January 12, 2024 - 9:42am
Finally, we’ve found the kind of Middle Eastern war we should be fighting. Still, that doesn’t mean we’ll win.
Let’s start with the first proposition: that this is the right war. Strip away everything else and what do we have? A cheaply-armed, Iranian backed militia in control of one half of a very poor country imposing itself into our domestic affairs. By targeting container ships travelling through the Red Sea en route to the Suez Canal and Europe, the Houthis are destabilising Western economies at a time they can least afford it. As one senior Western figure put it to me: “We’ve got to stop the plucky little fuckers.”
There is, then, a refreshing simplicity to this military action. At heart we are asserting our power. We, the West, remain powerful and our interests are being affected by those with less power. And so we act. This is not naive neoconservatism, it’s hard-edged paleoconservatism — and the better for it. Lord Salisbury could be overseeing the policy.
For most of this century, Western foreign policy has been devoid of such clear, understandable logic, gripped by dreams of enlightened hegemony. We spent billions toppling regimes and trying to build new states and cultures in their place. And we failed. Then came the years of austerity, where we convinced ourselves that we could maintain global order on the cheap through the magic of development spending. In Britain, the apotheosis of this fallacious foreign policy was David Cameron’s austerity-era Strategic Defence and Security Review.
In hindsight, the first two decades of this century — bookended by President Putin’s rise to power on December 31, 1999, and Joe Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 — mark a catastrophic failure. Two military defeats, the destabilisation of whole regions, the rise of Isis, the slashing of our military capacity. In its place a new but much older doctrine has arrived: do not spend billions of pounds we haven’t got nation-building in places where we have little material interest; do stand up to threats to international shipping and oil prices which affect our people at home.
But now let’s turn to the second proposition: it might not work. This is the reality we need to wrestle with, now. The Houthis might be plucky little fuckers, but that’s also the point — they have proved remarkably resilient. They have been fighting a civil war since 2014 against the assembled forces of the world’s richest powers: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the West. And they have won. Today, they control more than half of the population of Yemen and now run a de facto country of their own. We should not assume that we can easily succeed where the far more ruthless Mohammed bin Salman failed.
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.
SubscribeAden was NOT known as Yemen.
In 1839 we the British, hacked it out of the decaying Ottoman Empire, for use as a coaling station and as a suitable port for the prevention of piracy in the region.
Additionally we were not “ forced into retreat by guerrilla forces” in 1968”, but were rather following the policy of HMG* laid down in January 1968, following the devaluation of the Pound a few weeks before.
(East of Suez or withdrawal policy.)
Always grateful for your institutional memory, Mr Stanhope.
Erudition or pedantry?
Is pedantry a useful counter tension to hyperbole?
Aden was the chief port of southern Yemen, that we also controlled.
In 1839 as now, Aden had an immensely powerful location geographically.
You make a worthwhile correction in response to the main article but we should acknowledge the timetable for British withdrawal from Aden was advanced because the local guerrilla forces were making life difficult for us and the body count was no longer minor.
Yes the timetable for withdrawal was brought forward for Aden after the Police Mutiny. However we were hardly chased out the place thanks mainly to the antics of ‘Mad Mitch’ and the “Agile and Suffering Highlanders”.*
In fact the last “hurrah” before ‘we’ got stuck into Northern Ireland.
(* Officially known as The Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders.)
Charles, I don’t quite know what to make of you and your ilk. Sometimes, I read and and digest and at other times – like this – I just think you’re a ….well….say nothing…
I disagree with the article’s author, and largely agree with His Grace on this one. The parallels aren’t quite analogous.
The US Navy, recent bungling aside, is still among the world’s premier fighting forces, and can certainly punish Houthi insurgents to the point of compliance. No nation-builfing is required.
Bin Salman and the House of Saud are assuredly breaking out the bunting as our carrier groups are closing in on Yemen. That thorn in their side is now far more likely to be removed.
Are you sure about that? We now have possibly a half of western populations – and the vast majority of younger ones – who have a naive anti-intervention attitude in pretty much all circumstances. (Sometimes they are right of course!). That carries political weight and influence in democracies, even very flawed ones.
Also, you can’t win a war just by firing missiles. Is Israel actually even going to even be able to achieve it’s stated aim of “destroying” Hamas?
The strategic plan of course CH went back almost a decade before we actually pulled out – which I believe was late 67 as my Father in the Royal that took off the REME as they were last out. Special Forces stayed for some time but obviously not in any official sense.
You don’t seem to know your Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. If a power loses the military, economic ability or will to continue fighting, it has lost the conflict, however many tactical successes it might have had. See Vietnam.
The East of Suez policy was a result of Britain being totally overstretched. It was pretty much inevitable, and actually a good thing. Britain couldn’t continue being a colonial power and its population cared about home issues.
