92 Comments
User's avatar
Sluggo's avatar

“The U.S. Navy would prefer aggressive Rules of Engagement (ROE). However, European navies might impose restrictive national caveats and ROE…U.S. actions might be seen as supporting Israel, which many wish to avoid.

Thus, we’re left with Operation Hodgepodge.”

☝️This. And this is EXACTLY the rub. Perhaps Trump is the one Commander-in-Chief who’ll take decisive action, could not care less about weak-kneed countries. And if our action is seen as “pro-Israel”, so be it. Was standing up to the Barbary Pirates “pro-Israel”?

Thus, these other nations can either join in, or get the hell out of the way.

Pawel Kasperek's avatar

To all those advocating "bomb them into stone age", that is what USN basically tried to do few months ago. It bought fee months of respite and nothing more.

Want the trouble gone for good, you needs boots on the ground. Many of them, and semi permanently. Casualties will flow. Good luck selling this to voters in, say, Kansas.

And then make same ops, just 10 times larger, if you want to deal with ultimate shooter, Iran.

Sluggo's avatar

Iran is a paper tiger. Israel’s attacks, then ours, proved it. And Iran didn’t DARE retaliate afterwards with cowardly terrorist strikes. They know Israel and the US will come back and totally finish the job.

Peace through strength. Obiden showed weakness invites trouble.

Bear's avatar

It is the only way but the cost would be the problem.

We don't want another Mogadishu or Marine Barracks.

Brettbaker's avatar

Yemen can be dealt with just using air and naval power; we just aren't willing to do what's necessary for that to occur.

NEC338X's avatar

Yeah buddy! You know those ignorant hay seeds in Kansas are clueless about the Red Sea, especially since it has zero impact on them in the greater scheme of things. Those farmers just completely tune out when the Bab el-Mandeb is mentioned in stories on the 5 am news on the Kansas Farm and Ranch Radio Network. Stoopid red necks.

https://www.thefencepost.com/news/chaos-at-shipping-chokepoints/

"High marine war risk insurance premiums are charged as a percentage of the overall value of the ship and its contents. Thus, the more expensive the ship and its contents — the more expensive it is to insure. For this reason, container ships, which may have cargo value reaching over a billion dollars, were some of the first to abandon the Red Sea as a route.

For ships containing less valuable cargo — including dry bulk ships carrying agricultural products — shipping companies are considering the cost of diverting around the Cape of Good Hope against the cost of increases in insurance. Let’s say a dry bulk ship has a total insurable value of $100 million. Prior to the attacks, they would pay a 0.02% insurance premium to transit the Red Sea — or $20,000. Now that has jumped to upwards of 1% — or a cool $1 million."

All that fertilizer flowing through the Gulf of Aden and into the international market and no one paying attention at all. Sad.

Billy's avatar

No it is not. Not even close to bombing them back to the Stone Age.

Doctor Weasel's avatar

The casualties need to be among the Houthis. A greater tolerance for deaths of people near Houthi facilities is warranted. Cluster munitions are available.

Dale Flowers's avatar

"Thus, we’re left with Operation Hodgepodge." Too generous, implies organization and a sense of purpose that is probably not attainable. Call it like it is, "Operation Luke Warm Oatmeal" or "Operation Tepid Tapioca".

https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=http%3A%2F%2F13thdimension.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fatlas2.jpg&sp=1752596915T982fd7aeb5f8fb0e01d152eaf6d6308b55aee94949239a721a3a1ae73196abdb

Frank Natoli's avatar

Most freighters using the Red Sea are serving European commerce. The French have ten destroyers. The Brits have six. The Italians, to my great surprise, also have six. [We have 75.] Reuters reports 37 ships transit the Red Sea each day. Start organizing convoys and have the French+Brits+Italians provide escort. Houthis come out, escorts wipe out Houthis.

The Drill SGT's avatar

more significantly, Egypt owns the canal and the revenue, they have 20-30 FFGs and PBs with 4 bases on the Red Sea. The Saudis have a major base there with 4 FFG and a couple of PB. It's their coast and traffic...

Frank Natoli's avatar

One must therefore infer that the Egyptians would prefer to see canal revenues collapse rather than confront Third World Houthis?

Brian J. Dunn's avatar

In theory, Egypt should be involved. In practice they probably remember their costly ground war in Yemen in the 1960s where even their (alleged) use of poison gas wasn't enough to win.

Brian J. Dunn's avatar

Wonder how many can sail and fight ...

Andy's avatar

They might not be able to defend their royal yachts from attack if they poke too hard.

Aviation Sceptic's avatar

Attacking the Houthis is necessary but not sufficient. Identifying / persuading / attacking the "nation states / intelligence organizations" providing them the hardware (ASCMs, drones), training in the hardware's use, and intelligence is necessary if this problem is to be solved. This will require overcoming the objections of the "steady hands" of diplomats and senior officials warning of "escalation" should we act against the actual "root cause". Those "steady hands" are totally happy with the "status quo" and have profited handsomely from it.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

The best defense is, as we all know, a good offense. Outfitting merchants with Patriot missiles at $1M per shot is not going to work. CIWS without lots of training and $K of ammo isn’t going to work, either.

As I’ve noted before, we have two kinds of weapons: tactical weapons for combat and political weapons for war. Unless the West starts using political weapons - all war is political and combat only a part - we will lose as every conventional war is a war of attrition, either attriting the opponent’s men or his willingness to keep fighting, especially on foreign shores. Sacrificing intelligent, modern men to illiterate barbarian savages is insane.

The answer to the Houthis is to locate their base of ops snd drop a political weapon on it, a weapon that says as loudly as can be: QUIT THIS CRAP. A weapon of war. This is a tactical nuke; anything else is an unserious response leading only to attrition. The additional advantage, as Ike knew when espousing his policy of MR, is that others are far less likely to test you if knowing that being vaporized will be the result.

Or, we can continue losing ships, men, goods and money to barbarians.

It’s time for Great Powers to again start taking their role seriously.

Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

Or, try a different political weapon: fair treatment of Gazans.

Quartermaster's avatar

Gazans were treated fairly. They voted for Hamas and Hamas decided to attack Israel again. Enough is enough and they have been getting what they had coming.

Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

There's not how the Houthis see it. If we want them to stop, we should talk about what it would take. They have the upper hand here.

Quartermaster's avatar

Screw the Houthis. They can be stopped by decisive action, something that FedGov seems unable to take.

The Drill SGT's avatar

they are working for the Iranians. The target is the West, not protecting Gaza

Andy's avatar

That is the relevant reality of the current situation.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

So our foreign policy should be dictated by a buncha Stone Age barbarians? LMAO.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

Anyone who has “the upper hand” against us was given that upper hand by us. That’s the shit in the pot. A W88 would fix that toot sweet.

Andy's avatar

They didn't vote for Hamas. Hamas won a minority, then fought and took over ruling since 2006 without elections. That's a generation of kids who no rational adult should think had it coming. Hamas attacked Israel. Hamas had it coming. Hamas supporters had it coming. When the world burns down over the far right in this country my kids didn't have it coming.

timactual's avatar

Hamas won a plurality in the 2006 legislative election. Fatah did not like that. They squabbled about sharing power. In 2007 Hamas won.

It is fair to say that Hamas has substantial support among the population of Gaza. Sort of like the Nazis in Germany.

" The result was a victory for Hamas, contesting under the list name of Change and Reform, which received 44.45% of the vote and won 74 of the 132 seats, whilst the ruling Fatah received 41.43% of the vote and won 45 seats"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election

Together that is over 80% of the voters, or maybe you think Fatah is more peaceful?

Alexander Scipio's avatar

Gazans are being treated fairly right now.

Tom Yardley's avatar

Israel is perpetrating genocide. We are on the side of the bad guys and the world knows it.

Jetcal1's avatar

They're merely going LeMay upon the country that attacked them. Perhaps you should inform Hamas not to start a war they can't win.

