Are you familiar with Peter Zeihan? He had a different take long before this conflict broke out.
His view is that since the Second World War, the US has been defending sea lanes at its own cost.
But since it is now less dependent on trade than other countries, it should stop.
He would say it is contrary to the US interest to subsidize Chinese maritime trade with its fleet.
With his reasoning, abandoning the Red Sea doesn't hurt the US that much and saves its fleet for much more important national interests, like deterring more imperialist expansion by Russia or China.
So, the US could ask China to pay the USN to stay in the Indian and Pacific oceans, and leave if China said no? I think China would happily call that bluff.
It depends who you are fighting a war with. Yep, the Navy lost the war with the Houthis. But it has been pretty successful in wars with commercially-motivated pirates off the coasts of Africa, and in the straits around Indonesia. Which only goes to show that nationalism is a force more powerful than the almighty dollar. Which is another lesson that should be learned.
I don't want this discussion derailed by a general debate about US policy in the region. I will write something about this when i can get over my horror at it all. Please don't comment again, except with specific reference to the Houthis and the canal
Interesting. Perhaps aircraft carriers are now as obsolete as dreadnoughts.
Kinzhals, anyone?
;)
Our nuclear powered submarines will be so useful!
Right on. And Australia is spending globs of money on nuclear submarines instead of education and health care. When do we wise up ?
Yours is an interesting take.
Are you familiar with Peter Zeihan? He had a different take long before this conflict broke out.
His view is that since the Second World War, the US has been defending sea lanes at its own cost.
But since it is now less dependent on trade than other countries, it should stop.
He would say it is contrary to the US interest to subsidize Chinese maritime trade with its fleet.
With his reasoning, abandoning the Red Sea doesn't hurt the US that much and saves its fleet for much more important national interests, like deterring more imperialist expansion by Russia or China.
But much of the claimed protection is against China. Australian satirical show commented on this a long time ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k
Yes. Peter's point is that the US should stop paying to protect China's exports.
So, the US could ask China to pay the USN to stay in the Indian and Pacific oceans, and leave if China said no? I think China would happily call that bluff.
If something else is intended, what?
It depends who you are fighting a war with. Yep, the Navy lost the war with the Houthis. But it has been pretty successful in wars with commercially-motivated pirates off the coasts of Africa, and in the straits around Indonesia. Which only goes to show that nationalism is a force more powerful than the almighty dollar. Which is another lesson that should be learned.
The Somali pirates (formerly fishers) had national grievances about overfishing by foreign fleets. That was mostly resolved - it was this as much as enforcement that ended the wave of priacy. But now both overfishing and piracy are returning. https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/somalia/roots-somalias-slow-piracy-resurgence
I analysed the costs and benefits of anti-piracy operations a while back https://johnquiggin.com/2016/05/02/pirates-militarism-whack-a-mole-173/
I don't want this discussion derailed by a general debate about US policy in the region. I will write something about this when i can get over my horror at it all. Please don't comment again, except with specific reference to the Houthis and the canal