10 ms·
Military action against land-based targets in Yemen moves a step closer
- abirch 3y agoI read this and it resonated with me: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-03/us-can-strike-houthi-and-iranian-targets-to-protect-red-sea-shipping https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-03/us-can...
- wolframhempel 3y agoI believe this will be an unpopular opinion - but I agree with your article. Conflict and war exists - today as much as ever - and shying away from engaging in it early doesn't make the war go away, it just makes it come to you. So, in the spirit of "if you want peace, prepare for war", I believe the best way to life in peace is to remain peaceful yourself, but CONSISTENTLY engage in EARLY and AGGRESSIVE action which you see through to its CONCLUSION. And yes, in order to be successful, you have to have all of these four elements. Unfortunately, western democracies repeatedly have fallen short on at least some of these aspects which emboldens everyone from giant countries like Russia or China down to tiny groups like the Huthis.
- iszomer 3y agoHave you never encountered the idea of a proxy war before?
- wolframhempel 3y agowhat's your point?
- belter 3y agoThat the missiles target needs to be 35.7219° N, 51.3347° E
- jvdvegt 3y agoTo prevent lots of HN'rs finding where that leads: it's Teheran, Iran.
- iszomer 3y agoWhen people talk about "diversifying their income stream", whose to say this cannot be applied from a geopolitical or much less an ideological view?
- sneak 3y ago> Conflict and war exists - today as much as ever This is simply not true. With the exception of the recent Ukrainian war, violent deaths on Earth have been massively trending downward for decades. There is much less war affecting many fewer people than ever before. This is no accident, and it is the result of hard work by people who don’t espouse these sorts misguided of “more aggression is better” beliefs. :(
- wolframhempel 3y ago> violent deaths on Earth have been massively trending downward for decades. Right after they spiked to an all time high during WW1/WW2/Stalin/Mao reign. I know what you mean and I don't want to dismiss it outright - a lot of the small conquests that dominated Europa for millennia have indeed vanished and the motivations for war in a knowledge economy are very different. But I think we've mostly switched lots of small wars between small countries for fewer big wars between bigger countries - with bigger intervals in between. The trending downwards for decades statement requires to take measurement only in very specific timeframes and regions. If we take the last 100 years as a whole, they certainly have not.
- sneak 3y agoThe first and only use of nuclear weapons in war, ending the largest war in history, serves as a useful objective demarcation point. There is indeed much less war now than then. It seems that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is working, for better or worse. Cold wars, proxy wars, limited in scope and scale wars - these are better than what came before.
- prepend 3y ago> Right after they spiked to an all time high during WW1/WW2/Stalin/Mao reign. But it wasn’t an all time high, if you look at proportions, as we should. Pinker has talked a lot about this, and going far back in history [0] has estimates that 15% of people died from violent deaths compared to 0.15% during the peak of ww2 Germany. [0] https://longnow.org/seminars/02012/oct/08/decline-violence/ https://longnow.org/seminars/02012/oct/08/decline-violence/
- paganel 3y agoThe bad thing for the US is that one cannot win wars based on the Navy (or on Navy airplanes) alone, which I guess that's where Stavridis's take comes from. In order to win wars you need hundreds of thousands of people actually on the ground, holding the terrain, and even then the odds are not all in the attacker's favor (just look at the results of the infamous US surge in Iraq). I get it though, with more than 30% of the US defence budget the Navy feels left out of the whole war thing recently (not that much the Navy can help with in the war against Russia), similar to how the Japanese admirals felt left out of China and Manchuria back in the late '30s, so they'll take any opportunity of a war that they think they'll win easily with the most open of arms.
- _xnmw 3y agoWondering if 2024 will go down in history as the official start to WW3.
- test77777g 3y agoWhy?
- n4r9 3y agoNot OP but I can somewhat understand the sentiment. Russia, China, and Iran are all actively developing a more aggressive and robust anti-West attitude.
- prophetobvious 3y agoThat and the endless flow across our borders unchecked. Welcome to the beginning of the end.
- n4r9 3y agoIn the UK immigration is definitely on the rise, but I can't see how it's relevant to what I'm talking about, nor can I see how it's as apocalyptic as you make out.
- jacooper 3y agoMaybe because the west has demonstrated that all the human rights talk is just BS, when it's against them?
- ithkuil 3y agoIs that a fair assessment though? I mean, the West has a great deal of failings and hypocrisy and books can be filled but it's also full of people who do value human rights and have effective political means to apply counter pressure. Unfortunately it seems that humans just aren't equipped with the proper intuition for how to handle the behaviour of enormous masses of people grouped in societies. It seems that we apply the same moral intuitions used for individuals, judging "the West" or "Muslims" or "China" as if they were a single person with a single unified mind. Each society hosts a variety of people with different individual attitudes and values, and each society produces and consumes a different mix of ideas some of which may be beneficial or problematic (both domestically and Internationally). Ideas like exploitative capitalism or jihadism or whatnot; powerful ideas that have real effects. Yet people are people and have far more things in common between each other than what our instincts prime us to think.