Pedantry and conceit.
Instead of Lord Salisbury – a ‘proper’ conservative – we have Baron Dave of Somewhere-in-the-Sticks. Sending an ‘incredibly serious message to Iran’ while brandishing an empty scabbard.
At the same time that Royal Navy ships are decommissioned and there is a recruitment crisis in the UK’s armed services, the Prime Minister offers billions for the war effort in Ukraine; another ‘proper’ war worth fighting for.
Death to The Houthis!
When discussing military intervention in the Yemen some recalibration of geographic scale is useful. The Gaza Strip is 1/10 of one percent the size of Yemen and Yemen is twice the size of the UK.
They are not invading Yemen.
“War is a racket” …… “a profitable and vicious racket in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the loses in lives.”
So said General Smedley Butler in 1935.
More profits for the Military Industrial Complex forthcoming. Now that Ukraine has been bled dry, the MIC are looking to attack Iran. The attacks on the Houthis are just the warm up.
400,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in order to enrich the MIC. But who cares?
All wars are bankers’ wars
Although probably not true, it’s entirely feasible to explain the Russia/Ukraine conflict as devised by agreement between Russian and US arms manufacturers.
“If you offer young men weapons they will easily devise a grievance to justify their use.”
Quite right, Ida. What’s more, however clear the logic in intervening to protect the Red Sea might seem, we cannot ignore the antecedents of the current conflict, which undermine our moral high ground in going to war.
Since the Iraq War, any shred of credibility the American Empire has had is lost. Absent our principles, we are little more than a bloated, self-interested and out of touch finger on the button of missiles and drones we launch from afar.
I’d say that very much cheapens the lives and efforts of our servicemen, who removed the monstrous Hussein family from their throne.
Saddam Hussein’s regime attacked six other countries, fought a war with Iran that took over a million lives, gassed his own countrymen, and very nearly assassinated a former US president. He was, to say the least, not a liberal democrat.
On occasion, the military must be sent to defend our interests and those of our allies. Gulf shipping certainly counts.
The alternative is paying the Danegeld, and never expelling the Dane.
I think Ukrainians have demonstrated a strong preference for independence from Russia. Perhaps Russian war crimes had something to do with that. I would like to see a source for your casualty figures.
The Houthis are proclaiming that their actions are in reaction to Israel’s war in Gaza. Why not reign in Israel?
What is your solution to October 7?
Perhaps of the two-state kind?
That wouldn’t stop Hamas’ raison d’etre – a war of genocide against all Jews worldwide
I think that’s true. But it would help to isolate Hamas internationally and among the Palestinian ppl. That’s the only way to get rid of them.
Do some research, their war is against Israel’s occupation.
Israel’s occupation of what?
Do some research yourself. Hamas’ charter is pretty clear on their aims
What occupation? Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
You mean it’s against Israel’s existence? Do some research.
That option is dead. Neither side wants it.
You need to move on from that whole “two-state-solution” thing. It can never happen now.
Convert Hamas to Judaism
Not impossible, most of the 7th century Jews seem to have ‘converted’ to Islam quite happily.
We should mind our own business and leave Israel and Hamas to sort out their own problems.
You mean tell Israel they should not react when over a thousand of their citizens are butchered or call a halt when an equal number of Gaza’s are killed and wait for the next massacre. Do you think the Israelis would take much notice of any such advice?
The US could stop giving them the weapons they are using. That would also stop Yemeni attacks on shipping.
Correction: “rein”
Both Hamas and the Houthis are being controlled/funded by Iran, that much is patently obvious.
The Houthis probably aren’t particularly rational actors who will simply go away at the first sign of Israeli weakness
One day, not today, not tomorrow, but one day the Arabs will get the ‘bomb’ and will have NO compunction whatsoever in using it, regardless of the consequences.
When Israel is ‘turned to glass’ what will be the world’s reaction.? Horror or Relief?
POSTED at 14.33 GMT and immediately SIN BINNED.
RESTORED in 30 minutes….Bravo!
This is true, and also terrifying at the same time. I don’t think MAD has any effect on the very religious.
You mean Iran. If that did happen – and let’s hope it doesn’t – Iran will no longer exist because Israel has way more nukes. And this will change the world as we know it.
No not Iran they are pragmatic enough to realise that.
The ‘others’ probably not so.
I wouldn’t describe Iran as pragmatic. Russia yes. China yes. Iran is a theocracy with many very committed ideologues.
I imagine Wahabists and National Socialists both would greet that unlikely prospect with relief.
More likely, there’d be a considerable level of carnage all around.
Shiite Iran – not an Arab county, by the way – could well end up on the worse end of things.
Saudis and more than a few other Sunni Muslim countries were on track to normalize relations with Israel before 10/7.
Indeed, it’s likely 10/7 was meant to disrupt that process, which it at the very least delayed.
Many on here seem to be of the opinion that might has right in regards to the ever ongoing Israel/Palestine conflicts, so I’ll assume they’d have no complaints if the Muslim hordes ever got the upper hand and forcibly removed the Israelis from their land
Do you really think that is remotely possible whilst Kosher Nostra reigns supreme?
Don’t worry. Israel has maybe a month and then the U.S. lays down the law.
I admire your confidence!
You mean like they did in. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea…..their record is pretty poor let’s be honest
Good idea! Give in to the blackmailers’ veto over our foreign policy! Why, they’ll be so grateful they’ll never make any further demands! Genius!
Why not reign [sic] in Israel?
Hah – because the Houthis do indeed want to reign in Israel, alongside their Islamist brethen (or at least those deemed to be the right kind of Musllim).
Interesting verbal slip.
> For most of this century, Western foreign policy has been devoid of such clear, understandable logic, gripped by dreams of enlightened hegemony.
Wonderful article, I wholeheartedly agree. Hopefully the Houthi situation will push the West more towards a realistic foreign policy and finally stop the narcissistic compassionates from sinking billions into the black hole that is “foreign aid.”
Britain and the US are not invading Yemen.. They are bombing the shit out of the plucky fackers. There’s a big difference.
All too soon those “plucky fackers” as you so amusingly call them will be “bombing the shit out” of us, again to use your words.
Think London 2007, Atocha Railway Station in Madrid, 2004, and 9/11 to name but a few.
There will then be much “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth “ etc.
So we just let any tinpot dictator run amuck because we fear reprisals? That send a message too.
We aren’t under any particular obligation to admit large numbers of “migrants,” either.
The 9/11 attackers came here on student visas, the Boston Marathon bombers were recent arrivals from Chechnya, and the Pulse nightclub shooter was an Afghan.
Only certain “ tinpot dictators whose ‘followers’ have already established ‘critical mass’ in this country thanks to the simply unbelievable dereliction of duty by HMG over many years.
I’m sure you will know who I am referring to.
And then we should really use drones to kill as many of them as possible. Ditto for the Mullahs of Iran.
Unfortunately, the real culprits of Atocha was pretty much forgotten in Spain or blamed on the government for not siding with the “poor, oppressed people”, same idiots now cheering for Hamas gang. The fact that you can travel to Iran on a Spanish passport visa-free is because Spain is seen as compliant. I despair, sometimes.
Private McTague, please enlist at the nearest recruitment office. Or have your son do it !
A significant decrease in traffic through the Suez Canal will have a significant detrimental effect on the Egyptian economy. We should be encouraging Egypt to get together with those of its Arab friends who also depend on sea traffic (i.e. all those oil and gas exporters in the Gulf) to take action against Iran.
The foundational error in the piece is the proposition that the Houthis are blocking the straits to international shipping – this is not so.
The legal regime that applies in the Bab el Mandeb is not the high seas principle of freedom of navigation, but the straits regime of innocent passage. According to Yemen, vessels “tainted” by Israeli interests of delivering cargo to Israeli ports – or indeed their allies – are participating in a genocidal war, and are therefore not entitled to claim innocent passage.
By attacking Yemen, one of the two sovereigns controlling the straits waters (the other being Djibouti, where China has its only foreign military base), US, UK and their allies have definitely forfeited any claim to innocent passage.
Another example of the triumph of the rules-based order over international law.
In reality they are blocking passage because the major shipping companies are now avoiding it entirely, and vessels not linked to Israel have been targeted.
I believe Russian and Chinese vessels have been promised safe passage through the Straits.
The Houthi’s clear intent is to block all shipping through the Bab el Mandeb. Otherwise, they would issue a list of ships permitted to pass, or rules about which ships would be attacked and which would not. Instead, attacks are made to seem random.
Not “our” interests. Most of those ships aren’t coming here, and there are easier ways to get the Houthis to stop attacking.
“Something must be done.” Okay. Something like what? Let’s start with what would victory look like? There is a history of waging war with no clear mission beyond “we have to stop them over there so they don’t come over here.” And then we proceed to not stop them.
War is not a pleasant thing but if you enter one, you better damn sure have the intent – and a solid plan – for winning it, complete with being able to recognize victory when it is achieved. In this case, the solution might well be the overwhelming man- and firepower that the West could bring to bear on the Houthis, preferably with some Saudi or other Arab involvement so it’s not just us. But it would be messy. We would lose troops and civilians would also be killed.
This is not a war. They are not invading Yemen.
So then what are they doing ?
Just flexing ?
Responding to attacks on shipping with a bombing campaign.
Of course, it’s not a war. War is what the author is advocating, but that also requires a mission with a planned objective and a means of recognizing achievement of that objective.
Houthis forced to stop targeting ships, by whatever applications of sea & air power necessary. If nothing else works, B-52s can carpet bomb their strongholds after warning the civilians to leave. If Houthis don’t care about their civilians, why should we?
The Red Sea problem could be quickly solved if the Western powers agreed to the Houthi demands (which are independently justified) to stop sending arms to Israel. Do that and the Houthis have said they will stop.
So you support freedom rapists and butchers, as well as brave freedom fighters who seek hand to hand combat with babies in daycare? You did notice the Houthis support Hamas?
Unbelievably stupid suggestion.
You’re basically saying that we give in to coercion rather than fight. If the Houthis say, “Do X”, we do X, because fighting is more expensive than bowing. Riiighhttt …..
I think we’re now supposed to refer to it as “Yepeople”. Or perhaps “People of Ye”. Not to be confused with fans of Kanye West.
It’s time to get serious about this. The US has the raw power to level or strangle Yemen, as long as we stop worrying so much about collateral damage.
Historically, USN punitive expeditions against the Barbary Pirates, or the Royal Navy against slavers, didn’t try to rebuild entire countries. They merely inflicted death on the folks in charge, and left others in charge. Then, if the new guys didn’t learn their lessons, rinse and repeat. If some of the locals got killed in the action, that was part of the lesson.
Operation Linebacker II, in December, 1972, showed that the US could close all the harbors in North Vietnam against a fairly good air defense. I think we could do the same to most of the ports in Houthi controlled Yemen, then blockade one or two open ports. We can stop all weapons flow, allowing only food and medicine in. If this causes a “humanitarian crisis,” tough. Tell the Houthis they get open ports only if they stop shooting.
Iran is responsible. They should not get a free ride. Operation Praying Mantis (1988) showed the US can destroy about half the Iranian navy in 8 hours, without breaking a sweat. We should do it again, since Iran seems to have forgotten that we have the power to do it. We should make sure to sink both of their electronic surveillance ships, Behshad and Saviz. In the event that Iran decides to retaliate, the US can give them the Linebacker II treatment, closing all Iranian harbors.
If the US stopped being self deterred, we could use air strikes on all known Iranian proxies in Syria to put a dent in their operations. We don’t have to defeat them, just do a lot of damage, all at once.
The reason the West keeps losing is that we have unrealistic war aims and ridiculous rules of engagement. We have to change both. The Houthis are a great place to start.
Surely someone must have worked out by now how to make cheap anti-drone drones?
Just like anti-bullet bullets. If wishes were fishes…
Well no, not really. They’re not comparable.
A drone or rocket has a large, slow target. An ‘anti-drone’ or ‘anti-rocket’ rocket has a fast, small, moving target. To hit a ship takes little finesse. To hit a moving rocket or drone takes a great deal of finesse. Finesse costs money. Full stop. Lasers may be the best answer.
“They might be poor, but their war is less expensive than ours. But it’s also simpler. They want chaos; we demand order. And if there is anything we have learned over the past quarter of a century, it is that order is hard and expensive.”
Well, we’re back to the point that order, though hard and expensive, is an essential prerequisite to wealth creation. And the Yemenis, while they probably have about as much interest in western-style democracy as the rest of the middle east, quite certainly want western-style living standards. So while the West’s recent disastrous adventures in exporting democracy through military means have failed, the phrase “hearts and minds” is still important. We just have to sell something different – wealth – to those hearts and minds in order to foster peace, that’s all. Still not easy, I realise, all I’m saying is that there remains an appetite amongst the peoples of places like Yemen to stop the violence. It’s not simply up to the lunatic fringe as implied here.
So the fact that a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States (with financial and military support) already failed to defeat the rebels is somehow a justification to do it again, so Orange Nationalists can get an ego boost, in addition to few billion dollars of public funds for the British defense industry? What ridiculous nonsense. One must be practical, set clear and realistic objectives (safety and order for commerce in the Red Sea), and then make a plan to achieve those objectives. In other words, if the Yemen War is a “war worth fighting”, what exactly are we talking about? Does security in the Red Sea really require some kind of punishment for the rebels? Certainly, and also be doled out to those who encourage them, in order that they stop what they are doing, i.e. disrupting international commerce. War, as Clausewitz observed, is a mere instrument of government policy, and should be treated as such, and nothing more.
But to turn this into anything more, into a the continuation of the nostalgic, Orangist mission civilisatrice, would be making the same terrible mistake George Bush and Barack Obama made in Afghanistan, where all that was required was a punitive expedition to eliminate a group of criminals, and which turned into a twenty-year ordeal whose failure was pre-ordained from inception.