December 27, 2023 - 7:00am
During the Christmas period, America’s role as global policeman has been coming under scrutiny.
The origins of the story go back weeks, with Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. These attacks culminated in the decision by global shipping companies to avoid transit through the region due to the heightened risk.
As a result, the Houthis have now enacted a de facto naval blockade — without possessing a navy. In response, on 18 December, the Pentagon announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, but many allies — such as Spain, Italy and France — declined US command over their navies in the region.
For a country whose global dominance rests on control over the high seas, this was bad optics. Shipping companies, however, were willing to return to the region now that they were under a naval umbrella. “With the Operation Prosperity Guardian initiative in operation, we are preparing to allow for vessels to resume transit through the Red Sea both eastbound and westbound,” the Danish shipping giant Maersk said in a statement.
But it does not appear as though the attacks have stopped. US Central Command reported that on 23 December the Houthis fired two anti-ship ballistic missiles and four unmanned aerial drones. Two container ships were attacked but neither were damaged, with the US Navy shooting down the drones. While this may seem like a victory, it shows that the Houthis are not deterred. Eventually, one strike is bound to get through.
That is because the weapons that the Houthis are using, most of which are of Iranian origin but some of which are domestically produced, are extremely cheap and quick to build. The air defence that the US Navy is using is neither cheap nor quick to build — much less to transport to the Red Sea for resupply.
Contemporary drone and missile technology is reshaping the global battlefield in ways that are rendering aspects of modern military technology too expensive. Politico quotes an unnamed official from the Pentagon who highlights that the US Navy is shooting down drones that cost $2,000 with missiles that cost $2 million. “The cost offset is not on our side,” the official said.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThat’s the problem with Western military’s, and Governments. They’ve forgotten what the military are for. In the old days we got ‘our’ point across by KILLING people and laying waste. Nowadays Western military’s, not only seemingly embarrassed by their martial past, seem to consider doling out ‘humanitarian’ aid to all and sundry as their principal objective, and woe betide any soldier, who goes off script and actually OFFENDS a frenemie combatant, let alone a ‘civilian’.
It is maybe noteworthy, or not, that Hezbollah has stayed out of the Gaza conflict, their leader having said words to the effect that “if he had known the capacity for destruction by the Israeli airforce he would never have started the war”, and, given the apocalyptic levels of destruction that seem to be apparent in Gaza city, who is to say he is wrong ?
Agreed. The context for the US Navy losing it’s authority is that it is rarely politically acceptable to shell the port towns and cities that the Houthis boats operate out of.
The ‘World’ has chosen to ignore the ‘understanding’ that military action results in a military response – and that people will die. So you could say that the decline in the authority of the US Navy is because of these luxury beliefs.
This situation is more complicated than it merely being Western „morality“ hindering a stronger response.
Saudi and UAE have so far resisted supporting action against the Houthis, even though they are massively affected. That‘s because they are currently in talks with the Houthi / Iranians to end or at least freeze the war in Yemen, which they don‘t want to jeopardise.
The Saudis were on the verge of cutting the Houthis off from Iranian supplies by taking the Houthis’ major port. Then the US said not to take the port, because it could cause a “humanitarian crisis.” It’s no wonder they don’t trust this administration.
Wars result in civilian casualties. They are inevitable.
It ain’t a war crime to kill human shields. Protesters have ignored that fact. It’s only a war crime to hold humans as shields for military targets. The ONLY war criminals are Hamas. Under the rules of war, any military installation is a legal target, regardless of whether there are civilians on or near the target. If there are civilians on or near the target, it is the resposibility of the controling authority to evacuate the civilians as best they can.
The US could level every Houthi military installation in less than a month. The reason they have done nothing is that President 10% hasn’t ordered them to. A show of strength, without the will to use it, is just a show of targets.
One of 2 things will happen in 2024-2025. Either a Republican will win the presidency, and restore sanity to US military orders, or a Democrat will win, and futher facilitate the destruction of US deterrence.
@Tom & @AC – I’m not so sure. ‘The World’ managed to ‘forget’ the carnage dished out by the US in Fallujah and Mosul. I don’t think the problem is a lack of will in that respect. I think it’s more structural now (see my other comment here).
It was a different Commander-in-Chief. President Big Guy won’t order anything aggressive.
I never thought of it this way, but yes the US response here is another luxury belief.
“Luxury beliefs”? Really? With the evidence of so many failed aggressive political and military “interventions” – kinetic and clandestine – in so many countries, with (effectively) nothing to show for it but destruction, local and regional instability, collapse, famine…I could go on.