- gilleain 3y agoThe ever-excellent Perun has a video about Houthi attacks on shipping, and the effects that has on global trade : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKlKYQDDcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKlKYQDDcQ
- test77777g 3y ago[flagged]
- infecto 3y agoHow about sharing this insight instead of leaving a rant without information?
- alexisread 3y agoGiven that the Houthis have said they are holding up ships they consider linked to Israel, and that everyone in the UN bar the US and Israel are calling for a ceasefire, and that South Africa have detailed a case for genocide against Israel, wouldn't it be more useful to get a ceasefire, so then the Houthis can stop? Generally this article is called doubling down, and the only people that get hurt in these scenarios are the inhabitants of these countries, who then become refugees knocking on other countries' doorsteps.
- yorwba 3y agoGiven that the last time the Houthis hit a ship, it was a Danish-owned vessel flying the Singaporean flag en route from Singapore to Egypt, either the Houthis have terrible aim or they're not entirely honest about their motivations. Given how difficult it is to hit a ship out in the water in the first place, I think the second explanation is more likely.
- jacooper 3y agoWhich was covertly going to Israel.
- ethbr1 3y agoRelated question: why is Iran okay with the Houthis targeting random international shipping?
- Balero 3y agoThe majority of global shipping benefits people Iran don't like. Disrupting this therefore is to their benefit. It adds extra headache for 'the west'.
- ethbr1 3y agoBut Iran also likes the Houthis being a credible threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE even more. Continuing to poke international commercial shipping will obviously trigger a response. No one powerful, even China, wants non-military ships being attacked. So they're risking substantial damage to Houthi power for... what? Tying up naval capacity? Eh. Temporarily. And with minimal effect on Israel/Palestine.* Boosting the price of oil? Maybe. But doesn't seem to be doing much yet. At Russia's behest? Maybe. General chaos elsewhere and tying up ISR assets benefits Russia. * Would become much more relevant if Hezbollah enters the war.
- mustafa_pasi 3y agoHard to not feel like we are the baddies on this one. The same coalition could push for a peaceful solution in Israel and Palestine, which would also eliminate Iranian influence in the region, but instead they let the far-right in Israel create a mess and we get pulled along for a big conflict with Iran.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI agree, we're the baddies here. But a peaceful solution seems like a pipe dream. It would need a profound change in Israeli politics to push for a two-state solution now, and the West has only limited leverage. It doesn't help that Netanyahu has a personal interest in the war, it's basically his Hail Mary to save his career. In any case, the West should pull its support from Israel, though.
- jesusofnazarath 3y ago[dead]
- ekanes 3y agoI agree about Netanyahu, sadly. But regarding a peaceful solution, one has to take into account the mentality and stated position of the two sides. Whatever one thinks about land and settlements, it's worth noting that the Israelis are fighting against an opponent who targets their civilian population with the standard terror tactics along with systematic rape and torture [1], and who maintains that they will never stop as long as Israel exists (not borders, not land, nothing short of Israel's destruction). The people advocating for a ceasefire generally aren't proposing a solution to the Israeli and international hostages held by Hamas, and who could be returned to Israel if Hamas truly wanted a ceasefire. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-at...
- ethbr1 3y agoOn the one hand, Hamas terrorizes the Israeli population. On the other hand, Israel has a decades-long genocidal plan against the West Bank. The fact that it's done quietly doesn't change its intent. The intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is: neither side is good, because both see the conflict as a fight for survival, and therefore justifying terrible means.
- motoboi 3y agoDoes it make any sense to think Russia can be behind all those moviments to stretch thin American political will and take American impulse out of the Ucranian front?
- wolframhempel 3y agoI don't think it needs a shadowy puppeteer to create this. There is no shortage of countries that dislike the west, even without Russia's meddling.
- alkonaut 3y agoIt's an "axis of instability" with Russia and Iran. Whether they are actively collaborating or merely mutually benefiting not will likely vary from time to time, but they benefit each time there is division of attention and resources in the west.
- peteradio 3y agoI think Ukraine itself is a feint and soon there will be Russian paratroopers dropping all along the west coast. The only hope we have is for ragtag groups of teenagers to rise up and fight using guerilla warfare style tactics.
- alkonaut 3y agoAttacks on merchant ships can't be tolerated, period. That's a fact regardless of whether one thinks about Israel or the US role there. My take on this is pretty crass: I hope a coalition of whoever is interested and affected can help level as much as is necessary in Yemen and that mission is accomplished when shipping insurance rates return to what they were before. A ceasefire in Palestine is a good idea no doubt, but from my safe armchair it looks a lot more attractive to spend billions of dollars and risk a lot of collateral damage in land attacks in Yemen than give the impression that a ceasefire happened through blackmail.
