Politics

[Corey0372]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/20/us-military-yemen-houthis/


Im sure this won't turn into a nightmare.

“Are they stopping the Houthis? No. Will they continue? Yes.”
-President Biden

"Officials say they don’t expect that the operation will stretch on for years like previous U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria. At the same time they acknowledge they can identify no end date or provide an estimate for when the Yemenis’ military capability will be adequately diminished."

 

[Red Leg]

I understand the need for a clear strategy. I understand the need to articulate some aspect of it to the public. But how does anyone truthfully put an end date to military operations?

Let's look at this issue. Unhindered transit of both the Red Sea and Persian Gulf for both our vessels and our trading partners is a pretty clear national interest. Regardless how much oil we drill it is not enough to fuel all the West and Japan. Hence access to Middle East production will remain critical - and long after anyone declares victory in the green revolution.

No matter what the political tea leaves, the US will continue to maintain freedom of the seas and access to key regional markets.

With respect to Yemen specifically we have a limited number of options beyond self-defense. I have listed what I think they are in ascending order of escalation and risk.

1) Attack launchers and command and control nodes.

2) Carry out major strikes against Yemen's total military capacity.

3) Blockade Iran. Seize or sink any shipping believed to be carrying military materiel to be used anywhere in the Middle East.

4) Carry out strikes against Iranian military and command control nodes. Initial focus would be the Revolutionary Guard.

5) Boots on the ground in Yemen

6) Boots on the ground in Iran

With respect to escalated strikes against Yemen's broader military capability and governing structures, I believe this would be very problematic. In spite of a years' long conflict with Yemen, Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to dramatically escalate the war. We would have little or no support and Yemen would likely revert to a failed state.

Blockade is an act of war. I frankly think it might be worth the risk. However, Iran has meaningful capacity to retaliate in a direct military conflict at sea through a huge inventory of missiles. It is extremely likely some will get through to strike US military assets. One must also assume every American in range of Iranian supported militant groups would instantly become a target. A blockade would leave free most of the US striking capability to address those threats. The likelihood of further escalation, however, would be extremely high.

Carrying out extensive strikes against Iran itself would be a dramatic action for which I defy anyone to accurately predict the eventual outcome. The potential actions which Iran could take are significant and some could represent a meaningful threat to the Homeland and/or Europe.

I have been to Yemen. Other than a high payoff raid, it is not a place we want to introduce US troops.

Iran has a population of 86 million people. We are not going to invade and march on Tehran.

So what does any administration do? I suspect we will continue to do exactly what we are doing right now. It represents the lowest risk and is fairly effective at maintaining freedom of the seas - a critical national interest. Were I the National Security Advisor, I would be asking for a plan and risk assessment to selectively blockade Iran.

What I am absolutely certain of is that neither GEN Kurilla at CENTCOM, nor the SECDEF, nor the National Security advisor can put a timeline on this mission.

I am sure we would all benefit from others' perspectives of how to resolve this.

 

[Red Leg]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240118-iraqi-leader-again-demands-us-led-coalition-leave

Though he obviously is Arab, he is also Shia.

 

[Corey0372]

Though he obviously is Arab, he is also Shia.

So is over half the Iraqi population. Does his religious affiliation somehow negate his right to request a foreign power remove their troops from his country? Especially considering the presence of those troops greatly increases the odds of conflict (either Civil War or from abroad) within the country he is charged with leading?

How long will he realistically be able to keep the PMF from doing real harm to the limited number of troops the US has in the country, especially if a major offensive against the Houthis and a blockade of Iran like you suggest is to occur? Or should we assume OIF infinity at this point?

Blockade is an act of war. I frankly think it might be worth the risk. However, Iran has meaningful capacity to retaliate in a direct military conflict at sea through a huge inventory of missiles. It is extremely likely some will get through to strike US military assets. One must also assume every American in range of Iranian supported militant groups would instantly become a target. A blockade would leave free most of the US striking capability to address those threats. The likelihood of further escalation, however, would be extremely high.

Egypt has a capable Navy (which the US contributes GREATLY to), China has a Navy base in Djibouti, considering these two countries arguably have the largest vested interest in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in general why not let them pick up the bulk of the tab? Why do American taxpayers need to suffer and American troops need to die to protect Chinese and European trade routes? (60% of China's westward exports use the canal)
https://www.reuters.com/world/red-s...Suez Canal is a,a Washington-based think tank.

 

[Corey0372]

But how does anyone truthfully put an end date to military operations?

It's not a timeline that's the biggest issue, it's a valid mission statement.

 

[flatwater bill]

Iraq may want Coalition Forces out.......they may even need that in order to survive Arab disproval and wrath..........but they are unlikely to want US Aid to quit..............Iraq still receives billions in in aid from the US taxpayer.........FWB

 

[Corey0372]

Iraq may want Coalition Forces out.......they may even need that in order to survive Arab disproval and wrath..........but they are unlikely to want US Aid to quit..............Iraq still receives billions in in aid from the US taxpayer.........FWB

I'm sure Americans would be devastated if we gave less foreign aid, haha

 

[Brent in Az]

Nikki Haley. Supported by the globalists, deep state, and military industrial complex.

Tells you all you need to know.

 

[Corey0372]

I do have a good buddy still in the UAV world, he assures me commanders are becoming more receptive to his gospel, haha.

Update on this @Red Leg , they aren't actually THAT receptive, haha

ORM to the max man

 

[wesheltonj]

I understand the need for a clear strategy. I understand the need to articulate some aspect of it to the public. But how does anyone truthfully put an end date to military operations?

Let's look at this issue. Unhindered transit of both the Red Sea and Persian Gulf for both our vessels and our trading partners is a pretty clear national interest. Regardless how much oil we drill it is not enough to fuel all the West and Japan. Hence access to Middle East production will remain critical - and long after anyone declares victory in the green revolution.

No matter what the political tea leaves, the US will continue to maintain freedom of the seas and access to key regional markets.

With respect to Yemen specifically we have a limited number of options beyond self-defense. I have listed what I think they are in ascending order of escalation and risk.

1) Attack launchers and command and control nodes.

2) Carry out major strikes against Yemen's total military capacity.

3) Blockade Iran. Seize or sink any shipping believed to be carrying military materiel to be used anywhere in the Middle East.

4) Carry out strikes against Iranian military and command control nodes. Initial focus would be the Revolutionary Guard.

5) Boots on the ground in Yemen

6) Boots on the ground in Iran

With respect to escalated strikes against Yemen's broader military capability and governing structures, I believe this would be very problematic. In spite of a years' long conflict with Yemen, Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to dramatically escalate the war. We would have little or no support and Yemen would likely revert to a failed state.

Blockade is an act of war. I frankly think it might be worth the risk. However, Iran has meaningful capacity to retaliate in a direct military conflict at sea through a huge inventory of missiles. It is extremely likely some will get through to strike US military assets. One must also assume every American in range of Iranian supported militant groups would instantly become a target. A blockade would leave free most of the US striking capability to address those threats. The likelihood of further escalation, however, would be extremely high.

Carrying out extensive strikes against Iran itself would be a dramatic action for which I defy anyone to accurately predict the eventual outcome. The potential actions which Iran could take are significant and some could represent a meaningful threat to the Homeland and/or Europe.

I have been to Yemen. Other than a high payoff raid, it is not a place we want to introduce US troops.

Iran has a population of 86 million people. We are not going to invade and march on Tehran.

So what does any administration do? I suspect we will continue to do exactly what we are doing right now. It represents the lowest risk and is fairly effective at maintaining freedom of the seas - a critical national interest. Were I the National Security Advisor, I would be asking for a plan and risk assessment to selectively blockade Iran.

What I am absolutely certain of is that neither GEN Kurilla at CENTCOM, nor the SECDEF, nor the National Security advisor can put a timeline on this mission.

I am sure we would all benefit from others' perspectives of how to resolve this.

If only Jimmy Carter would have taken care of business. They were expecting it to “rain fire” which never occurred.

 

[Red Leg]

So is over half the Iraqi population. Does his religious affiliation somehow negate his right to request a foreign power remove their troops from his country? Especially considering the presence of those troops greatly increases the odds of conflict (either Civil War or from abroad) within the country he is charged with leading?

How long will he realistically be able to keep the PMF from doing real harm to the limited number of troops the US has in the country, especially if a major offensive against the Houthis and a blockade of Iran like you suggest is to occur? Or should we assume OIF infinity at this point?




Egypt has a capable Navy (which the US contributes GREATLY to), China has a Navy base in Djibouti, considering these two countries arguably have the largest vested interest in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in general why not let them pick up the bulk of the tab? Why do American taxpayers need to suffer and American troops need to die to protect Chinese and European trade routes? (60% of China's westward exports use the canal)
https://www.reuters.com/world/red-sea-crisis-pressures-chinas-exporters-shipping-delays-costs-mount-2024-01-19/#:~:text=The Suez Canal is a,a Washington-based think tank.

Egypt has a capable navy? Not in this dimension. Whatever China's regional interest, it does not negate our critical national interests. Because of that, as long as we are a major power, we will not sublet management of those interests to China. regardless which party is in power or who is president.

For the foreseeable future, The Iraqi president has exactly how many rights we grant him to have. I frankly would prefer the Sunni minority to have remained in control and staunchly anti-Iranian. We screwed that up. But in case you missed it, where am I arguing for the maintenance of a US military presence in Iraq?

I am not even suggesting a selective blockade as the best course of action., though it needs to be vetted. For the present, I think the administration is managing this one about right thus far, if a little late in responding to Houthi provocations.

 

[Red Leg]

Iraq may want Coalition Forces out.......they may even need that in order to survive Arab disproval and wrath..........but they are unlikely to want US Aid to quit..............Iraq still receives billions in in aid from the US taxpayer.........FWB

Iraq has nothing at risk from other regional Arab states unless its largely Shia government aligns itself with Iran. Almost all of its neighbors except Syria have been regional partners of the United States, most have periodically hosted US forces over the last thirty years. That list would include Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Egypt. There is no Arab wrath waiting to be directed toward them.

 

[Corey0372]

Egypt has a capable navy? Not in this dimension.

They aren't capable of patrolling the Red Sea in any capacity to attempt to intercept houthi weapon shipments? Maybe we should stop sending them money then. I bet they show up if Ethiopia gets their base in Somaliland.

Whatever China's regional interest, it does not negate our critical national interests. Because of that, as long as we are a major power, we will not sublet management of those interests to China

This is how China will continue to maintain leverage, and eventually dethrone the US, they get all the benefits of being a global economic power while wagering zero on the political stage. They won't have to drop a single bomb, they won't have to "be responsible" for any heavy handed action. When the dust settles and the Houthis are still running Southern Yemen in 5 years, China will have another partner and more influence in the region and it won't have cost them a dime.

The Iraqi president has exactly how many rights we grant him to have

I understand this, but you also know that those type of solutions have LOTs of unforeseen consequences. We were lucky they didn't give too much of a shit that Saddam went away, if someone makes an obvious (and it will be obvious) move on this guy there will be hell to pay, and it could throw the country into a Civil War again (which would likely lead to more Iranian influence).

 

[Corey0372]

Iraq has nothing at risk from other regional Arab states unless its largely Shia government aligns itself with Iran. Almost all of its neighbors except Syria have been regional partners of the United States, most have periodically hosted US forces over the last thirty years. That list would include Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Egypt. There is no Arab wrath waiting to be directed toward them.

I agree totally, I'd even go as far to say that should Iraq align themselves with Iran the Arab countries on your list still wouldn't do anything. Of everyone in the region Syria and Lebanon probably have the largest Iranian influence, and the only countries bombing them are the US and Israel (US not bombing Lebanon obviously)

 

[Corey0372]

If only Jimmy Carter would have taken care of business. They were expecting it to “rain fire” which never occurred.

Or if Operation Ajax would have never happened.

 

[Corey0372]

This is how China will continue to maintain leverage, and eventually dethrone the US, they get all the benefits of being a global economic power while wagering zero on the political stage. They won't have to drop a single bomb, they won't have to "be responsible" for any heavy handed action. When the dust settles and the Houthis are still running Southern Yemen in 5 years, China will have another partner and more influence in the region and it won't have cost them a dime.

This is the same song and dance time and time again. Who's base gets attacked in Kenya? Ours

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releas...one U.S.,million of U.S. government resources.

Who gets the contract to build the port a couple miles away? China does

 

[flatwater bill]

Here's a fun one:
$12 billion in US currency was transported from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad in Apr 2003 and June 2004, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. A Vanity Fair magazine report concluded that of this sum, "at least $9 billion has gone missing". (Wiki) There is always the opportunity for misappropriation of funds in a war.....let's hope we have learned something. While Joe shouts out "...whatever it takes".....rational people have to set limits......in Ukraine, the Middle East and the shadow conflicts that the US is involved with...............FWB

 

[Pheroze]

A very articulate woman is raising awareness about corruption by the political elite in South Africa. She is very compelling and calls out gang members and politicians. I note that most of the people she mentions who are trying to make a difference are women. Is her message getting traction?

 

[Pheroze]

That second video has a message of universal application. Wow.

 

[wesheltonj]

Or if Operation Ajax would have never happened.

You could really go back the the decision not to let Patton finish taking care of business, because we "needed" the Soviets help in the Pacific, which as it turns out we did not. But hindsight is 20/20.