Do you think the Houthis can do more damage to the U.S. than the U.S. can do to them? I don’t understand your point. Is it a bad thing if the U.S. doesn’t want to wage war on someone?
Winning a war means achieving your political goals and getting out without creating too many new problems. Winning battles may help you achieve that, but the victories may also be irrelevant to the eventual conclusion.
Every potential opponent knows that the main US weakness is the unwillingness of the civilian population to commit to winning a prolonged war. If the opponent can just survive long enough, there is a high likelihood that Americans will grow tired of the casualties and the wasted billions and give up.
Saddam Hussein operated on similar assumptions about American political will to absorb casualties until his army got blasted in 1990 then desposed in 2003.
Subsequently, most potential enemies will be operating in the grey line between doing some damage to American interests while not so much that it pisses them off to really invade. Conversely, the US military does serve as a deterrent that heavily limits the actions of opponents from actualizing their own goals. Instead they need to engage in decades long asymmetric warfare while their population suffers without a end goal in sight. And even while USA might be unwilling to engage, it dosent stop other opponents like Israel with more political will from performing more direct actions.
The US Navy is using $10 million missiles to shoot down $10k drones. Do the math. They could deplete US Navy stockpiles for trivial costs. They have turned the US Navy's strength into its own weakness.
What people don’t realize is that the US hasn’t actually fought under LSCO conditions since early Vietnam, as regardless of the scale of the deployment the ROI and thus the tactics that can be employed were mostly limited to LIC/PKO.
This reasoning would make sense if it was the case that the U.S. is incapable of doing something else to prevent drone attacks. The U.S. has chosen a course of action but it is not limited to doing just this. There are many other options.
Yes, the Cape of Good Hope is open and as traffic through the Suez has declined the traffic through the Cape of Good Hope has increased. The U.S. has made a political calculation on how to deal with the Israeli conflict. That decision has not in any way been influenced by a lack of military capabilities by the U.S. military.
And what “calculation” would that be? To publicly condemn Israel while privately funneling billions in borrowed money to it, and ineffectually expending extremely expensive ammunition in the Gulf of Aden? Was this a part of these “calculations”: https://www-tasnimnews-com.translate.goog/ar/news/2024/04/24...?
The U.S. has made a political calculation on how to deal with the Israeli conflict. That decision has not in any way been influenced by a lack of military capabilities.
Do you think the Houthis can do more damage to the U.S. than the U.S. can do to them? I don’t understand your point. Is it a bad thing if the U.S. doesn’t want to wage war on someone?
Winning a war means achieving your political goals and getting out without creating too many new problems. Winning battles may help you achieve that, but the victories may also be irrelevant to the eventual conclusion.
Every potential opponent knows that the main US weakness is the unwillingness of the civilian population to commit to winning a prolonged war. If the opponent can just survive long enough, there is a high likelihood that Americans will grow tired of the casualties and the wasted billions and give up.
Saddam Hussein operated on similar assumptions about American political will to absorb casualties until his army got blasted in 1990 then desposed in 2003.
Subsequently, most potential enemies will be operating in the grey line between doing some damage to American interests while not so much that it pisses them off to really invade. Conversely, the US military does serve as a deterrent that heavily limits the actions of opponents from actualizing their own goals. Instead they need to engage in decades long asymmetric warfare while their population suffers without a end goal in sight. And even while USA might be unwilling to engage, it dosent stop other opponents like Israel with more political will from performing more direct actions.
The US Navy is using $10 million missiles to shoot down $10k drones. Do the math. They could deplete US Navy stockpiles for trivial costs. They have turned the US Navy's strength into its own weakness.
The US navy could glass Yemen in an afternoon.
What people don’t realize is that the US hasn’t actually fought under LSCO conditions since early Vietnam, as regardless of the scale of the deployment the ROI and thus the tactics that can be employed were mostly limited to LIC/PKO.
This reasoning would make sense if it was the case that the U.S. is incapable of doing something else to prevent drone attacks. The U.S. has chosen a course of action but it is not limited to doing just this. There are many other options.
It's using the phalanx as well. Those rounds are pretty cheap.
It doesn’t matter. Houtnis closed the trade routes and “the world’s strongest navy and air force” shat the bed pathetically trying to unblock them.
Your understanding of the situation is badly wrong.
Are the trade routes open? No? Then my understanding of the situation is exactly right.
Yes, the Cape of Good Hope is open and as traffic through the Suez has declined the traffic through the Cape of Good Hope has increased. The U.S. has made a political calculation on how to deal with the Israeli conflict. That decision has not in any way been influenced by a lack of military capabilities by the U.S. military.
And what “calculation” would that be? To publicly condemn Israel while privately funneling billions in borrowed money to it, and ineffectually expending extremely expensive ammunition in the Gulf of Aden? Was this a part of these “calculations”: https://www-tasnimnews-com.translate.goog/ar/news/2024/04/24...?
Feel free to expand on that if you’re so sure.
The U.S. has made a political calculation on how to deal with the Israeli conflict. That decision has not in any way been influenced by a lack of military capabilities.