[KurtFF8]

Source

The US and Britain launched air and missile strikes in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, aimed at halting attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Washington and London have announced.

Joe Biden, the US president, said American and British forces, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands were involved in the overnight attack, which appeared to target a dozen sites in the country.

In a statement, Biden said: “These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea – including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history.

“These attacks have endangered US personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardised trade, and threatened freedom of navigation.”

Biden also said he would be willing to authorise further attacks on Yemen if Houthi attacks on shipping did not stop. “I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary,” he said.

Houthi forces claimed to have instantly retaliated against western warships, but a senior US military official said late on Thursday night no Houthi response had so far materialised.

“As of right now, we have not seen any direct retaliatory action directed towards our US or other coalition members,” the official said, adding: “We remain prepared of course to defend ourselves.”

The western air strikes come at a time of significantly heightened tensions in the Middle East. Israel’s war in Gaza is now into its fourth month, while the country is also engaged in an increasingly violent exchanges of missile fire on its northern border with the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, who are backed by Iran.

Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister confirmed UK participation in the strikes, saying, “We have … taken limited, necessary and proportionate action in self-defence, alongside the United States against targets tied to these attacks, to degrade Houthi military capabilities and protect global shipping.”

Initial reports suggested that around a dozen sites in Yemen had been targeted, using fighter jets from the US Navy, US Air Force and Royal Air Force, along with ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, suggesting a broad assault intended to quickly deter the Houthis and make it harder to launch further attacks into the Red Sea.

“This was a significant action and and conducted with the objective and every expectation that it will degrade in a significant way, the Houthis’ capability to launch exactly the sorts of attacks that they have conducted over the period of recent weeks,” a senior US administration official said.

The Pentagon insisted that the nature of the strikes was intended to strictly limit civilian casualties.

“These targets were very specifically selected for minimising the risk of collateral damage. We were absolutely not targeting civilian population centres. We were going after very specific capability and very specific locations with precision munitions,” a senior US military official said.

He stressed that the US-UK action was separate from the 22-nation naval coalition, Operation Prosperity Guardian, assembled to defend Red Sea shipping.

A Houthi campaign targeting shipping in the southern Red Sea area, in support of Hamas in Gaza, began in mid October, using missiles and drones designed in Iran. The Houthis, who have the support of Tehran, say they are targeting ships linked to Israel although in practice this has not always been the case.

The US military said the Houthis have launched 27 attacks, with the last coming on Thursday, when the rebel group fired a cruise missile into shipping lanes in the Gulf of Aden, according to US Central Command.

But a decision to launch a military response by the US and UK came after the Houthis launched a drone and missile attack aimed at a fleet of American and British warships in the southern Red Sea. The brazen nature of the attack led the US and the UK to warn on Wednesday “there will be consequences”.

The US and the UK had deployed warships in the southern Red Sea region to protect commerce on one of the world’s busiest waterways. Vessels passing to and from the Suez Canal further north accounted for 15% of global seaborne trade before the Houthi attacks deterred many from travelling through the area.

Britain’s Ministry of Defence said four RAF Typhoon fighters struck two targets in north-western Yemen using Paveway guided missiles. They were the airfield at Abbs, said to have been a launch site for Houthi cruise missiles and drones, and a site at Bani, said to have been used for reconnaissance and attack drones.

“Particular care was taken to minimise any risks to civilians,” the MoD said, and added that the results of the strikes was now being assessed. “Early indications are that the Houthis’ ability to threaten merchant shipping has taken a blow,” it added.

A Houthi official said that “American-Zionist-British aggression against Yemen” had seen raids launched on the capital, Sana’a, in the area of the port city of Hodeidah, and the cities of Saada and Dhamar.

Witnesses in the Yemeni capital, Sann’a, told Reuters that they heard three loud explosions, although information was only gradually emerging and initial reports could not immediately be verified.

Earlier on Thursday the US said it had “to counter and defeat these threats that the Houthis keep throwing up” – while the leader of the Yemeni group, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, said it would respond with fresh assaults on western shipping if they came under attack.

The Western imperialists are just itching for WWIII

[Rugoz]

The Western imperialists are just itching for WWIII

Iran and its proxy itching for WW3.

Adequate and proportionate Western response.