Tom Yardley's avatar

Hamas is a gang. Murdering babies is not a way to stop a group of gangsters.

The current situation shows the incompetence of Israel's leadership. Every thinking person in the world was in Israel's side when they were unjustly attacked. Now, they are reviled. Justly reviled as war criminals. Polls seem to suggest that over half of Israel thinks they are the bad guys.

Jetcal1's avatar

Funny how no one cared when Hamas and Hezbollah were lobbing missiles into Israel for 20 years or so with impunity. As far as the polls? I don't doubt it. Some Jews still think a negotiated two state peace is possible as they ignore what the Palestinians write, say, and do.

timactual's avatar

"Every thinking person in the world was in Israel's side when they were unjustly attacked"

And what did they do about it? Talk is cheap. With friends like that.....

Speaking of war crimes, do you have any idea how many French, Dutch, Danish, etc. civilians were killed by US and British forces in "The Good War" by "The Greatest Generation"?

Doctor Weasel's avatar

Demonstrations against Israel started Oct 8 immediately after the attacks, not after Israel started responding.

Tom's avatar

If the Israelis are committing genocide they are doing a singularly bad job of it.

timactual's avatar

If so, Israel is doing a surprisingly poor job of it.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

Couple of thoughts.

1. Everyone but ignorant western college students hates Palestinians.

2. Egypt closed their border with Gaza on 10/8

3. Jordan whacked 30K or so in Black September

4. Those who know them best hate them most

5. Everywhere they go they are hated and run out

6. KSA still has them in camps from the 1967 war

7. Like other Neolithic tribes, they refuse to admit defeat, take the L and move forward - how much better off would they be today if they’d just taken the W when Israel left Gaza in 2005? Kinda like the Plains Indians in the USA, they just won’t stop being tribal Neolithics

6. given the above historical facts please explain why genocide is a “bad” thing.

Jetcal1's avatar

Dear Hamas,

Don't start a war you can't win.

Best regards,

Hideki Tojo.

OhioCoastie's avatar

Why a tactical nuke? Use a carpet of cluster bombs. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

Because gunpowder bombs are weapons of combat. Nukes are weapons of war. One says: you pissed me off and I’ll kill a few of you. The other says: we’re done with this shit.

Gman79's avatar

Want a "good offense"? Then attack the "coach" on the sideline - Iran. Make a smoking pile out of Bandar Abbas on Day 1, Hormuz Day 2, Khark Day 3, keep going until the target folder is empty. We've been dealing with this for 48 years.

Alexander Scipio's avatar

That works for me, too.

The Drill SGT's avatar

again, the Houthi get their missiles and drones via Iranian freighters, run a backtrack on freighters to Iranian ports

timactual's avatar

Iran is just a symptom.

The Drill SGT's avatar

In the Mid East and in dealing with Iranians in particular, we should channel Lucius Accius:

"oderint dum metuant"

Alexander Scipio's avatar

“Islam delenda est”

Randy Steel's avatar

If the muzzloids were smart, they'd sink three or four tankers in the Suez.

That would make a real mess of things.

Makes one wonder about contingencies for such a thing.

Pete's avatar

Actually I wish the Navy had a lot more guns 5” 8” 12” and 16” to turn all the towns and cities along Yemen’s into heaps of rubbles.

And I would like Marines with rifles to occupy all the islands off the coast of Yemen as well as that piece that sticks out toward Africa.

Robert Arvanitis's avatar

Even 5" gets you 20 miles inland.

Pete's avatar

True but nothing says I love you like a 16” shell.

Clair Kiernan's avatar

"When you care enough to send the very best."

The Drill SGT's avatar

we still have a lot of dumb MLRS rounds. you could put a HIMARS on the deck of lots of vessels. the nice thing about MLRS salvos with ICM is that pinpoint accuracy is not an issue

Andy's avatar

They have those launchers in 20 foot shipping containers now. Load them on a fast supply vessel.

Robert Arvanitis's avatar

There’s a Hallmark girl!

