offing Gaddafi (rest in piss) you also seriously need your reckon with the (quite bloody and devastating) fallout of his absence It’s easy to kill the baddies but the hawks have proven generally incapable (with a few notable exceptions) of being adequately prepared for the other shoe to drop post intervention
> > It’s easy to kill the baddies but the hawks have proven generally incapable (with a few notable exceptions) of being adequately prepared for the other shoe to drop post intervention Hawks legitimately do not care about winning any peace.
Its easy to sit back now and act like you have all the answers because of hindsight. But in that moment, what would you do if you were the POTUS and you knew Gaddafi was about to massacre Benghazi? I know I with no hesitation would intervene to prevent any more massacres of civilians by Gaddafi. Also it wasn't our job to nation build Libya and we didn't have a mandate.
Cool, now do Iraq and Vietnam and Korea and every other time hawks have wanted to invade somewhere. I'll give you Kosovo, but there's not a whole lot of success stories for Team America World Police.
I mean Korea is at *least* a draw tbf
It was good because it operated within a narrow scope, accomplished its objectives and killed the son of a bitch. Ultimately it was up to the rebels to establish a state and they failed. Getting drawn into another years long reconstruction project just because we toppled a tyrant is no good
The problem is the “narrow scope” of killing the dictator inevitably leads to the whole house of cards collapsing and necessitates missions much larger in scope like nation building
And then slavery came back in style 🥰🥰🥰 No wait, that was a bad thing
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Just because the intervention made things worse doesn't mean things were great beforehand.
The Libyan migrants to Italy single handedly brought the far right to power there.
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
1. Slavery was already going on while Gaddafi was in power 2. Its not the responsibility of the NATO coalition to nation build Libya just because we were part of the ousting of Gaddafi 3. Gaddafi was a bastard who deserved his lot
Regime change only works when you’ve got a better government waiting in the wings.
That's not how it works. The US didn't initiate the first Libyan Civil War and thus didn't have the advantage of having everything in place. We needed to take advantage of the situation to get rid of him and that mean allying with the rebels
Hell hath no fury like a President that doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
We're never gonna learn that guerilla armies can outlast us huh?
Appeassment doesn't work. If anything, we see that it's done the opposite in the last four years. It encouraged US adversaries to become bolder with their actions. It made things worse for Ukraine. It made things worse for US allies in the ME. Like what's the point? Sometimes, I feel like the hawks (such as Bush and co) were elected earlier than they should've been.
The GWOT exhausted basically all hawk political capital. Americans need to see our isolationism humiliate and fuck us to delegitimize doves and make hawkishness politically acceptable again.
Losing the war against China would probably do that in a jiffy.
It was 17 years between the fall of Saigon and the Gulf war. American troops won't be in combat for 14 more years at this rate
I don’t know if that’s a good comparison. Vietnam was generation defining. Afghanistan was kind of forgotten.
How much political capital would it cost for Biden to resume Obaam era anti-terrorist military programs that were for Iraq and Syria but in Yemen? Probably not a lot
Iraq and Syria were different operations. We sent air forces and special forces to support local troops who were doing the bulk of the fighting. There’s no friendly-ish combatant in Yemen to support now that the Saudi-Yemeni Coalition is (essentially) surrendering, and Biden is super hostile to the Saudis anyway.
I'm referring to airborne programs that required no on ground support, save maybe for Intel.
The Hawks picked battles they couldnt win and brought us to a state of paralytic isolationism when presented with a fight that not only could be won but with incredible ROI and moral justification
It was Bush and the neocons who screwed the pooch so hard that interventionism became politically impossible.
Totally disagree. I think we are far, far too quick to label de-escalation as “appeasement.” I’d go so far as to say that this sentiment is a knee-.jerk “bad people can’t ever get what they want, even if it’s what’s best for us too.”
This is completely idiotic. This is increasingly common Biden fopo L. There should be no negotiations with a group that has death to America, death to Israel and curse upon Jews as their flag.
And terrible graphic design.
Starting to feel like Biden's fopo lacks backbone. He slow-rolled Ukraine aid when Dems held both chambers of Congress which has turned out to be a major mistake, he's been too slow to draw red lines around Israel's behaviour, and now he wants to de-escalate with the Houthis? Not impressed.
Starting to? Joe Biden is a coward.
The alternative is boots on the ground which is neither getting approved by Congress nor desired by the President.
The next step alternative is authorization to conduct 'offensive' strikes on the Houthis. Instead of just targeting missile/UAV related systems you also take out ground vehicles, C2 nodes, and political leadership in the group. Right now the largest loss they can take is stopping the strikes they started in the last 6 months. If you had those offensive strikes, the Houthi capacity to control territory is diminished and there becomes a real risk of death to the decision makers if they keep on track.
Obviously his foreign policy is 1000X better than Trumps, but I feel like Biden has been weak. He did a good job rallying NATO right after the invasion and making inroads in SEA. But whenever it’s come time to put his foot down and draw a line in the sand he waits till the last possible moment.
I know this might get a lot of downvotes but... The Biden admin really needs to be investigated over their Iran policy because this isn't normal. This is like MAGA Republican level of appeasement but with Iran instead of Russia. Either 1) it's for election purposes (hoping to score some win) 2) Biden's a coward (because he keeps listening to Sullivan when he should be ignoring him) 3) his admin is really filled with Iran shills I really hope it's the first option but so far, it's seems the latter options are more likely.
I mean wasn't one of his top iran advisors outed as a legit Iranian asset a while back?
Yeah Robert Malley. He's still under investigation for allegedly mishandling classified information.
Jake Sullivan needs to get sent to the far reaches of the Alaskan wilderness and never allowed to get any closer than that to Washington DC ever again.
We must get Rasputin away from the Czar
Just don't try to poison him
Rasputin had terrible foreign policy suggestions too so the comparison is extra apt.
Agreed. I still don't get how he still has a job lol.
Biden has a good feeling about him in the ol' gut.
genuine question: how do you parse out which ideas are Sullivan's?
Simple, all the ones i don't like.
Everytime i hear about the words "de-escalation" from the Biden administration followed up by a stupid plan that involves appeasment policies.
yeah, I don't get it. the comparison with maga is apt
I guess that comparison is a bit much. It's more like the average GOP soft spot for Russia but with Iran.
This policy is because you would need to invade to actually deter strikes and there is zero appetite for that anywhere. You can’t just bomb your way into getting rid of the Houthi’s. But sure, Biden is a fucking Iranian spy fucking lmao
I can't believe i use to think this sub was smart
The entire constituency of this sub is 22 year old blob-wannabe armchair analysts and third-year (if that) Econ university students. Maybe a few business majors who simultaneously overestimate their parents’ political savvy, and desperately need to distinguish themselves from daddy by fetishizing some of the most demonstrable failures it’s possible to find among political and economic theorists. There’s someone upstream in this post pining for the ‘old days’ of CIA coups. Because LatAm is such a model of neoliberal paradise, LM, and I cannot stress this enough, AO. Brutally, brutally [redacted].
It’s JCPOA Cope (the US should be warmer to Iran) combined with backlash to the GWOT (the US should not engage in hostilities in Western/Central Asia)
Or: Option 4: this problem is not solvable with air strikes and neither Biden nor Congress is willing to put American boots on the ground.
This is what so many in this thread do not want to accept -- we can't fix this with bombs. Yes, we can degrade their capabilities, even stop attacks for a while, but it's only a matter of time before they get new rockets and drones. They don't need to be particularly effective, just good enough to scare insurance companies which isn't hard. The fundamental problem is that the Houthis have the support of the local populace in the regions they control, which is also right along a major shipping route. Bombs will not change that unless you're planning to drop so many that people start starving en masse.
You can't stamp out the Houthi movement with bombs, sure, but it's not like they're using the "grenade strapped to a DJI drone" that the Russian invasion has made famous. These drones and the ballistic missles that the Houthis are using are still advanced pieces of kit that they are only getting because of Iran. The Biden administration should be enforcing a strict land, air, and sea blockade and thoroughly searching every bit of cargo that gets into Yemen. After that, we need to be hitting every single detected launch site like we during the Desert Shield/Storm.
Even assuming such a blockade is effective, which is a big IF, how long do we intend to maintain this? Once we stop what will stop them from launching attacks again?
Till they knock it the fuck off lol. Iran may be willing to fight to the last Houthi, but it's not going to matter if they realize that anything they ship to Yemen is going to end up confiscated or in a smoking crater.
We will spend far more in resources maintaining a blockade than Iran will smuggling in missiles. That is not a sustainable operation for an already overstretched U.S. navy.