[annatar1914]

Iran and its proxy itching for WW3.

Adequate and proportionate Western response.

@Rugoz :

Usually our geopolitical positions could not be further apart, but I find that the reason why in this one instance it is not is most curious to me.

However, the response of the West is neither adequate nor proportionate to the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, and in fact does not go anywhere near being enough to militarily resolve the issue.

This is not strategy, but a weak spasm in reaction to being attacked by forces that while lacking somewhat in technology make up for it in resolve and spirit.

And they'll escalate.

[wat0n]

@Rugoz :

Usually our geopolitical positions could not be further apart, but I find that the reason why in this one instance it is not is most curious to me.

However, the response of the West is neither adequate nor proportionate to the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, and in fact does not go anywhere near being enough to militarily resolve the issue.

This is not strategy, but a weak spasm in reaction to being attacked by forces that while lacking somewhat in technology make up for it in resolve and spirit.

And they'll escalate.

Let's see if they in fact escalate, ultimately the ones to solve this militarily are the regional actors involved. The goal seems to achieve deterrence, that's all.

[noemon]

@Rugoz :

Usually our geopolitical positions could not be further apart, but I find that the reason why in this one instance it is not is most curious to me.

However, the response of the West is neither adequate nor proportionate to the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, and in fact does not go anywhere near being enough to militarily resolve the issue.

This is not strategy, but a weak spasm in reaction to being attacked by forces that while lacking somewhat in technology make up for it in resolve and spirit.

And they'll escalate.

I couldn't agree more. I was expecting Greece to take somewhat of an active role in this due to Greek shipping.

Dendias said more than month ago we will send a frigate, then today after a Greek ship was seized by Iran, he said we will send 2, but when I searched for more details, I realised that that the mission is several months away and that the US, UK presence is minute, like a couple of ships and a couple of flights from Cyprus.

Generally speaking people in Europe are just sleep-walking.

[Rugoz]

@Rugoz :

Usually our geopolitical positions could not be further apart, but I find that the reason why in this one instance it is not is most curious to me.

However, the response of the West is neither adequate nor proportionate to the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, and in fact does not go anywhere near being enough to militarily resolve the issue.

This is not strategy, but a weak spasm in reaction to being attacked by forces that while lacking somewhat in technology make up for it in resolve and spirit.

And they'll escalate.

What are you going to do? Invade Yemen, bomb Iran, regime change in Moscow?

[ThirdTerm]

The Houthis are said to have the support of Tehran but they can be treated like any other terrorist groups such as ISIS, which lowered the bar for the Anglo-American joint strike. Iran is very unlikely to retaliate unless Iran itself is attacked. Using proxies to attack Israeli interests is advantageous for Tehran because it would make Iran safe from a retaliatory strike.

[Skynet]

The question is will Putin provide them weapons?

Even the well armed Saudi-Arabia could not beat the Houthis for 7 Years.

Russian and Chinese ships can cruise without danger.

[annatar1914]

What are you going to do? Invade Yemen, bomb Iran, regime change in Moscow?

@Rugoz :

I see what you did there..

I just know that people of a certain type in this world desperately need the two major conflicts in the world now (Middle Eastern and the Ukrainian) to become one conflict, when they aren't, yet at least.

I would have done to the Houthis the same thing I would have wanted for the Bandera devils and for the same reason.

And for @wat0n and others, of course the Houthis will now escalate they're still basically intact are they not? That's the problem don't you see?

[KurtFF8]

The Houthis are said to have the support of Tehran but they can be treated like any other terrorist groups such as ISIS, which lowered the bar for the Anglo-American joint strike. Iran is very unlikely to retaliate unless Iran itself is attacked. Using proxies to attack Israeli interests is advantageous for Tehran because it would make Iran safe from a retaliatory strike.

Why would they be likened to a group like ISIS, they're quite different from everything I've read.

[late]

Why would they be likened to a group like ISIS, they're quite different from everything I've read.

They are what we once called a proxy. They exist largely due to money and support from Iran, and the attacks are something Iran wants.

The oil rich countries are mostly Sunni, Iran is Shia. ISIS is Sunni.

