Proposal: The Yemen Corridor

Author: Swagnarok

Posts

Total: 18
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
The US Navy is currently fighting its most intense war since WWII. Iran's proxies in Yemen, the so-called Houthis, are firing weapons at ships passing through the Red Sea, one of the entry/exit routes of the Suez Canal. This would have enormous ramifications for global maritime commerce if the Navy sat back and did nothing. In the process, however, it's expending its limited arsenal of state-of-the-art missiles, weapons which we could need against China.
The Houthis, presumably, could do this forever, since they're being armed by Iran. We don't have that luxury. Hence, this post.

See this map?


The Houthis control the green, and it's obvious how they're able to keep getting away with this. I propose a limited military intervention, not to pacify this whole country, but to seize the green up to 35 miles inland. This would be a relatively small US-occupied zone, but one which would accomplish the following objectives:

1. The Red Sea would be outside the range of the Houthis' cheapest and most plentiful munitions. For each strike, they would have to expend the resources they have less of.

2. They would have no line-of-sight of their targets, since they'd be 35 miles away. Assuming they could use drones to find targets, these would need to have a minimum radius of 35 miles or else they either couldn't reach the Red Sea in the first place or they couldn't make it back afterward, meaning they'd be one-time tools. Assuming the Houthis do have drones of a longer range than this, drones move slowly and the US could have enough time to detect them before they completed their missions.

3. Having at least 35 miles from launch to target would give the Navy, or even the Army, time to intercept.

4. Even assuming none of the above stopped the Houthis, they would become a landlocked group surrounded on all sides by hostile actors. It would be extremely difficult for them to bring in supplies under these conditions, so they'd eventually run out of whatever weapons they had.

5. The US could use its airbases as a launchpad to conveniently strike Houthi targets further inland as need be.

6. The Army would do most of the fighting instead of the Navy.

This zone would be large enough for a sizable chunk of Yemen's population to take refuge in it. They would enjoy immediate humanitarian relief from the Saudi-led blockade, and the US could impose its own law over the area, offering protection from Sharia or human rights abuses by the dysfunctional other Yemeni government. At the same time, it's a small piece of the country overall so reactionaries who didn't like it (or anybody who didn't want to live under the thumb of the United States) could easily migrate elsewhere.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Have you learned nothing from Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam...?

You already attacked Yemen once. You lost lmao

I guess some people never learn.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Besides, Yemen is mostly attacking ships which travel towards terrorist Israel and its allies.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Besides, Yemen is mostly attacking ships which travel towards terrorist Israel.
You mean Israel which is right on the other side of the Suez Canal? That Israel? Assuming just for the sake of argument that the Houthis had some moral justification for that, they have no way of knowing where ships are headed. They're indiscriminately firing on random targets.

and its allies.
In other words, they're asking to be bombed by said allies who they're attacking, such as the United States, and they have no right to complain.

Have you learned nothing from Iraq
We won in Iraq, BTW. The idea that we're incapable of ever winning a counterinsurgency under any conditions has been disproven.

Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam...?
The objective here would be far smaller.

It wouldn't matter that we didn't control 97% of the country. It wouldn't matter if we failed to win "hearts and minds", or if the Houthis continued to exist elsewhere in Yemen. We'd just have to secure a narrow sliver of land to push the Houthis out of the Red Sea. Every year that seaborne commerce is safe from them is a year that we win. Even if 10 years later they took it back, we'd have enjoyed 10 good years that we otherwise wouldn't.

Likewise, the small size of this territory would enable the US to keep a sustainably small garrison there (unlike the 160,000 GIs in Iraq at the war's height) meaning it wouldn't tie us down from meeting commitments elsewhere.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Assuming just for the sake of argument that the Houthis had some moral justification for that, they have no way of knowing where ships are headed. They're indiscriminately firing on random targets.
Most ships there travel towards Israel and its allies. Besides, collateral damage isnt something US has right to complain about.


In other words, they're asking to be bombed by said allies who they're attacking, such as the United States, and they have no right to complain.
Actually, you have no right to complain when ships get bombed by Yemen, since Yemen is morally justified in attacking terrorist ships.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
We won in Iraq
Not really.

First it took you 10 years to deal with insurgents, then another 10 years to deal with ISIS which then spread everywhere thanks to US wars.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
We won in Iraq, BTW...
Lolwut?