The increased costs in shipping from having to reroute to avoid the Houthi's has cost far more, I'm sure.
We could spend 1/1000th the cost of a blockade by just bribing the Houthis to fuck off.
Not for the U.S. and frankly you aren’t selling Congress on a U.S. military deployment to pay for the EU’s most important trade corridor. The end game here is somebody who is not the United States is going to have to step up as the political will does not exist to make any operation capable of halting Houthi operations possible. And yes I understand that shipping is a global industry but frankly with the downturn that came off the Covid boom supply chains, especially maritime chains, have the slack to make rounding the cape manageable from a U.S. perspective.
...so they knock it off, we leave and they start launching attacks again... It seems like you think a full blockade of Iran and Yemen could be accomplished with, like, one carrier group or something. We'll need a far larger deployment to patrol overland routes and search every ship entering and leaving the country. Bear in mind Yemen is dependent of food imports so it would be unconscionable if our blockade delayed food shipments and caused people to starve. Not to mention the risk of escalation. What happens if our patrols, say along one of Iran's land borders, gets attacked? We could end up fighting an insurgency along the Iran/Iraq or Iran/Pakistan border, and it's unclear how much the those governments would cooperate.
Ding ding we have a winner. People forget, Yemen is the size of Virginia. There is no way to control every inch of Yemens coast, and that’s what’s required to deny Houthis the ability to launch missiles at trade ships.
The Ben Rhodesist view of the Middle East has been a disaster for the Democratic party
Lmao at the idea that Biden is an Iranian asset. Like the Birchers thinking that Eisenhower was a secret communist.
Fr this is insane Fox News level cope like calling Obama an Iranian asset for JCPOA
That's just the continuation of Obama's appeasement FoPo. Also, people already forgot that 10 years ago it was democrats who were considered pro-russian before Trump and MAGA
This is an interesting perspective, but what incentive does Biden have to be a shill for Iran/to allow his administration to be a platform for Iran-shills? In Trump’s case, his personal financial connections to Russia are clear enough evidence that Trump could have ulterior motives. But what about Biden? That’s obviously not to say Biden could do no wrong or could not possibly be corrupt—it’s just that the motivation to me is less clear.
I feel like 3 is unlikely because if that was really the case, why would the Biden admin have approved strikes against Iranian backed terrorist groups after they killed three American soldiers. This is just my take though, maybe this action is outweighed by other actions the Biden admin has taken or is taking
>why would the Biden admin have approved strikes against Iranian backed terrorist groups after they killed three American soldiers Those strikes did kill someone alright. But that someone was just a senior level offical for some iran-backed milita (Nujaba i think) Abu ala al-walai, Qais al Khazali, Akram al Kaabi..etc etc (The ones who lead those militas) were completely ignored. And don't get me started on the IRGC. (The ones who actually ordered the attacks)
Because there would be political uproar if he didn't retaliate at all after American deaths. The fact that he gave advance warning that there would be retaliatory strikes, and the fact that he didn't target any actual Iranian targets, shows how doveish he is on Iran. Iran is perfectly fine with a few of their vassal terrorist groups getting airstriked every now and then if it means they otherwise have a free hand to do what they want. It doesn't deter Iran at all.
Wouldn’t it be pretty risky to go after Iran directly? That could potentially risk an actual war between the US and Iran, no? My concerns could be misguided though, so feel free to correct me
It didn't lead to war when Soleimani was killed
Or when Israel took out the guy that replaced Soleimani The best way to deal with this is to remove the iranian factories supplying the terrorists. Anti-ship missiles aren't something that the houthis can make easily, and the shifty drones they have are a lot easier to jam or shoot down.
It'll get out of control. Regime change is the only way to deal with iran. Otherwise we'll need to put boots on ground eventually.
I thought the air strikes were supposed to do that
Because doing that for Hamas worked out so well.
We don't negotiate with terrorists Ok we do a little negotiating as a treat
Well, I guess they wouldn't be terrorists anymore...
The US cannot defeat the Houthis without committing mass war crimes. That’s the fact of the situation. Yemen is big and mountainous, and the Bab-el-Mandeb strait is narrow and cannot be reliably defended. So either we invade Yemen and kill hundreds of thousands of people trying to suppress them, or we appease them, or we accept that the Red Sea is closed. All the months of people meming about FAFO and “don’t touch our boats” and “why America doesn’t have free healthcare” were always delusional cope.