- slim 3y agoyou're the kind of person who calls the police when workers are on strike ?
- alkonaut 3y agoWait what? I'm staunchly pro-union. In fact I'm strongly supporting my local union against Tesla in Sweden thanks for asking. But of course their blockade of Tesla is legal. Even the sympathy actions like garbage collectors refusing to fetch trash at Tesla service locations is of course, legal.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIf strikers start shooting random civilians nearby, even the staunchest labor organizer should probably consider a call to 911.
- slim 3y agoI'm not aware of anybody who got killed when Yemeni boarded the ships. No hostages were taken and no ransom was asked. In fact it seems the only casualties are Yemeni who got killed by a US Navy ship who had no reason to be there in first place.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey're shooting missiles at civilian ships. They are thankfully large targets with few humans, but that's not safe behavior. Someone's eventually going to get hurt/killed if it continues. The US Navy ship has every right to be there under international law, and its reason for being there is to repel attacks on civilian shipping that also has every right to be there.
- jesusofnazarath 3y ago[dead]
- The_Colonel 3y agoI think that it's not the job of US to escalate here. US is hurt by these attacks, but other countries are hurt much more - they should take the lead on "solving" this problem. For US, there's too much risk and too little benefit to engage more. (I'm not American BTW)
- foofie 3y agoI agree, it looks like hostile nations such as Iran are replaying their Hamas/Palestine strategy to goad another nation into a local conflict. As a non-american I'd prefer if the US sat this one out.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoSo you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? Because that will be the outcome of letting pirates run riot.
- bayindirh 3y agoOP and GP says that the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. I don't think US is the only country with an army. However, from my perspective, US loves to lead these charges for win-win outcomes. "We keep our image as peacekeepers, so a win for us. We get to test what we have, again a win for us. Also weapon manufacturers make some more monies, again another win for us". Nobody says that they shall let these attacks continue.
- robofanatic 3y ago> the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. Which affected nations are we talking about? That route affects the supply chain of almost all countries btw.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- prepend 3y agoIs this perhaps just some weird, multi stage plan to get Saudi Arabia closer with the US? Having Iran launch a proxy attack against merchant ships seems like the cover Saudi Arabia has wanted to escalate their attacks against this group. I’m interested in Iran’s goal here, but don’t have a good analysis that doesn’t seem to be driving toward a particular narrative.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoIt does look, like geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan warned, that international ship lanes are likely to become more dangerous. It will be interesting how the USA and the international community respond to increasing incidents.
- DyslexicAtheist 3y agoCoincidentally was reading up on this last night. For anyone interested in a deep-dive on Yemen Houthi insurgents, some history, ... here is a great starter https://www.academia.edu/50126966/Jihadi_Militancy_and_Houthi_Insurgency_in_Yemen https://www.academia.edu/50126966/Jihadi_Militancy_and_Houth... There are parallels with other conflicts the US has gotten involved in and with strong potential for it to become another forever-war.
- perihelions 3y agoWhat land-based targets in Yemen could be attacked, that would degrade drone launches? These things[0] are very small, gas-powered, and can launch from basically anywhere. And their entire supply chain is in Iran, not Yemen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV)
- ethbr1 3y agoThe drones are likely less of a concern than the ASBMs.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y agoIf they rattle and ring our supply chains, we can rattle theirs, be it by sea, or air. Could get interestig regarding the Persian Gulf, but shrug?
- johnnyworker 3y agoAs Immortal Technique said in a recent interview, the US can't really protect Israel, or anyone in the region. It can only attack and deliver weapons, but it has no (credible) diplomatic voice with which to pursue anything but more war. The US cannot tell anyone "hey guys, you need to stop" and even get a hearing. That's not just because "they" all hate the US 24/7, unchanged, regardless of what is done except killing everybody, that's in part a result of how the US tends to interact with the region and the conflict(s).
- yyyk 3y agoDon't seriously expect much if anything to occur. The obvious downside is that after the initial bombing, they'd discover that running drones is cheap. Ultimately there'll be a defensive solution for awhile.
- dvh 3y agoI think we should skip the middle man and attack the source directly. This means tomahawk'd Khomeini or Putin.
- _xnmw 3y agoI don't think it matters what the US decides to do here. It's a lost cause either way. If the last failed war in Afghanistan (and Vietnam) taught us anything, it's that native bootstrapped insurgency is impossible to stop, as long as it's cheap and persistent enough and can keep the recruits coming. Yemen's Houthis are arguably gaining even more popular support than the Taliban ever had, across the entire Muslim world, Sunni and Shia united. The fact that the US's closest allies, even Saudi Arabia who had previously fought the Houthis for years, are refusing to cooperate publicly on this one, is a sign of the massive popular support that the Houthis enjoy. They'll have no trouble refilling their ranks. Also doesn't help that they have an indirect line to Russian military manufacturing via Iran.