Ah, but that is the moral West for you; the quintessence of solipsism.
Presumably the beatings must now continue until morale improves?
Please
Sadam and ISIS are dead because the US decided to attack without regard to human shields. The people who deploy human shields are the war criminals, not the people who attack military targets wrapped in human shields.
In Afghanistan we fought not to lose, rather than to win. To win, we would have had to destroy the Taliban’s opium crops.
The same opium crops which were eradicated under the Taliban and re-appeared under the Americans?
This totally ignores the points the article makes. The US also easily won the conventional war in Iraq – it then catastrophically lost the geopolitical and strategic conflict to Iran.
You are suggesting you can do this with air power – that didn’t work in Vietnam. Or invading Yemen perhaps?
Agreed. Deterrence involves the aggressor knowing there is a heavy price to pay. And that involves proactively assaulting that aggressor. The asymmetric war between Hamas and Israel, with cheap rockets being met by extraordinarily expensive defence systems is over now the Israelis have taken the gloves off. Israeli citizens ARE safer as a result of Israel’s response.
It not though Western morality that prevents us responding in kind to Iran and it’s proxies, but Western squeamishness. It is time we realised our squeamishness is putting us and our fellow citizens at risk.
World war 2 saw firebombing and artillery of cities. No one went out of their way to cause civilian casualties but otoh the risk of certainty of them wasn’t sufficient to prevent the attack.
Questions:
Does Revolutionary Islam [Islamism, Islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism – whatever you want to call it] represent a threat similar to that of international communism before the fall of the USSR?
How far will Iran’s proxy war on the West proceed before we reach the stage of direct conflict or some form of capitulation? Their nuclear project is moving rapidly toward the production of weapons grade Uranium. Will we be sold out by pacifists and those enemies within who loathe the capitalist West?
Yes.
The short answer to the headline title is ‘Yes’. The slightly longer one is ‘No, it has already and is probably incapable of rectifying that situation.’ Much of this can be placed at the doors of Eisenhower’s ‘Miliitary Industrial Complex’ (which in early drafts of his farewell address included the US Congress). The role of the US military is not to protect the US sitting behind it’s Ocean moats, it’s to launder money to the MIC’s coomponent interests.
Just one of those interests being the ex-Generals and Admirals happy to prognosticate on whatever conflict and whatever need as long as it keeps them on the gravy-train and with access to the various revolving doors.
What the MIC wants are massively expensive and hugely complicated systems that only they can provide – that require inputs from across Nation States and States within them to keep the various constituents on board. What they want are systems like aircraft carriers flying aircraft like the F-35. Both of which are already obsolete. The carriers were already vulnerable to subs and are increasingly more so now from drone-swarms & hypersonic missiles. The single-engined F-35 was just wrong from the start and has only got worse – but neither can now be ditched as a project unless they actually are exposed to proper combat and shown for the boondoggles they most definitely are.
Phillip is right to point this out regarding the cost-mismatches between the drones and defence missiles, but the situation in the Red Sea is an interesting case in point for another reason. Had the MIC been up to it’s word, this task-force’ would have comprised mostly of Littoral Combat ships – small, nimble, modular, networked and flexible this multi-multi-billion dollar project was designed for just such tasks – but it failed, but not to worry the MIC just commissions a new class of Frigates – we’ll just have to wait another decade or two. Whether or not the MIC will concern itself with such trivialities as being able to replenish missile stocks at sea remains to be seen (most NATO vessels cannot).
We’re seeing just the same problems in Ukraine now – all the various NATO wunder waffen have had early successes, but have now been worked out by the RF or shown themselves to be too brittle for extended combat. For one example the NATO artillery is probably more accurate and had a nice range advantage – but only at the cost of more expensive ammo and, crucially, more expensive & less robust gun-barrels that are now in very short supply, just like everything else.
So to conclude the entire Western military system is in trouble – and that these weakenesses may necessarily lead to a faster escalation to a nuclear exchange (as Charles points out in his comments re the Ohio subs) should worry us all.
This may be true, but the US could eliminate the Houthi threat yesterday – if it had the political will.
We’ve allowed Christmas celebrations to be trampled by pro-Hamas people without much of a response, so it’s not likely there is much will to engage people most Americans have never heard of.
The kind of ‘political will’ they showed in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Libya? Are those places more or less safe now? The Saudis have been trying to defeat the Houthis with US support for years. They cannot be bombed into submission.
Like they successfully did with the Taliban or Viet Cong you mean?
Well put BB. I was trying to get that across earlier but has now become evident that censorship/cancelling – on arbitrary terms – is now a feature on UnHerd. If this comment doesn’t make it through either I’ll get the message and go where discussion = exploration of 2 competing perspectives around and apparently similar set of “facts”. Best to all at Unherd as we head into what promises to be a tough 2024
I’m not talking invasion of course, but rather bombing and destroying infrastructure. We need to ensure the safety and maintenance of global shipping routes.
I am sorry but failures in Vietnam and Afghanistan are result of lack of political will and not failure of military.
If USA decided to use tactics, and accept losses, it suffered in ww2 in Vietnam, it would had won.
Afghanistan situation was under control till USA decided to quit.
Whether long term engagement in Afghanistan was worth the money and losses of troops is another matter (I think it was not).
Maybe and maybe not. The issue is complicated. They certainly could defeat the Houthi on the battlefield or occupy all of Yemen, but those things would risk provoking a broader war in the Middle East, which would create even more difficult problems. Just because we can do a thing does not mean we should. Restraint is the safer course of action.
I should have been more clear. I would not support an invasion, but we could bomb them into oblivion and make the costs of their actions so dreadful that they stop.
Maybe.
Who would do it?
The Marine corps has gone lighter for prep towards China and is no longer designed to be a self contained meu ready to land with tanks, helos, planes, etc. it’s all missiles and rockets now much much lighter and is specifically not set up for urban wmor desert warfare but rather pacific island warfare.
1:Who exactly is going to land and wipe them out?
2: is it then our responsibility to hang around a couple decades and ‘help’ (during a low intensity conflict or do we just kill a bunch of people that we aren’t exactly sure who they are and don’t easily identify themselves) and haul donkey away? An in and out if you will.
“We’re seeing just the same problems in Ukraine now – all the various NATO wunder waffen have had early successes, but have now been worked out by the RF or shown themselves to be too brittle for extended combat. For one example the NATO artillery is probably more accurate and had a nice range advantage – but only at the cost of more expensive ammo and, crucially, more expensive & less robust gun-barrels that are now in very short supply, just like everything else.”
This is patent nonsense.
A more accurate and effective artillery system will need fewer shots to achieve each kill and therefore need to fire fewer shells and hence wear out less quickly. The Western kit is almost certainly built to better tolerances and will also wear less for that reason.
This is basic engineering.
Russian gun barrels certainly wear out faster than Western ones. They may have more, but they are cheaper and lower quality. Western military kit is built to very exacting standards. I know, I’ve seen it designed. I’ve also seen the attitude to precision engineering and human safety in former Eastern bloc countries.
Now show me some evidence that NATO weapons have been “worked out by the RF”. Or that they are “too brittle”. Real, factual evidence – not just “this is what I want to believe” suppositions.
The Russian military-industrial complex is the one that’s finished. They’ve lost their export markets after their disastrous sales demos in Ukraine. And their domestic market is no longer large enough to maintain critical mass demand to compete as military kit gets ever more complex and expensive.
Wake up and small the coffee.
Great post.
There are many problems with USA and, especially UK, military procurement, but in all the wars it had proved to be far superior to any Soviet/Russian equipment.
Pro Russian clowns always roll out usual excuses:
1) equipment is of much lower “export” specification than one available to Russian army.
2) it was crewed by much less skilled and committed soldiers (that is true; all Arabs are cowards).
However none of the points above apply to Russian forces “performance” in Ukraine.
In case someone challenges my opinion:
I observed Russian equipment and their soldiers at close quarters when serving in one of their “allies” armies after university.
Poorly maintained hardware, crewed by drunks.
I tried to reply, but “awaiting for approval”.
My post was basically in support of your arguments based on my experience of observing Russian kit and soldiers in close quarters.
There is no point of posting if your post appears after few days if at all.
Maybe my New Year resolution is to say goodbye to Unherd.
I get less grief on Spectator.
So, if as you say, NATO artillery has accuracy and range advantage, then it follows that enemy artillery is not going to survive even if its barrells and shells are cheaper.
A good analysis by a sober writer. However the US global policing act has especially since 1991 been complicated by its unilateral approach of ” with us or against us”. Naval power of the US is still momentous, but the fact that it is utilised according to its propensity to attach strings is what is leading to its supposed fraying.
It isn’t a given that the Houthis are necessarily only dancing to Iranian tunes. CCP vessels were remarkably left unattacked and it’s also curious that the attacks on vessels going to India were after Pakistan’s supreme General met with key officials in the State department.
” There’s more to this than meets the eye” if one were to cite that old adage.
If you’re implying that the strings are being pulled from Beijing, I think it’s unlikely but not impossible. I was not aware that CCP ships were being ignored or that Indian vessels were being attacked. I wouldn’t think a bunch of Arab rebels would have the capability to selectively target cargo vessels accurately according to where they’re going and who they’re working for just from visual identification. If that supposition is correct, it raises the question of how the Houthis are getting this information, and from whom. It might be Iran, and it might not. I doubt anyone understands global shipping patterns better than the Chinese.
Interestingly both the Houthis and Iran have denied attacking the India bound ships. That would be logical in a sense pointing to CCP inspired tactics as it’s CCP which loses the most from IMEI.
I am implying much more too, if you read the second last paragraph.
many allies — such as Spain, Italy and France — declined US command over their navies in the region.
Who can blame them. Between its Quixotic quest to root out possible white supremacists in the ranks and a fixation on pronouns, the US military is a hollowed out shell of its former self. We still insist on fighting the last great war, producing the same munitions that are not necessarily applicable in a changing environment. And we have several dozen four-star officers, about ten times as many as needed, with the requisite posse that accompanies each.
I am frankly heartened to see actors like India be proactive instead of depending on drunken, insolvent Uncle Sam to do the legwork. As it is, there is a role for American troops at the American southern border, though it may already be too late to stop the bleeding there.
Actually USA military has many fewer generals than many comparable militaries if you adjust for size of the armed forces.
I think uk has more admirals (including vice and rear) than actual serious combat vessels.
Total joke.
“Awaiting for approval” for just pointing out numbers of generals in USA and UK armed forces?
Either it stops Unherd or I am off.
It strikes me that the real issue is that the US is a paper tiger as Mao was so fond of pointing out. In the context of the Houthis, the US could destroy their capabilities in an instant, but they just don’t do it. Sort of like how democrat run US cities have hobbled their police, and surprise surprise crime is rampant in those cities.
So HMS Troutbridge has been despatched to Guyana …..that should scare’m!
“Left hand down a bit”.
Not many will get that reference. Sunday, 1:30, The Light Programme.
Biden commands the US Navy. No sane country will accept him as commander over their fleet ! Biden has messed up every foreign policy or military thing he ever encountered.
In answer to Pilkington’s question, no, Pax Americana is not fraying at the edges, any more than U-boat successes in the first world war showed Pax Britannica was failing. The answer, then as now, was the convoy system. Convoys are much easier to protect than individual merchantmen.
The essential point here is that shipping companies are demanding absolute safety, rather than relative safety. The former is much harder and more expensive to obtain than the latter. Even the Americans would struggle to provide an absolute guarantee of safety.
In the short term, yes. It’s unbelievably wasteful to shoot down drones that cost a few hundred dollars with missiles that cost in the millions, and there are only so many of them. The US can’t and won’t keep this up for very long. They’re hoping, like everyone else, that the Gaza offensive ends soon, and I’d bet a significant sum they’re putting the screws to Bibi regarding how long America will continue its unconditional support.
In the medium to long term, no. The US has not mobilized for warfare since the end of WWII. There has been no need to mobilize because there hasn’t been a conflict of sufficient scale or where the objectives and threat warranted such a drastic step. The primary obstacle to such mobilization would be political. Is there any hypothetical conflict that would draw enough popular support for a full mobilization? The bar would be extremely high, even higher than it used to be. It would require an attack comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 perpetrated by an enemy that couldn’t be defeated quickly by the assets America already possesses. Nothing short of a war with Russia, China, or both, I would think. Whether a mobilized America would be as formidable as it was in the previous century is debatable, and I hope we never find out.
The more interesting thing to consider is the long term implications of these revelations. If the most powerful and expensive Navy in the history of the world can’t guarantee freedom of the seas, nobody else will be able to either. If a handful of angry Arabs can shut down an important trade route, then basically anybody else can do the same. Some other bunch of rebels somewhere else sees it work and gets the same idea and another route gets blocked. The cost of shipping starts to rise out of control. American voters tired of paying for free riders elect nationalists who insist on prioritizing protecting their own shipping and that of important allies. Maybe they even get the idea to force other nations to pay for the protection. What happens if Maersk had to pay for some of those million dollar missiles? They’d take the long way because it was cheaper. What if there no longer was any safe path and they had to choose to either pay the cost or give up entirely. Everyone would feel the costs of shipping in a way we haven’t seen since the golden age of piracy before the British Empire. It’s another nail in the coffin of globalism.
It mystifies me why we Americans could care less about safe passage of Red Sea cargo, especially with so much feckless disinterest by the EU, Saudis, etc,.
I cannot express strongly enough how utterly tired we are of wasting so much blood and coin to maintain world security for a bunch of nits more interested in their welfare state fantasies, month-long vacations and early retirements rather than do their part for world peace and freedom. And I say this as a huge supporter of a strong military.
Don’t like the Pax Americana? Good luck. Maybe outsource world security to the CCP.
What world populations, particularly Europeans, fail to grasp is that one nation’s taxpayers are essentially paying for everybody to be able to freely trade internationally. During the Cold War when there was a bipolar struggle between two superpowers, that made sense as global goodwill and trading ties could be leveraged against the Soviets. After that threat ended, it started to look like an expensive program supporting a lot of free riders. That viewpoint popped up as early as the late 90’s, but it was relegated to the fringe, talk radio and the Internet. The mainstream media and establishment kept it on the fringe until 2016, when the unthinkable happened and Trump won the nomination, then the White House. His rhetoric broke a lot of taboos and turned loose a bunch of genies that will never get bottled up again, this being an important one. TPP went from being a bipartisan project with broad popularity to politically toxic within a span of a few months. NAFTA got renegotiated. The avalanche set loose couldn’t be stopped and just kept rolling downhill. If there’s a new version of TPP, it will be to create a formal trading alliance that excludes China, and requires uniform tariffs on the political enemies of the US, participation in sanctions, etc. I fully expect this to be a campaign issue in 2024. Trump and others are bound to point out the fact that the US is spending millions of dollars a day to defend shipping that is not related to America in any way. It might not get Trump elected, but it will prompt people to ask why we’re paying for this and getting nothing in return. Political costs for maintaining the status quo will rise until someone or some group changes the status quo, and that will be the end of Pax Americana. A lot of people will mourn it’s loss and most of them won’t be Americans.
There is nothing stopping the U.S from using gunboat diplomacy and destroying the Houthi villages responsible. Such is the burden of empire.
“There is nothing stopping the U.S from using gunboat diplomacy and destroying the Houthi villages responsible.”
Except for morals of course. Collective punishment is quite frankly disgusting behaviour more akin to the Nazis
Proportionate response ain’t gonna cut it. You have to fight Iran “the Chicago Way,” from the 1987 movie “The Untouchables.” When they pull a knife, we pull a gun. When they put one of our guys in the hospital, we put one of their guys in the morgue.
If they damage a ship, we sink one of theirs. If they attack one of our bases, we level 3 of theirs. We don’t like collateral damage, but it pays to stay the hell out of our way.
The US hasn’t unambiguously won a war since WW II. The reason is that we limit ourselves with Rules of Engagement that guarantee our losses. It’s time to fight “The Chicago Way.” We definitely have the weapons. What we have lacked is the will.
A “knife fight in a telephone box “ invariably ends badly for both sides.
Delete post
Houthis are throwing their whole cupboard at the Red Sea shipping. US are being deliberately restrained. This isn’t a diminished US naval power. It’s a mature one.
regardless of France’s etc political reasons for not getting involved, it’s not at all suprising that the ‘allies’ are splintering after the US led departure fiasco in Afghanistan. Unreliabilty is a big problem.
As other commentary has noted, it is not about the limitation of US military power, it is about policy. The US could destroy rebel positions in a day, but Biden insists on remaining ‘defensive”.
Thus, the 2 million missile to shoot down a $2,000 drone.
Drones seem to be a game changer in the battlefield. I wouldn’t read too much into what’s globally happening due to struggles caused by drones. The same drones also caused Armenia and Russia to keep losing battles. Once drone technology settles down, then it would be possible to make any global projections based on such observations.
A problem surfaces in the world and lo and behold, the fall of the US hegemony is swiftly foretold and the hated (but still strangely attractive) western civilization is about to come to an end. Once again. How convenient for those waiting in the wings hoping to step up.
Don’t wumao, folks! It’ll be allright.
Nonsense!
The USN’s ‘Ohio’ class SSBN’s could eliminate the entire Islamic world in less than one hour. China might take five minutes longer.
(*Ballistic Missile submarines.)
@Charles – that may be true, but relies on too many assumptions – most notably that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians whoever won’t be able to get anything fired off before they’re hit (very unlikely) and that the US systems won’t just fly off into the sea or towards Belgium or Argentina (this is not a zero possibility).
And yet they can’t defeat the Taliban or the Houthis
Only because it wasn’t ‘kosher’ to nuke either.
Nuking Iran will serve as a deterrent to all its allies