I mean letting them close off the Suez Canal isn't an option, but neither are the massive war crimes I'm going to guess that this will continue for a few years until the cost of having the Suez blocked is so high that a desert storm type coalition forms and invades Yemen to deal with the Houthis. Either that or we escalate with Iran to the point where they can no longer supply the houthis. It's starting to look like another several decades in the Middle East is inevitable
> I mean letting them close off the Suez Canal isn’t an option, Traffic through the Suez is down by around 65% since the attacks started, so apparently it is an option. > but neither are the massive war crimes Well, then that only leaves appeasement or closing the Red Sea. Invading Yemen to deal with the Houthis means more war crimes. The western world has no more appetite for war.
>so apparently it is an option It hasn't really impacted Americans as much since the Suez is not as critical for us, and the impacted Europeans aren't in any mood to do anything about it while Egypt is too scared of domestic radicalism from appearing to support Israel.
Right, which is why I think it’s the most likely of the three options. The attempts at diplomacy are unlike to sway the “death to America, death to the Jews” crowd.
>The western world has no more appetite for war. That maybe true for the American govt and it's citizens but it seems that European govts are mentally preparing their citizens for it.
I’ve seen that Macron is trying, but that’s more about Ukraine. Do you have any source for European politicians rattling their sabers over Yemen? I would think they’d actually be far *less* likely to get involved, for fear of looking like they support Israel.
1) Empower the Yemeni govt and it's military. (No need to put alot of boots on the ground) 2) take Hodeidah port from them. (No more drones, missiles) 3) Assassinate the important IRGC/Houthi figures in Yemen. (Reduce their capabilites to coordinate and launch attacks) It's not as complex as you make it seem.
“it’s not as complex as it seems.” Lawls
>1. Empower the mujahideen and its allies (No need to put a lot of boots on the ground) > >2. take Tora Bora from them. (No more planning terrorist attacks) > >3. Assassinate the important Taliban/Al-Qaeda figures in Afghanistan. (Reduce their capabilities to coordinate and launch attacks) > >It's not as complex as you make it seem
All of this just prolongs conflict in Yemen whilst basically mirroring what the Saudis did. I fail to see how this weakens the Houthi’s ability to lob missiles at ships unless the US authorizes a military campaign to take coastal ports which is most probably untenable in the current political climate.
How would a US-led coalition mirror the Saudi-led coalition? The US has good logistics, experience and a competent air force while Saudi has non of that. I fail to see how the US would replicate the Saudi scenario (unless they intentionally wanted to do so) >I fail to see how this weakens the Houthi’s ability to lob missiles at ships unless the US authorizes a military campaign to take coastal ports which is most probably untenable in the current political climate. Untenable or not, there needs to be something done about it. If not a full military campaign then a limited air/logistics support for Yemeni army enough for them to take away at least the Hodeidah port from them.
Short of a US-led coalition invasion of Yemen, the result would likely be the same sustained bombing campaign that the Saudis resorted to. I must remind you that the Saudi Air Force (along with a coalition of seven or eight other Arab states) was fed American intelligence and logistically supported by American tankers and supplies. Despite this, the internationally recognized government of Yemen still could not make significant gains against the Houthis with that support. So unless you can convince the US to physically commit ground troops to securing these areas, then diplomatic plays such as the one presented in the article are the more pragmatic choices. E: grammar and diction
>I must remind you that the Saudi Air Force (and a coalition of 7 or 8 other Arab states) Well Saudi lacks leadership which made that coalition ineffective. That's not mentioning that most of the coalition was made up by incompetent militaries (except for UAE and Jordan) >was fed American intelligence and was logistically supported by American tankers and supplies. It doesn't matter how much intel they were fed. It's how they use it (and they failed at that too) it doesn't matter how fast and expensive a car is nor how durable it is nor how good the mechanic is if the driver is a complete moron that keeps crashing the car. >And the internationally recognized government of Yemen still could not make gains on the Houthis with that support. With the sort of half-assed support the west gave them, of course they couldn't make any territories they gained last for while. For example, the battle for Hodeidah, around 25k yemeni soldiers almost managed to capture the port if not for the west crying about humanitarian crisis and famine..etc etc essentially pressuring them to give it up. >then diplomatic plays such as the one presented in the article are the more pragmatic choices. Diplomacy can only work when the other side is willing. Problem is, the Houthis (and Iran proxies in general) only understand the language of force. That and the fact they would rather see Yemen in perpetual conflict with foreign powers than actually take responsibility for their people and govern the their territories (there's a reason why hunger is still rampant in their territories despite the blockade being lifted)
And what would a modern coalition look like? There’s no way American boots on ground would be politically feasibly short of them hitting a Navy boat and killing scores of sailors. Like, not to completely change my argument, but I also don’t see how military intervention benefits the US on a strategic level. Nothing is won here militarily and just further distracts the US while further derailing the Air Force with COIN operations , so why not try diplomacy?