Andy's avatar

You want to get close enough to shore with a 2.4 billion dollar ship to get 20 miles inland? I don't.

Robert Arvanitis's avatar

There are countless ways to end the Houthi.

I responded to Pete, on "5 through 16 inch..."

The Drill SGT's avatar

occupying useless islands on sea lanes is now the entire focus of the Commandant. get practice before facing the PLAN

Andy's avatar

Houthi controlled Yemen has a whopping 3 relevant ports including Yemen's second largest.

Pete's avatar

Why are they still operating? They should have been flattened.

Robert Arvanitis's avatar

It's "1984" come true. Can't tell who's on whose side.

The Houthi attack Liberian-flagged tankers, which CCP "Navy" tries to protect. Because Xi's gotta have the oil.

Elsewhere: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-chinese-satellite-firm-is-supporting-houthi-attacks-us-interests-2025-04-17/

TrustbutVerify's avatar

There is no simple answer, but our philosophy has always been to hit the archer so the arrows don't fly in the first place. So, to displace the threat, we need to - without warning - insert the entirety of our airborne and SOF forces to surround and block the escape of the Houthis, then destroy them in detail - personnel and infrastructure. Hold them by the nose and kick them in the ass, to quote a popular historical movie character. Seize an airport and get the armor and heavier artillery on the ground. Get it over with and quit whining about it...and let them know what happens if they try it again in the future. They're pirates under international law - and terrorists - treat them as such.

LT NEMO's avatar

We should have learned...should have...that the only way to really suppress pirates, bandits, or other foes is boots on the ground. Shores of Tripoli and all that.

We also should have learned that staying for decades to rebuild their nation to something more pleasing to our sensibilities only works in very limited circumstances...like completely crushing them...and even then, maybe only with cultural underpinnings that are suitable.

Otherwise such ancient, but socially unacceptable, techniques such as butcher and bolt and creating a desert and calling it victory work well enough.

timactual's avatar

Why would you want to "REbuild" something you thought needed to be destroyed?

LT NEMO's avatar

Some sort of misplaced "White man's burden?"

Always sounds good on paper. Me? I'm over it. We've got about 150 years of US history and over twice that of Western history says it doesn't work.

Andy's avatar

Our time in the desert seems to have shown we can't secure lines of trade in the desert any better than on the ocean.

TrustbutVerify's avatar

We won the wars and were fighting a low level insurgency that could not displace us militarily. It is only the nation building that failed and that is because the measure became that we "lost" as long as any portion of the population was out killing people. In reality, the number of people injured and killed in comparative time frames was LESS in Iraq and Afghanistan than a Chicago weekend....let alone everyplace else. It is a question of narrative creating expectations and unrealistic metrics...mostly by a hostile press. The same press that support Hamas, the Houthis, Iran, etc. in spreading their propaganda.

timactual's avatar

".mostly by a hostile press"

Nope. Those unrealistic expectations and metrics (body count, anyone) were created and promoted by our wise and expert leaders, military and civilian. One of the reasons the press became increasingly hostile is the lies, exaggerations, and disinformation they were fed.

TrustbutVerify's avatar

There was certainly a lot of hope and happy talk from the nation builders for the press to glom onto...but there is no doubt there was little reporting of the benefits of schools, electricity, water, and other infrastructure improvements as measures of progress (and good will/intentions) and more of a focus on wherever an IED went off. One tends to support the effort, the other to sow discord and frustration in the public here at home relative to their continued support for the effort.

It was not all sunshine and flowers, but there was some...and it wasn't all doom and gloom. All depends on the emPHASis you place on it.

timactual's avatar

"if they try it again in the future."

"They" have been trying, on and off, for about 1500 years. The Houthis are just another symptom.

TrustbutVerify's avatar

Well, the lessons must be retaught, from time to time. We've had respites before based on visiting terrible consequences on our foes - not being restrained and proportional. Not to go all Conan, but sometimes you must crush your enemy and drive them from the field, lamentation of the women to follow.