When we took out Saddam Hussein, we took out the buffer between Iran and the Saudi. Iran has a lot of influence in Iraq now. Anyway, the point is that the Saudi are useless at anything they can't buy. They've been fighting guys that are poor and badly armed. The Saudi guys are mercenaries with really good equipment. The actual fighters don't have a dog in the fight, so they attack civilians. Ugly business.

So the 2 are quite different, but they have similarities. They both exist because they are funded by opposite sides in the struggle to dominate the ME.

[wat0n]

@annatar1914 if the Houthis are deterred and stop messing with maritime trade, the mission will have been a success.

If you believe they should be destroyed, this should fall on who one would think is most interested in doing so, although I would supply them with arms to do so.

[late]

@annatar1914 if the Houthis are deterred and stop messing with maritime trade, the mission will have been a success.

If you believe they should be destroyed, this should fall on who one would think is most interested in doing so, although I would supply them with arms to do so.

We have thrown together a coalition to discourage the Houthi. The Saudi isn't part of it, most of the time they are useless.

If it doesn't involve spending money or killing women and children, look elsewhere.

[wat0n]

We have thrown together a coalition to discourage the Houthi. The Saudi isn't part of it, most of the time they are useless.

If it doesn't involve spending money or killing women and children, look elsewhere.

The Houthis can and likely will be discouraged with these bombings, but not defeated for good without a ground operation. That task does definitely fall upon the regional powers, i.e. the Saudis.

I also wonder what makes you believe no women and children will be killed by this coalition. If they attack targets located in civilian areas (which is likely, since groups like the Houthis, ISIS, the Taliban and Hamas do place their infrastructure in civilian areas), chances are that there will be dead women and children.

[late]

The Houthis can and likely will be discouraged with these bombings, but not defeated for good without a ground operation. That task does definitely fall upon the regional powers, i.e. the Saudis.

I also wonder what makes you believe no women and children will be killed by this coalition. If they attack targets located in civilian areas (which is likely, since groups like the Houthis, ISIS, the Taliban and Hamas do place their infrastructure in civilian areas), chances are that there will be dead women and children.

Why does your advice in the ME always come down to killing most of them??

The Houthi are a ragtag bunch, and while the Saudi have been killing their women and children, their mercenaries with their shiny new weapons have lost a number of battles. The Saudi are useless.

Learn to read. We used expensive guided munitions to minimise civilian casualties. That's the opposite of dropping 2 ton bombs in Gaza.

[wat0n]

Why does your advice in the ME always come down to killing most of them??

The Houthi are a ragtag bunch, and while the Saudi have been killing their women and children, their mercenaries with their shiny new weapons have lost a number of battles. The Saudi are useless.

Learn to read. We used expensive guided munitions to minimise civilian casualties. That's the opposite of dropping 2 ton bombs in Gaza.

Those expensive guided munitions were extensively used in Mosul, and damaged or destroyed 2/3 of the city. The tomahawk missiles used by the US & British navies are 1.3 ton, and their planes may as well be using precision guided bunker busters (2 ton).

Don't come up with this crap. Any attacks against an urban area aiming to destroy infrastructure will kill civilians. Deal with it.

[Deutschmania]

Unprecedented ? Hardly . The United States took similar armed action against the corsairs of the Barbary States , after the previous Treaty of Tripoli had failed to secure peace . The Barbary Wars was the first time that the United States wound up battling Islamic belligerents . This was later commemorated in the Marine Corps Hymn , where it mentions the shores of Tripoli. I find it to be amazing the lack of a sense of history that present day American politicians have .

[late]

Those expensive guided munitions were extensively used in Mosul, and damaged or destroyed 2/3 of the city. The tomahawk missiles used by the US & British navies are 1.3 ton, and their planes may as well be using precision guided bunker busters (2 ton).

Don't come up with this crap. Any attacks against an urban area aiming to destroy infrastructure will kill civilians. Deal with it.

The law is quite specific. If you try to avoid killing civilians, that is considered acceptable. The bombs Israel is using are dumb bombs, you drop it and the shock wave kills most everyone in the area, along with taking down some buildings. That is a complete and utter disregard for civilians...

Btw, the Saudi heavily bombed Yemen, I was just talking about it. You don't have anything like the concentration in Gaza, and attacking the targets should produce minimal civilian casualties.

But you knew that, didn't you.