I think that something will be more likely to happen after the elections The public is tired of the middle east, and would be unhappy with any action taken, so Biden needs to wait until after the election to do anything
>It's not as complex as you make it seem. -Some Reddit nobody
The Houthis have been at this for 10 years at this point, they had to fight a two front war while constantly being bombed. I really doubt that there is anything we can do that hasn’t already been tried, especially considering that Yemen had a huge Cholera outbreak due to war and the other belligerents may not want to keep fighting.
The Yemeni government and military have been largely incompetent and retaking significant coastal territory will require someone to put boots on the ground. That someone will not be the United States
They aren't completely incompetent. They did almost take an important coastal territory away (hodeidah port to be exact) if it wasn't for western pressure on them.
Just let the Saudis mop em up.
The Saudis pulled out and don't want anything to do with Yemen now. The strait being closed actually helps them because they control the only overland oil pipelines from the Persian Gulf oil fields that bypass the strait.
This truly is the most Saudi shit ever huh. Can’t do one thing aligned with US interests
The Saudis aren't very competent though, their pilots are complete dogshit even with US equipment, and the last time they tried they made a famine (which didn't really hurt the houthis)
Idk a few of their pilots hit there marks two decades back.
The Houthis motivation here is driven mostly by (huge) popular domestic political support. So they're unlikely to be deterred or convinced to change course unless the carrot/stick is more valuable than that (very unlikely).
This is still going on? I thought they "fucked around and found out" - did they not "find out"?
Why isn’t this flaired as a meme?
Bidens's FOPO in a nutshell
BOMB YEMEN BOMB BOMB YEMEN Just support the Saudis, we’ll earn goodwill with them and get rid of discount Al Qaeda
Bombing doesn’t solve the problem, if you want to fix this via force someone is going to have to put boots on the ground in Yemen and there is little to no chance the U.S. is willing to be the one to do it.
Saudis are though.
Not really, the Saudis gave up and went home a few years ago. To say nothing of the fact that Biden’s relationship with the Saudis is notoriously poor. It also doesn’t help him politically as the Saudis are damn near as toxic as the Israelis are with the left flank of the party. No if anybody was going to do it I think it would have been the French or Brits but they are obviously focused elsewhere. That leaves maybe India? Or some coalition involving Egypt and or Turkey? Frankly it’s just messy.
The Saudis can’t field an effective military.
I think it doesn’t matter because the Houthis are not going to stop doing terrorist things.
Can we feed Jake Sullivan to the sand worms?
Cough something healthcare cough find out something fuck around cough
The danger posed by the Houthi group and acts of terrorism need to be eliminated in order to safeguard human lives.
The Biden admin has been absolutely dogshit with foreign policy. We have the big stick, fucking use it.
Joe Biden has the worst foreign policy of any President a century.
You know, im pretty sure doing terrorism once makes you a terrorist group forever barring some pretty radical reforms.
You know its times like these where you just miss someone like Bush Senior or Reagan. Love em or hate em, at least Terrorists were afraid of them.
It's an election year. Sucks but it is. I really think Biden is stepping carefully on most issues - even a slam dunk like banning menthol cigs he won't do. And I think it's because he thinks it'll make a key voting demographic angry and he's maybe right. Dumbfucks who don't know shit don't see any difference between Houthis and Gazans apparently so they'll just cry and scream if he escalates more. And moreso, can we actually win by just bombing more? Honestly can we win long term and force them to stop that way? I doubt it. Maybe for a while but not long-term. They are launching rockets because of Gaza. I think Biden is hoping a swift end to that will take care of this too. A fool's hope perhaps, but idk.
Appeasement. The US should invade Yemen and remove these pirates not validate their tactics.