US and UK launch strikes against Houthi rebels

I think everyone saw this coming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-67952029

President Biden says the strikes are in response to Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea since November

Royal Air Force warplanes helped carry out the "targeted strikes" against military facilities, says PM Rishi Sunak

[Dude111]

I think its just aweful!!!

[noel43]

Originally Posted by Dude111

I think its just aweful!!!

As usual we will do what the US wants us to do.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by noel43

As usual we will do what the US wants us to do.

Both in an election year, a good patriotic conflict is what's needed to divert he electorate. Worked many times.

[Pierre]

I would have liked to have seen a more international effort. I know some nations provided background support but the issue in the Red Sea affects all western nations.

Shipping has been greatly affected which impacts all of us, not least Egypt, which will lose revenue from the Suez Canal.

This response has been wrapped up in a self defence narrative because US/UK naval ships have been targeted

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Both in an election year, a good patriotic conflict is what's needed to divert he electorate. Worked many times.

Tale as old as time.

[joglynne]

Interesting, though predictable , updates added to Paul's original link.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Both in an election year, a good patriotic conflict is what's needed to divert he electorate. Worked many times.

Originally Posted by jfman

Tale as old as time.

Terribly obliging of those Houthi chaps to start firing missiles into the Red Sea. Wonder if they’re Tory donors?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Terribly obliging of those Houthi chaps to start firing missiles into the Red Sea. Wonder if they’re Tory donors?

Timing is everything. As is the option of not joining America’s next hapless crusade in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by jfman

Timing is everything. As is the option of not joining America’s next hapless crusade in the Middle East.

As I said. It’s almost as if every Wa’eed-2 is a donation-in-kind to the Tory election chest. I wonder if they’ll have to update the rules so incoming munitions aimed at civilian ships and the Royal Navy have to be declared as fundraising.

Originally Posted by jfman

Timing is everything. As is the option of not joining America’s next hapless crusade in the Middle East.

Alternatively, the Houthis could not attack civilian ships.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Alternatively, the Houthis could not attack civilian ships.

They certainly could - but that doesn’t detract from it being a political choice by our Government to participate in joint military action with the Americans against them. Just as it’s a political choice for those Governments in NATO and around the world who do not.

Post office pardons, trips to Ukraine to fund our military industrial complex some more. Things are looking up for Rishi.

[Sirius]

In addition i see an upsurge in the sale of tinfoil. Many hats will be created

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNO2sSW-mU

[1andrew1]

Some sobering commentary from Sky News. It does seem to me a risky strategy and it's notable that other Western nations have not rushed to join the UK and US.

But there are several good reasons why the escalation may be counterproductive and dangerous.

Are the Houthis likely to be deterred by these attacks? Ask the Saudis. They have tried for eight years to use military force to control and deter them with little success.

The Houthis are a determined and resilient fighting force, nimble and fleet-footed in the deserts of Yemen. The assets they have deployed against international shipping are mobile.

It is not like striking a conventional Arab force like Saddam Hussein's in the Gulf War, for instance. Their guerilla fighters will most likely keep one stage ahead of the aerial campaign to destroy them.

Instead they are likely to escalate their activity in retaliation with the continuing support of Iran. That could lead to attacks elsewhere in ways Western military planners have not anticipated.

Most worrying though the intervention draws Britain and America closer to a confrontation with the Houthis' Iranian patrons.

They are now directly fighting Iranian allies. That is an ominous development for the Middle East.

The challenge with military offensives is always keeping them contained. One thing often leads to another.

Iran most likely still wants to stay on the sidelines playing mischief and using surrogates in this regional conflict. But the laws of unintended consequences always apply in conflict.

Miscalculations and mistakes can lead to escalation and take events in unpredictable directions. And there is always the danger of the ayatollahs' other proxy militia, Hezbollah, escalating from sparring with Israel to full-scale war over their shared border.

Was last night's action and more to come necessary?

The Houthis say their Red Sea attacks have been in protest at Israel's offensive in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of Palestinians there.

A ceasefire in Gaza would likely end their attacks on ships and the launching of cruise missiles aimed at Israel.

But the British and Americans say Israel has a right to continue fighting until Hamas is neutralised even if they are increasingly alarmed at the excessive number of civilians being killed.

Britain and America will insist this action is surgical and aimed solely at making the Red Sea safe again.

But that is not how millions across the region will see it. To them, Western countries are now using military force to support Israel and allow its bloody Gaza offensive to continue

There is still no clear sense from Israel when their war aims will be achieved. The war in Gaza has no end in sight and its repercussions are becoming more and more grave across the region. The contagion is unlikely to end here.

https://news.sky.com/story/strikes-a...-iran-13046631

Originally Posted by jfman

They certainly could - but that doesn’t detract from it being a political choice by our Government to participate in joint military action with the Americans against them. Just as it’s a political choice for those Governments in NATO and around the world who do not.

Post office pardons, trips to Ukraine to fund our military industrial complex some more. Things are looking up for Rishi.

The Post Office I’ll give you. Something that was recently very difficult and down to the appeals court is suddenly solvable via once-in-a-lifetime legislation. Fairly obvious electioneering.

As for the rest of it … interest in freedom-of-navigation issues is longstanding UK foreign policy. From the Armilla Patrol in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s and 90s, to sailing a carrier through the South China Sea or patrolling off the coast of Somalia or in the Caribbean Sea to deter piracy, it’s manifestly just what we do. In the present situation the severely heightened threat is obvious, as is the necessary response.

And no, our involvement in Ukraine has nothing to do with promoting our military industrial complex or whatever else you’ve been inhaling on hard-left Xitter. Such nonsense belongs in the Socialist Worker or similar profoundly unserious publications. If you want to understand the UK’s approach to Ukraine you would be better off listening to what Russia’s near-neighbours in Eastern Europe and the Baltic have to say on the subject. We have been listening to them and taking their warnings rather more seriously than most of Europe or indeed the US.

I grant you, our Prime Miniature will be thinking that footage of him touring Ukraine or ordering the RN into action will play well with the electorate, but the suggestion that this is why he’s doing it doesn’t stand up to even a microsecond’s actual thought.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some sobering commentary from Sky News. It does seem to me a risky strategy and it's notable that other Western nations have not rushed to join the UK and US.

https://news.sky.com/story/strikes-a...-iran-13046631

Other Western nations

1. Don’t have very big navies
2. Those that do (France) don’t like putting them under US operational command
3. Don’t have anti-air capabilities anything like as sophisticated as the UK’s T-45 destroyers, whose initial design concept was informed by real, hard earned experience of the only serious naval war since WW2 (the Falklands)
4. For the most part feared that the US’s proposed rules of engagement were too timid and liable to lead to heightened risk of damage even to well defended naval vessels.

Note that the ‘final straw’ swarm attack on Tuesday was repelled by 3 US destroyers, a US aircraft carrier and 1 RN destroyer (HMS Diamond) which took down around a third of the incoming ordnance all by itself. We do it because we can. Most others can’t.