[wat0n]

The law is quite specific. If you try to avoid killing civilians, that is considered acceptable. The bombs Israel is using are dumb bombs, you drop it and the shock wave kills most everyone in the area, along with taking down some buildings. That is a complete and utter disregard for civilians...

Btw, the Saudi heavily bombed Yemen, I was just talking about it. You don't have anything like the concentration in Gaza, and attacking the targets should produce minimal civilian casualties.

But you knew that, didn't you.

Over half of Israel's bombings have been done using precision-guided munition. The rest have been mostly dive-bombings in areas where there are no civilians around, which are done precisely to increase precision.

And, you keep ignoring that US bombings using precision guided munition still killed thousands of civilians in Mosul, with low powered munition eventually being more destructive in practice.

The Precision Paradox

The Mosul Study Group lauded the US and coalition employment of precision strike during the battle for its ability to strike a given target and reduce the collateral damage. The problem with this assessment is that, while true on its face, it presents a clear fallacy when one steps back from an isolated individual strike and looks at the cumulative effect of those weapons over the course of the battle. The Mosul Study Group indirectly eludes to this by stating:

In Mosul, the destruction of physical terrain did not necessarily equate to comparable effects against personnel or communication nodes. Munition choices in Mosul, amplified by the structural density of the city, were not always proportional to the intended effects on the enemy and, when combined with rules of engagement considerations, on collateral damage. Even when considering overpressure and blast waves from these rounds, ISIS fighters were forced from their defensive positions by shrapnel or direct-fire weapon systems, rather than blast effects.

In many instances, when a target was struck a number of individuals subsequently fled from the building. Seeing those Islamic State fighters abscond into another set of houses or buildings resulted in additional precision strikes being dialed up and launched, with the effect repeated. If the initial strike did not kill every Islamic State fighter in the target location, then each target struck created multiple subsequent targets as fighters fled to other locations. In essence, this spidering effect from a proximal target location created a targeting loop that involved more strikes and thus more risk of collateral damage.

Aside from that, the ubiquitous threat of precision strike also drove Islamic State fighters underground. They would tunnel from house to house in order to avoid detection by overhead surveillance tools. In turn, this second-order effect from precision strike further increased destruction across the city.

This cause-and-effect loop, or Precision Paradox, was a situation in which the failed promise of precision strike—one strike, one kill—generated a creeping wave of destruction across the city. Reports vary, but around ten thousand civilians were killed during the battle, of which 3,200 were from coalition airstrikes and indirect fire. Of those civilians killed, many of the deaths were the result of being crushed to death in buildings either directly targeted by coalition strikes or adjacent to those targeted by the coalition. The city requires upwards of $2 billion to rebuild. The battle for western Mosul alone destroyed an estimated forty thousand homes and left ten million tons of detritus for the victors to deal with.

Additionally, the allure of precision strike and its associated rolling wave of destruction was one of the primary factors that attributed to the grinding positional battle of attrition that devastated the city. The sense of security provided by precision strike resulted in Iraqi land forces waiting to advance until coalition strikes shaped the target area in front of them. This caused the battle, especially in western Mosul, to evolve into a methodical grind as Iraqi forces would attempt to eliminate Islamic State fighters or positions sequentially before moving forward and maintaining offensive momentum.

It is instructive to also note that the over-reliance on precision strike severely cut into the American strategic stockpile of precision weapons. Open-source reporting toward the end of the battle highlights the fact that the US military was running out of Hellfire missiles and a number of other precision munitions during the campaign to defeat the Islamic State. Given the central role of precision weapons in the battle, this could have been quite problematic if the battle had lasted much longer than it did. This Precision Paradox is important for the US Army to understand as the service ponders future war.

[late]

1) Over half of Israel's bombings have been done using precision-guided munition.

2) The rest have been mostly dive-bombings in areas where there are no civilians around, which are done precisely to increase precision.

3) And, you keep ignoring that US bombings using precision guided munition still killed thousands of civilians in Mosul, with low powered munition eventually being more destructive in practice.

1) Looks like I was talking about the other half...

2) Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. You drop a 2 ton dumb bomb on a building, you are going to kill a lot of people. A lot of people left northern Gaza, a lot couldn't leave. That's how one gets close to Nazi levels of civilian deaths.

3) That's Whataboutism.

You keep trying to avoid the obvious.

Doesn't work, does it...