Isis is still present, the current government is absolutely corrupt, and US can't depend on any cooperation.

It's another Afghanistan. Period.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
The objective here would be far smaller.
Thats great news for Yemen.

Much easier to attack an enemy which is limited to a smaller territory.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I have never actually heard of anyone saying US won in Iraq.

I thought it was common knowledge that Iraq war was a "two decades of disaster" which led to civil wars all over the place and cost US both in military expense and multiplied its enemies.

Really, like it or not, Saddam was keeping ISIS in control, and was the only one who was able to keep Iraq united and stable.

It was in US interest to make Saddam into ally. Now USA has to pay even more money to keep Iraq's current government alive which is barely able to survive even with US help.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
ISIS can keep fighting a low-intensity guerrilla war forever for all I care. Until the day they actually win and take over the country, or at the very least cause the north to secede so that Iraq is incapable of taking it back, it cannot be said that the US lost.

Even if the radical Shi'ites take over the country (and it's increasingly doubtful now, since the Iraqis have declined to sweep them into power at the voting booths and the militias are probably not strong enough to topple the government), they're not the enemy who the US invaded to combat, so it's questionable if that could be called a loss either. The US clearly lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan because the specific enemies it set out to fight eventually won, which isn't the case here.

the current government is absolutely corrupt

Until they're dropping poison gas on the Kurds again, I say whatever. It's still a big improvement over what they had.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Really, like it or not, Saddam was keeping ISIS in control, and was the only one who was able to keep Iraq united and stable.
He wasn't "keeping ISIS in control". There was no ISIS before his ex-soldiers, after the 2003 invasion, decided to form it. They went from Arab socialists to jihadists in the blink of an eye, because their real motivation for fighting was Sunni identity politics.

Iraq was an inherently more sustainable project because: (1). the US installed the majority group in power, whereas Saddam represented a minority group; (2). the country's flat, relatively barren terrain isn't as suitable for guerrilla war as the extremely mountainous Afghanistan or the dense jungles of Vietnam; and (3). the jihadists weren't being supplied with all the weapons and equipment they needed by a rival superpower, since the US had no such rivals in 2003.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
There was no ISIS
Well said. 

There was no ISIS until US bombed a country and  made its people seek revenge. So yeah, the best way to create more terrorists who hate you is to bomb people.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Iraq was an inherently more sustainable project 
Sure, if two decades of wars and terrorist attacks everywhere counts as stable, all while costing US trillions.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
I propose...to seize the green up to 35 miles inland
A revision here. According to THIS source:


Their shortest range anti-ship missile can hit 40 km out, and their second shortest 80 km (50 miles) out. Another missile, though not anti-ship, has a 70 km range. Occupying 50 miles, instead of 35, should stop these weapons, and we can assume these are probably the bulk of the Houthi missile inventory.

The capital of the US zone would be the port city of al-Hudaydah, which the country heavily depends on for the import of humanitarian aid. Securing this city would prevent the Houthis from weaponizing food against the population.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Really, like it or not, Saddam was keeping ISIS in control
More importantly, it was a check on Iran. Now we got a whole 'nother mess with Hamas. Unintended consequences
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Problem is it would probably take a declaration of war to do that 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Same old shit.

If you've got weapons hanging around, you might as well use them before they go out of date.

7 days later

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
If you've got weapons hanging around, you might as well use them before they go out of date

Their now saying they for non-perishable foods, the expiration date for the most part is not that significant.

Do weapons really have and expiration date?

..." One of the things the defenders of Ukraine wish for 2024 is long-range ballistic missiles. Namely, they want to get a load of ATACMS, which can be fired by HIMARS and M270 systems and have a range of 300 km. ATACMS missiles would help Ukraine stretch out Russian supply lines, and target many crucial military objects in Crimea. However, the US might destroy a load of ATACMS instead of handing them over to Ukraine.
At least it seemed so. The MGM-140 ATACMS has been in service since 1991. This means that a lot of the early missiles are 30 years old. And apparently, that is close to their shelf life limits. ...

...Now Major General Pat Ryder, the Press Secretary of the Department of Defense, denied these rumours – the US is not going to destroy ATACMS in bulk. However, he could not say if these older missiles could go to Ukraine instead."

Maybe they could go to  Yemen various ways ---> ----> ----> as fireworks display of some sort or another to say '...cease and decist...'