Nobody is saying “as hard if not harder,” that is 100% dishonest, and you know it’s dishonest. The claim is that the US Navy hasn’t faced much active combat over the last 80 years, and by comparison the Houthis’ guerrilla navy is formidable.
The Navy saw periods of combat during the “Tanker Wars” of the 1980s in the Persian Gulf, but that largely involved ships hitting mines. The Houthi assaults involve direct attacks on commercial vessels and warships.
“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage…”
I hate how often people here just shamelessly lie.
>“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. … If you let it fester, the Houthis are going to get to be a much more capable, competent, experienced force.”
The UK and the Royal Navy are also less than impressed[1].
Once upon a time a US Navy Carrier Strike Group was touted as more destructive than an average country's entire air force, but the reality is the US Navy today is stretched thin fighting an enemy that's so overwhelming them that they make WW2 comparisons and underperform to the point of abject failure known as friendly fire.
> This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question
I have no drone in this fight, but your characterization of this quote is nonsensical.
The quote does not imply that the threats are closely comparable. It merely states that the current conflict is the "most sustained" since a past event which was obviously much more sustained.
I have stood on my roof and looked upward, and thought that it's kind of interesting that the next-highest solid object from my position is a plane, a satellite, or the moon.
I am not intending a meaningful comparison of the altitudes of houses and planes (or satellites or moons) when I do so.
It's the stuff that immediately follows which is the actual blasphemy:
>We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage.
Remember that Arleigh Burke destroyers and other ships equipped with AEGIS are supposedly the best interceptors in the world. Remember that USN CSGs are supposed to instill absolute fear and execute absolute destruction when required. Admitting that the Houthis can (and will) penetrate and defeat that is all but admitting the US Navy can't handle any more of this, that the Houthis and the financiers behind them are peer enemies if not superior.
The only thing I wasn't expecting when I originally read that was that the "substantial damage" ended up coming from the US Navy themselves. Who needs enemies with friendlies like this.
OK but that's just the "US Navy was built for major power wars" problem.
The asymmetrical combat problem is real. We saw that back in 2000 with the USS Cole.
I have no insight here obviously, but there's a reasonable theory of warfare that you must accept small losses to justify overwhelming force.
Parrying small attacks against the peace is difficult -- cops can't stop bar fights -- but if it spills out into the streets, the riot police are ready to shut down the block (if you want to save the innocents) or bomb the neighborhood into oblivion (if you do not).
The US public prefers the first approach, until they do not.
Nothing in your quote implies "as hard or harder." In fact, it aligns well with what your parent said: The US Navy hasn't seen significant sustained combat in 80 years.
Whether or not they'r prepared for that has nothing to do with that quote and saying the we won't be able to easily bat them down every time is a long way away from saying they're as big a challenge as Japan in the '40s.
If you want to say that the USN is struggling to keep up with rapid changes in warfare I think you'd be correct.
We have a navy built to fight the Cold War and 21st century warfare is a looooot different. Cheap and effective missiles and drones are the new reality. And everybody knows the playbook for success against the US: a "regular" military will always struggle against irregular mobile forces that can melt back in to the general population.
However.
They've successfully shot down hundreds of Houthi drones and missiles with 100% success.
In that context, a single friendly fire incident (with no casualties) is regrettable but overall performance has been exemplary.
US Navy considers fighting the Houthis
It's disingenuous at best to frame it this way. The Houthis are funded by Iran, something of a near-peer in terms of capability (if not size) that has a pretty robust arms connection to Russia which is, well, Russia.
>If you want to say that the USN is struggling to keep up with rapid changes in warfare I think you'd be correct.
That's certainly part of it, though I will also say the same for the US military overall.
>They've successfully shot down hundreds of Houthi drones and missiles with 100% success.
The problem is wars aren't won with politeness and pleasantries, they are won by whoever has the guts to destroy and murder first. The US Navy (and US military overall) aren't fighting to kill, so they might win battles (claim victory over drones and missiles) but they won't win the war. If we aren't going in to win the war we should not start or join any in the first place.
The friendly fire incident is really a coup de grace after the aforementioned self-admissions that the Navy considers the pressure they are under as bad as WW2 if not worse. I am appalled as a US taxpayer at their underperformance and subsequent unacceptable failure, regardless whether that is because they can't (no resources) or won't (rules of engagement and politics prohibit them).
The US is not at war with the Houthis, or with Iran.
The US is maintaining a level of conflict, with the intent of not allowing escalation.
You might have a point that the US is politically hesitant to fully engage, should the time come. But that time has not come.
It's better for everyone in the world, if the US acts as hall monitor and gets a few paper airplanes thrown at them from around a corner. If and when the US chooses to exterminate the threat, the global repercussions will be enormous.
Sacrificing lots of expensive equipment and some red-blooded American kids is the price you pay to avoid global disaster. It's a terrible trade, but it's the burden of being the biggest kid in school, which we enjoy for unrelated reasons.
The military follows the orders of the president. They aren't fighting to kill or destroy the Houthis because that, apparently, isn't Biden's goal. Biden's presidency has been almost dovish in its approach to conflicts, which has been highlighted in Bob Woodward's excellent book War. This is the guy who argued vehemently (though unsuccessfully) against the troop buildup in Afghanistan when Obama was president.
His administration has always focused on diplomacy and limited engagement — as we've seen with his approach to arming Ukraine — so it shouldn't come as any surprise that he doesn't want to invade Yemen and eradicate the Houthis.
wars aren't won with politeness and pleasantries,
they are won by whoever has the guts to destroy
and murder first
The conflict with the Houthis isn't "war", unless we broadly define all armed conflict as "war."
It's ridiculous to reduce this to a "guts" issue. Biden and Trump won't be manning the front lines, so guts on their part doesn't play into it.
(Or maybe we should just do the ultimate, most gutsy thing ever by your logic and start nuking multiple countries)
War on the Houthis would require invading Yemen which, in the understatement of the century, would have some pretty serious and wide-ranging consequences. It would also likely play into Iran and/or Russia's hands as this would distract the US from other matters and likely galvanize Middle Eastern opposition to the US. To say nothing of the money spent and lives lost. I have not heard voices from either side of the aisle feeling that this would be remotely worth the cost.
