Since WWII, the US has upheld Mahan’s spirit of ruling over the world’s oceans with its largest number of overseas navy installations, its technologically advanced vessels and its networking with naval allies, all of which prompted its sea-power and its economic dominance. But has Yemen broken down age-long US pretense of being the one unchallengeable battle-force Navy in the world waters?
In his theories, Mahan advocated a concentration of powerful ships in home waters and minimum strength in distant seas, and the need for a transnational consortium with allies. This was a strategy of strong defence at home and an ability to provide security to the US trade abroad. But with WWII and especially post-Cold War, the US proved itself to be an aggressive rather than a defensive naval power. Its position has been where no country wants to attack it, rather it is in a position where it brings wars to other nations’ lands. And its technological superiority in nuclear-powered and nuclear-strike capability ships have added deterrence to its perceived sole superpower status.
Even so, the truth is that the idea of having large battle-force navies that would serve to colonise other states and would play the most critical role in all-out global wars has become impractical with time. Especially in the post-9/11 era, in the Arab Spring wars and in the ongoing Ukraine and Gaza wars, it has been evident that states want to refrain from all-out wars or regional wars because of risk of a nuclear event. And for this reason, the heavily armed nuclear platforms, suited for large-scale global wars, have practically become dormant for the time being. Most contemporary wars show trends of proxy-settings, militancy, terrorism, guerilla warfare and hybrid 4th and 5th Generation Warfare. In this changed scenario, it is obvious that concentration of large vessels and aircraft carriers near enemy waters can easily be counterproductive due to guerilla tactics at sea.
This exact situation is being faced by the US and Allies at the hands of Yemen’s Houthis at this time. Yemen itself being a war-torn state has faced a horrific war with the Saudis for over eight years, and with 80% of people living in hunger, there was zero anticipation that Yemen would ever come out as a contender against Israel or the US. Yet on November 14, Yemen’s Ansarullah Force announced their intent to target any Israel-linked ship passing through the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea. And on December 9, they announced, “if Gaza does not receive the food and medicine it needs, all ships in the Red Sea bound for Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality, will become a target for our armed forces.”
Since then, Ansarullah has made at least 23 attacks on international shipping and separately it has attacked Israel’s port-city of Eilat several times. The attacks on cargo ships have sent panic waves throughout world economies; and world’s biggest shipping companies like CMA CGM, MSC and oil giants BP and Evergreen have been forced to re-route around Africa, where they will cover an extra 13,000 km and bear the fuel costs. More time and costs are escalating fears of worldwide inflation, when already global economy is going through recessionary phases. So, the clause of US naval strategy that meant to secure sea-trade for itself and its allies by dominating the Sea Lines of Communication has been hijacked at least in the Red Sea by Yemen’s handful of drones and missiles.
US security strategy of regional integration by building maritime defence structures among its consortium of allies has also been jeopardised by Yemen. When Secretary of State Lloyd Austin announced a naval coalition of 20 states to counter Yemeni attacks, key US allies — Saudi Arabia and Egypt — refused to join, and even European allies Denmark, Holland and Norway agreed to send a small number of naval officers. France said it could not deploy additional ships, and Italy and Spain denied they had entered the coalition in the first place. This complete embarrassment on the geopolitical stage has put a stamp on the eroding influence the US holds in world politics.
Ironically, the world’s largest navy, confronted with the poorest Arab state, seems to be at its knees. This is because Yemen is attacking with drones costing around $2000 each, and the US is intercepting those drones with SM-1 missiles that cost $2.1 million each. Yemen has already fired over 100 drones and missile and if each has been intercepted the US and its allies would have spent $200 million already. But while Yemen would be getting more inexpensive drones and missiles from Iran in bulks, the US stocks of interceptor missile, not more than a few hundred in the Red Sea, would be swiftly depleting. Reportedly, US weapons manufacturers can produce less than 50 SM-2 and fewer than 200 SM-6 missiles annually. And then there is also the difficulty of reloading new missiles, for which the ships have to be at a friendly port. The only reload facility in the Red Sea is Djibouti which itself is in the range of Yemen’s drones and missile. So the ships would have to leave the Red Sea to reload.
Mahan had emphasised on a ‘vigorous foreign policy’ that was needed side by side of ‘naval strength’. But it seems like the US and Allies have failed in developing a favourable foreign policy outside the club of their western friends. Already the unfruitful Arab Spring wars had pushed key allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan away from the US, and now the US support for the ‘genocide of Gaza’ has given legitimacy and acclaim to Hezbollah, Ansarullah and Hamas, that were previously labeled as terrorists by the West.
Not only are they acclaimed, they are now the new heroes of the Muslim world; they have patched the previous Sunni-Shia divide-line with their heroic persistence; they have reminded humanity how a handful of defenders of truth can challenge and even defeat the world’s superpowers.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2024.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
Yemen upends US naval strategy
48
10
06.01.2024
Since WWII, the US has upheld Mahan’s spirit of ruling over the world’s oceans with its largest number of overseas navy installations, its technologically advanced vessels and its networking with naval allies, all of which prompted its sea-power and its economic dominance. But has Yemen broken down age-long US pretense of being the one unchallengeable battle-force Navy in the world waters?
In his theories, Mahan advocated a concentration of powerful ships in home waters and minimum strength in distant seas, and the need for a transnational consortium with allies. This was a strategy of strong defence at home and an ability to provide security to the US trade abroad. But with WWII and especially post-Cold War, the US proved itself to be an aggressive rather than a defensive naval power. Its position has been where no country wants to attack it, rather it is in a position where it brings wars to other nations’ lands. And its technological superiority in nuclear-powered and nuclear-strike capability ships have added deterrence to its perceived sole superpower status.
Even so, the truth is that the idea of having large battle-force navies that would serve to colonise other states and would play the most critical role in all-out global wars has become impractical with time. Especially in the post-9/11 era, in the Arab Spring wars and in the ongoing Ukraine and Gaza wars, it has been evident that states want to refrain from all-out wars or regional wars because of risk of a nuclear event. And for this reason, the heavily armed nuclear........
© The Express Tribune
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
