The truth of the matter is that old Uncle Sam has an impotence problem. Locating and destroying mobile missile platforms is a daunting task, especially in the rugged terrain of Yemen. After seven weeks of bombing the Houthis, Uncle Sam’s carrier strike group has failed to quell the Houthis. Not that the US had a great reputation to begin with, but the bombing of civilian targets inside Yemen, which has produced scores of dead women and children, is only fueling greater hatred of the United States.
Since Trump’s 15 March order to renew attacks on Yemen, the US has lost almost $500 million in planes and drones and failed to guarantee safe passage for Israeli vessels daring to enter the Red Sea. Good job, Mr. Hegseth.
I almost don’t know what to say about Pete Hegseth’s social media post (see above). It is juvenile, counterproductive and dangerous. During my time living in Central America, I learned a very important piece of wisdom… i.e., The fish dies by its mouth. We need a comparable expression for social media posts like this one. Hegseth, like some angry teenager, is upset that Trump’s version of Operation Prosperity Guardian is a bust.
Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG), which was initiated in December 2023 under the Biden administration, continues to operate under its original name, but has been executed with an intensified ops tempo, as measured by bombing sorties and missile strikes inside Yemen. In February 2025, operational leadership transitioned from Combined Task Force 153 to Destroyer Squadron 50, a U.S. Navy surface warfare unit. The Trump team labored under the false assumption that the Biden folks did not make a serious effort to destroy the Houthis’ arsenal of missiles and drones. The Trumpers believed that they could bomb the Houthis into submission. Instead, the US is demonstrating to all countries in the region the limits of its naval and air power.
US officials told the paper that President Biden was expected to lift a ban on the sale of offensive weapons to Riyadh that he put in place over three years ago, although US support for Saudi Arabia has continued.
In February 2021, President Biden said he would end “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen and paused a bomb sale to Riyadh. However, the US continued to support the Saudi bombing campaign, as it was revealed a few months later that the US was still servicing Saudi warplanes.
President Biden also continued to push forward arms deals for Saudi Arabia, including a $650 million air-to-air missile deal, which the administration claimed was for defense. Before the Saudis and the Houthis reached a truce at the end of March 2022, Riyadh launched heavy airstrikes in Yemen, and it was one of the deadliest periods of the war for Yemeni civilians.
Instead of stepping outside the bubble, rather than snatching a drop of courage and fortitude from our lazy and easily corruptible existences, we always do the easy thing. We follow. Human rats traverse the ship’s mooring lines, seething to get to that hidden cargo that will grow our bellies bigger.
Russia has no future. The British Isles do. Long before the last serving of fish and chips has passed into gastronomy history, Blinis and Pelmeni will have been stricken from all the languages of Earth. At least, this is what Owen Matthews, the author of the book Stalin’s Children, believes. Sadly, he is not alone in his ludicrous and addictive hate of all things Russia.
Spectator’s View
Somebody, please stop me! Morning research has inextricably led me to another media analysis—this time on the weekly British newspaper The Spectator. The title of Matthews’s story will help you understand how a geopolitical analyst can’t seem to get off of Western news. “Putin may seem confident – but Russia’s future is bleak,” is problematic because it is entirely based on a dark fantasy. Matthews, after whining about Mr. Putin running things in Russia some more, launches into a spew about the Ukraine military operation. In his vent, the British son of Ukrainian S.S.R. parents belches a familiar Western strategy burp – the idea that Ukraine ever had any chance of winning a conflict against Russia.
It’s counterproductive to hover over this “made” British journalist for long. As many in the service of the liberal elites freaked over the new multipolar order, Matthews has made the rounds for his lords and masters. During the Bosnian war, he was a mouthpiece from Budapest, Sarajevo, and Belgrade. He also ran interference in the Second Chechen War, as well as in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan – the usual places propagandist altar boys get sent. The most significant difference between Matthews and a cadre of corporate-owned contemporaries is he’s one hell of a lot better at slicing and dicing the Ukraine situation. On Russia? Well, let’s just say he has to play his role according to direction most of the time.
Like all the other stories we’ve read about Putin, the Euromaidan, Ukraine, Russia, and the state of West-East affairs, all the familiar bell tones are there. Ideas like new Russian imperialism, Russia’s weak army, Putin’s destroyed economy, and even a Russian brain drain exodus are there to rivet the willing idiots tuned in. I assume the Russian mafioso, former Yukos oil boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and other Western-backed privateers are the “best and brightest” to whom the Statesman story refers. The magazine’s paywall prevented me from diving deeper into this latest Russophobic rant. The exciting thing here is the question that arises from observing so many talented writers being sucked into the dark wormhole of elitist illusion. Aha! You say? We are onto something much more profound than painting paid propagandists.
Long Live the King
You see, almost all of these Putin haters and China worriers are convinced of their correctness by a system that rewards outcomes. Or the outcomes those who control the system desire. In America and other Western alliance countries, every level of society is “led” toward one desirable outcome – profit. It is not simply ordinary profit but an economic system that makes tribute to a French, Spanish, or English king look like alms for the poor. It’s all very refined, you see. It’s cloaked in ideas like “democracy” and injected into our veins like a serum called “freedom.” Owen Matthews is not the only Brit who believes in his ideas. He’s just got the job of dope dealer for the susceptible masses. But he probably does not know it. Some CIA-groomed tech Titans or Pulitzer winners do understand from whence their fame and fortune is derived. These are clutching the half-filled glass of single malt before, during, and after lunch. At a point, even people like the notorious Victoria Nuland end up looking in the mirror and seeing a son or daughter of Satan himself. Stop and think.
Now, apply your vision of a face wrenched by hate, lies, power struggles, ruined relationships, and way too many chocolates and other sweets. The faces you may visualize are the “little” Victoria Nuland in our society. Or, perhaps, you’re conjuring mental pictures of your next-door neighbor. You know, the one with the big Putin hate, who could not find Ukraine on a map with countries named. I taught geography for a bit. That was until I realized that one child in 100 cared about Ma and Pa, a ballgame, or a trip to Walmart. Sadly, even Ma and Pa America think the United States is twice as big as Africa. You have the beginnings of a window here, right here in this paragraph. Yes, they want us stupid as hell.
It’s uneconomic to fight primitive people with modern weapons. Our million-dollar missiles blow up huts in the sand. At some point, some of their $10,000 missiles are going to get through and destroy a billion-dollar warship.
It’s almost always a mistake for foreigners to get involved in another country’s civil war, especially when it has religious overtones. It doesn’t matter which side you back; the people that you’re backing are not your friends, and the people on the other side will really hate you. It’s a no-win situation for the US. None of our business, with no upside. Except for US Government operatives who get to play bigshot.
International Man: Yemen has sometimes been called “the Afghanistan of the Middle East” because it is an impoverished tribal society that is well-armed, situated on mountainous terrain, and generally inhospitable to foreign invaders and a central government.
What are your impressions of this country?
Doug Casey: Regrettably, I haven’t been to Yemen and have no plans on going—partly because I’ve seen enough similar flyblown Islamic hellholes. But it’s well known that the country is extremely primitive, poor, tribal, and very religious.
Yemenis take their Mohammedanism quite seriously. No offense to believers, but the more primitive, poorer, and more tribal a place is, the greater the tendency for their lives to revolve around religion. It binds them together and gives their lives meaning. It is not a good place for foreigners of a different race, religion, or culture to invade. This begs the question, why would anybody want to invade it? There’s nothing there of any real value. Maybe there are some undeveloped resources, but the natural resource business is high risk/high cost under even the best circumstances.
You certainly don’t want to invest in a place with unfriendly natives. So, it’s entirely insane for outsiders to care about Yemen.
It has been said that war is nature’s way of teaching Americans geography. That’s true. Not one American in a thousand even knew the place existed until a few weeks ago; now, they all have opinions on what “we” should do, even if they still can’t find it on a map. But fear not. Even as we speak, plenty of reasons why we should care about Yemen are being fabricated in DC.
International Man: Yemen has long been a difficult place for foreign invaders.
Most recently, the Houthis, an Iran-backed group that controls most of Yemen, frustrated the military coalition of Saudi Arabia and its allies.
Though most people are unaware of this war or its details, it is remarkable that the Saudis, who are among the wealthiest in the Middle East and backed by the military and political support of the US, could not defeat the Middle East’s most impoverished people in Yemen.
What is your take on the Houthi–Saudi Arabian conflict and its implications?
Doug Casey: I doubt if one American out of 10,000, or even 100,000, had even heard the word Houthi before last year, but now it’s everywhere in the news. And for some reason, they’ve become our problem.
There used to be two Yemens—North Yemen and South Yemen—that were quite different politically and sociologically. They fought each other, then united in 1990. Now, the Houthis, who are Shia (hence the relations with Iran), are fighting a civil war with other locals. But it doesn’t seem to me Yemen is or has ever been a real nation-state. It’s impoverished, with no industry to speak of or the prospect of getting any. The income it has is from some oil production, and it all goes to corruption and paying the army. It has a large foreign trade deficit and debt. And the population is very young and exploding in numbers. It is, by any and every measure, one of the very most dysfunctional and essentially worthless places in the world.
It’s almost always a mistake for foreigners to get involved in another country’s civil war, especially when it has religious overtones. It doesn’t matter which side you back; the people that you’re backing are not your friends, and the people on the other side will really hate you. It’s a no-win situation for the US. None of our business, with no upside. Except for US Government operatives who get to play bigshot.
This bizarre refusal to just call a war a war also appeared in a recent press conference with Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh, who acted shocked and aghast that reporters would even ask if repeatedly bombing a country would qualify as being at war with them.
“The Biden administration is crafting plans for a sustained military campaign targeting the Houthis in Yemen after 10 days of strikes failed to halt the group’s attacks on maritime commerce, stoking concern among some officials that an open-ended operation could derail the war-ravaged country’s fragile peace and pull Washington into another unpredictable Middle Eastern conflict,” the Post reports.
The Post acknowledges that “sustained military campaign” means “war” in the ninth paragraph of the article, saying the anonymous US officials cited in the report “don’t expect that the operation will stretch on for years like previous U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.” Which is about as reassuring as a pyromaniac saying he doesn’t expect he’ll be burning down any more houses like all those other houses he’s burned down.
The Biden administration is crafting plans for a sustained military campaign targeting the Houthis in Yemen, stoking concern about derailing the war-ravaged country’s fragile peace and pulling Washington into another unpredictable Middle Eastern conflict. https://t.co/DCggoOphXJ
This bizarre refusal to just call a war a war also appeared in a recent press conference with Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh, who acted shocked and aghast that reporters would even ask if repeatedly bombing a country would qualify as being at war with them.
“Is it now fair to say that the U.S. is at war in Yemen?” Singh was asked by a Reuters reporter on Thursday.
“No, we don’t seek war,” Singh replied. “We don’t think that we are at war. We don’t want to see a regional war. The Houthis are the ones that continue to launch cruise missiles, antiship missiles at innocent mariners, at commercial vessels that are just transiting an area that sees, you know, 10 to 15 percent of world’s commerce.”
In a follow-up several questions later, Singh was asked by a reporter from Politico, “You said that we are not at war with the Houthis, but if — you know, this tit-for-tat bombing — we’ve bombed them five times now. So if this isn’t war, can you just explain this a little — a little bit more to us? If this isn’t war, what is war?”
“Sure, Lara, sure, great question, I just wasn’t expecting it phrased exactly that way,” Singh replied with a laugh and a smirk. “Look, we are — we do not seek war. We are — we do not — we are not at war with the Houthis. In terms of a definition, I think that would be more of a clear declaration from the United States. But again, what we are doing and the actions that we are taking are defensive in nature.”
Moreover, the US Navy has not been hired by the UN or any other global body to safeguard every sea lane on the planet. Nor should it take the assignment if offered because the homeland security of America does not depend upon Washington functioning as the gendarmerie of the world.
Here we go again. The “Joe Biden” thing just started another war in Yemen without a constitutionally compliant declaration by Congress. And it/they did so against a rag-tag tribe of desert insurgents who cannot possibly harm the liberty or security of the American homeland.
After all, the most fearsome missile possessed by the Houthi is the Burkan-3, which has a maximum range of 750 miles. Yet the last time we checked, the distance from Yemen to Washington DC was 7,200 miles. So why is the GOP leadership branch of the Uniparty saluting Sleepy Joe with a chorus of attaboys?
GOP Senate Leader, Mitch McConnel: I welcome the U.S. and coalition operations against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists responsible for violently disrupting international commerce in the Red Sea and attacking American vessels. President Biden’s decision to use military force against these Iranian proxies is overdue.
GOP House Speaker Johnson: This action by U.S. and British forces is long overdue, and we must hope these operations indicate a true shift in the Biden Administration’s approach to Iran and its proxies that are engaging in such evil and wreaking such havoc. They must understand there is a serious price to pay for their global acts of terror and their attacks on U.S. personnel and commercial vessels. America must always project strength, especially in these dangerous times.
No, Speaker Johnson, America must not go abroad seeking monsters to destroy, as our sixth president, John Qunicy Adams, stated so cogently nearly 203 years ago on Independence Day. The Red Sea is not the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound or the Gulf of Catalina—meaning that the Houthi blockade on ships heading to Israel in retaliation for the latter’s genocidal assault on Gaza is Jerusalem’s business to treat with, not Washington’s.
The absence of Austin would have no doubt exacerbated the alarm within an already trigger-happy U.S. military machine. Combined with those concerns is the lack of confidence in Biden’s cognitive health as Commander-in-Chief.
Given this ferment of conflict, it seems incredible that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was effectively missing in action for several weeks without his nominal superior, Joe Biden, knowing of his whereabouts. Biden’s other title is Commander-in-Chief. In the supposed civilian command structure of the United States military, Austin is second to Biden. Among their supposed responsibilities is the command of U.S. nuclear forces.
The United States is recklessly provoking armed confrontation in these geopolitical cauldrons – all of them involving the danger of nuclear weapons – and yet the highest civilian commander at the Pentagon goes missing in action for several days over secretive surgery.
Apparently Biden is not part of the Pentagram’s equation.
It seems utterly bizarre that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – the second-highest ranking civilian military commander in the United States – was absent from duty for several weeks without President Joe Biden or Congress knowing about it.
A charitable view would be to call the scandal a “comedy of errors”. More appropriately, however, are urgent concerns about the implications for global peace and security. The U.S. resembles a juggernaut out of control careening along a precipice.
This inexplicable prolonged gap in U.S. military command and control at the apex of the Pentagon goes from bizarre to deeply worrying considering the rapidly deteriorating security conditions in the Middle East. And especially because the deterioration is largely caused by the United States and its accomplices in their blatant contempt for international law.
This week, the United States and its British ally carried out over 100 cruise missile strikes against Yemen, purportedly in retaliation for Yemen’s blocking of commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The Yemenis claim that their actions to interdict shipping are legally entitled by their support for Palestinians suffering 90 days of genocidal aggression from Israel backed by the U.S.
Indeed, the Middle East powder-keg situation is set for an escalation towards an all-out region-wide war given the weeks of tensions caused by the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza by Israel. American bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli assassinations of senior Palestinian and other Arab militant leaders. There is growing fear that the violence will spiral into an open armed confrontation between the United States and Iran.
Given this ferment of conflict, it seems incredible that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was effectively missing in action for several weeks without his nominal superior, Joe Biden, knowing of his whereabouts. Biden’s other title is Commander-in-Chief. In the supposed civilian command structure of the United States military, Austin is second to Biden. Among their supposed responsibilities is the command of U.S. nuclear forces.
Austin underwent surgery on December 22 for prostate cancer at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. A subsequent urinary tract infection then caused Austin to be hospitalized again on January 1 for several more days. It is not clear if he was always conscious during this period or under sedation.
It looks like the United States, along with 9 allies — Great Britain, Italy, Bahrain, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain — are on the verge of entangling itself in a new Middle East quagmire as an international armada assembles in the international waters around Yemen. The mission? Stop Yemen from threatening cargo and oil tankers headed to Israel.
Tiny Yemen has surprised the West with its tenacity and ferocity in attacking ships trying to ferry containers and fuel to Israel. Yes, this is a violation of international law and the West is fully justified in trying to thwart Yemen. On paper it would appear that Yemen is outnumbered and seriously outgunned. A sure loser? Not so fast. The U.S. Navy, which constitutes the majority of the fleet sailing against Yemen, has some real vulnerabilities that will limit its actions.
Before explaining the risks, you must understand that the U.S. Navy is configured currently as a “Forward-Based Navy” and is not an “Expeditionary Navy.” Anthony Cowden, writing for the Center for International Maritime Security in September, examined this issue in his article, REBALANCE THE FLEET TOWARD BEING A TRULY EXPEDITIONARY NAVY.
Due to the unique geographical position of the U.S., the Navy has the luxury of defending the nation’s interests “over there.” Since World War II, it developed and maintained a navy that was able to project power overseas; to reconstitute its combat power while still at sea or at least far from national shores; and continuously maintain proximity to competitors. This expeditionary character minimized the dependence of the fleet on shore-based and homeland-based infrastructure to sustain operations, allowing the fleet to be more logistically self-sufficient at sea.
However, late in the Cold War, the U.S. Navy started to diminish its expeditionary capability, and became more reliant on allied and friendly bases. A key development was subtle but consequential – the vertical launch system (VLS) for the surface fleet’s primary anti-air, anti-submarine, and land-attack weapons. While a very capable system, reloading VLS at sea was problematic and soon abandoned. While an aircraft carrier can be rearmed at sea, surface warships cannot, which constrains the ability of carrier strike groups to sustain forward operations without taking frequent trips back to fixed infrastructure. The Navy is revisiting the issue of reloading VLS at sea, and those efforts should be reinforced.
The next step the Navy took away from an expeditionary capability was in the 1990s, when it decommissioned most of the submarine tenders (AS), all of the repair ships (AR), and destroyer tenders (AD), and moved away from Sailor-manned Shore Intermediate Maintenance Centers (SIMA). Not only did this eliminate the ability to conduct intermediate maintenance “over there,” but it destroyed the progression of apprentice-to-journeyman-to-master technician that made the U.S. Navy Sailor one of the premier maintenance resources in the military world. Combat search and rescue, salvage, and battle damage repair are other areas in which the U.S. Navy no longer has sufficient capability for sustaining expeditionary operations.
So what? Each U.S. destroyer carries an estimated 90 missiles (perhaps a few more). Their primary mission is to protect the U.S. aircraft carrier they are shielding. What happens when Yemen fires 100 drones/rockets/missiles at a U.S. carrier? The U.S. destroyer, or multiple destroyers will fire their missiles to defeat the threat. Great. