I was really fascinated by some of Srdja Trifkovic’s observations in this piece at Chronicle (side note: I was unware that there were enough paleocons left to have a journal). In the piece Dr. Trifkovic considers the tensions between China and Taiwan, the disruption of Red Sea shipping by the Houthis, and the situation in Ukraine and sees a “perfect storm” emerging. Here’s a sample:
The crisis in the Red Sea has demonstrated that U.S. naval resources are insufficient to maintain the strategy of full spectrum dominance. The Navy is simply not up to the self-assigned, Herculean task of controlling and securing all key sea lanes, and especially choke points such as Bab el-Mandeb. The Navy is well below the goal of 75 ships ready for war at any time. Lest we forget, then-Commander of Naval Surface Forces, Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener who retired last August, announced a year ago that the fleet would aim to have 75 mission-capable ships available at all times. They would be optimally maintained, armed, and equipped—with the full complement of trained crews, ready for combat on a moment’s notice. Over the past year, according to Kitchener’s successor Vice Adm. Brendan McLane, the fleet is “kind of hovering between 50 and 60 ships on any given day.â€
With the crisis in the South China Sea now more or less permanent, the lack of mission-capable ships is the main reason why last December the Navy dedicated a remarkably small strike group to Operation Prosperity Guardian in the Red Sea, consisting of one aircraft carrier and three escorting destroyers.
with this being particularly telling:
The British provided one destroyer, while Denmark and Greece promised a frigate each. The Netherlands, Norway, and Australia are together sending two-dozen military personnel in all, but no vessels. Singapore’s navy is providing a center “to support information sharing and engagement outreach to the commercial shipping community.â€
or, said another way, we’re basically on our own without the resources to back it up. Or consider this:
Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that, all over the greater Middle East, an insoluble dilemma exists for the Biden administration. While Washington is loath for the conflict in Gaza to escalate, the U.S. is continuing its total support for, and its comprehensive financial, military, and diplomatic assistance to Israel. Consequently, all key Arab countries in the region are rapidly diversifying their political and economic relations, most notably those with Russia and China. Even the United Arab Emirates, ostensibly a reliable U.S. friend, gave Russian President Vladimir Putin an ostentatiously warm welcome last month. At the same time, U.S. military bases in the region—notably in Bahrain, right across the Gulf from Iran—appear potentially more vulnerable than ever before.
Interesting times.
I was wondering if anyone has gamed out the consequences if
(a) the US doesn’t deter the Houthis and Houthis continue their attacks on commercial shipping
(b) the USN withdraws from the Red Sea area
I’m perplexed that the ongoing problems
with the equivalents of highwaymen should be addressed as an either or problem.
You win some you lose some, insurance rates go up, but you continue to patrol and enforce and yes, retaliate until hell freezes over if necessary.
Let’s put it this way. Which of these is the worst?
1. Having ships attacked by pirates and doing nothing.
2. Having ships attacked by pirates, going after them, and failing to stop them.
3. Having ships attacked by pirates, going after them, and destroying them but using too much force.
I believe that some think that #3 is the worst.
I think #2 because not only are you still being attacked by pirates, you’ve suggested your military is ineffectual.
Worst is number 4- Panicking when the problem isn’t solved after a few weeks. (The issue is not using too much force but using force which will be effective and actually solving the issue without making it worse with the unnecessary loss of US lives and money.)
Steve
I’m not panicking. I’m assessing. Conduct taken to date has not been effective. You set a date limit for when you think it’s fair to conclude it’s a flop. If you won’t set a date certain, how else can you make an assessment? Geological time?
Do I need to point out that even one American life lost without achieving the military objective is too many by definition?
The Houthis, if memory serves, started attacks in December but really accelerated just a couple weeks ago. How many Americans have been killed? Has anyone been killed? How disrupted are supply chains? (I guess that would not matter to you since only Biden can cause inflation and supply chains arent an issue.) The Saudis have been fighting them for ten years, using our arms and our intel. So we haven’t solved this in a few weeks and it’s a failure? Sounds like panic to me.
Do you see Saudia Arabia or Oman letting us stage in their countries to attack? I dont. SO just planning and positioning logistical support for any kind of ground attack is going to take real time. Plus, I would think that you might appreciate that it would be good to have actual, real plans including an end game. The guy who says he thinks we have been involved in too many wars not wants to start one with no plans at a time when no Americans have been killed. I just dont get where this comes from.
Steve
Please stop being a fool, steve. I never said that ONLY Biden can create inflation. What I HAVE said is that when the U. S. government issues credit to itself beyond aggregate product it create inflation. That means that Biden has created inflation, Trump has created inflation, Obama has created inflation, etc. But Biden is president now. If he didn’t want to be president he never should have run for the job.
Supply chains are not an act of nature. They are artifacts. Why do we have supply chains that pass through the Red Sea? DO we have supply chains that pass through the Red Sea? What actions has the president, Congress, or anybody else taken to discourage exposed supply chains like that?
“DO we have supply chains that pass through the Red Sea?”
If you looks at the globe, any exports from the Persian gulf, India to at least the Atlantic seaboard would find the Red Sea the shortest and therefore the preferred route.
So oil or petroleum derived products, and potentially consumer electronics since Apple is try establish India as a manufacturing center. Of course, given its location, the Red Sea is critical to many of our European and Asian allies. Like Tesla shutting down production in Germany….
By the way, Americans have already lost their lives. 2 Navy Seals were lost while intercepting a missile shipment to the Houthis.
That’s basically the point I was getting to. The horrifically slanted coverage has conveyed the impression that the attacks on Houthi positions were a multi-national effort. They weren’t. They were an effort by the U. S. and U. K. with what amounted to observers from multiple countries.
We have a choice. Either we build up our military and our ability to arm and supply our military or we stop carrying our allies’ water for them.
“By the way, Americans have already lost their lives. 2 Navy Seals were lost while intercepting a missile shipment to the Houthis.”
They died intervening. If we invade Yemen it’s probably going to be amphibious landings. Many more will die. So why are we willing to sacrifice a bunch of US soldiers when no American involved in actual shipping has died?
Steve