Paul McBride's avatar

Make Yardarms Great Again

Pirates need to be hanged or as Julius Caesar did- crucified. Standing orders need to reflect hang them immediately with no need for a trial. The lowest ranking Ensign in charge of the rowboat is empowered to carry this out.

Locate and engage the Pirates at sea, hang all the survivors locate their base of operations -and like Port Royal- destroy it and execute survivors.

Historically Pirates were wiped out with punitive expeditions and not one iota of care about any civilian in the area. No worries about their feelings, importing democracy, or rebuilding their culture. No input about their cultural biases.

This is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. We seem to lack the political Will to carry those solutions.

And this doesn’t call for precision strike campaign- this calls for overwhelming mass destruction with as much ordnance as can be placed in the geographic area as possible. No such thing as collateral damage.

If only the United States and the Navy had some sort of historical experience with Muslim pirates. I bet you could write a song about it.

Andy's avatar

Piracy seems to be the lesser threat here.

William Joseph Downey's avatar

First, we should ask, what is the vital strategic interest for the United States?

Second, what is Europe's strategic interest in securing the Red Sea?

Third, where's Egypt? That country's vital interest is the revenue generated by transit via the Suez.

Fourth, can, or should, the US continue to deploy a CSG in the region?

The Drill SGT's avatar

we have 24/7 satellite and UAV coverage of the Red Sea. Maybe we can't get an airborne asset there in time to stop a Houthi attack, but we can run a video tape back and discover the source of the boats or launch site.

The 18th century solution to pirates was not just to sink them it was to 'burn pirate nests"

Do that here. unproportionate response to attacks, but without expending millions in missiles.

campbell's avatar

Here's a problem; what is the solution? seems the best would be to enlist parties who have boots on the ground already and demonstrated ire with Houthi.......so, spool up Yemen and Saudis. give em top cover, let them duke it out on the ground.

Hey, make em a deal! something Chump could arrange; a little money here and there, some special armaments arrangements down the line...

"risk conflict with Iran" ??? Sir.....that ship has sailed long ago. we may not be interested in war, but it, via Iran, certainly has interest in U.S. so, deal with it directly.....'n tell wishy-washy "allies" they can take their high faltutin sensibilities to go back and pout in their corners....

Tom Yardley's avatar

The only target the Saudis have successfully hit was the World Trade Center.

SubicbaypirateCG31Alum's avatar

It is quite apparent exterminators will have to go ashore to take care of these roaches. I would nominate the Egyptians to go in and handle the idealistic hajis. I would hope they could convince some of their friends in the Arab world to join them. They are the ones that must be getting crushed by the lack of Suez fees. Perhaps Uncle Sam can provide eye in the sky support as needed. Until the Orkin man shows up this is a very expensive game of whack a mole.

Dale Flowers's avatar

No free rides. Let the end users of oil, ore, grains and other products shipped through the Red Sea solve the problem. Collectively or solo. If some nations cut shady backdoor deals, pandering or payola, with the pirates to get left alone, then they become part of the problem too. The world is either civilized or it isn't. I don't see a middle ground. It's tough love time. It's always tough love time.

LT NEMO's avatar

While I'd like to agree with you on this, I think it's not that simple.

Yeah, the bottoms are 99% foreign, but many of them are carrying US goods. You can thank the various ill thought out legislation making US flagging a losing proposition economically.

Should we defend foreign ships delivering imports to the US? Should we defend foreign ships moving exports to market? There's going to be a lot of yay sayers to those questions.

I'm not if it's the right thing to do or not. But we're definitely not doing it in a way that actually works. Nor that has any history of actually working. And, as many have pointed out, three is plenty of history.

Jetcal1's avatar

Interdict food and munitions going into Yemen.

Brettbaker's avatar

And napalm the khat, they might start acting a little less crazy.

Andy's avatar

The Houthi are the one Iranian proxy where there value is in economy of force. Sink one ship and it has a massive impact to ongoing global trade. It would also seem they have not been as well infiltrated by Israeli or others. I really don't understand why we don't shoot for a blockade. Literally patrol their coast just out of range of pot shots with small patrol craft.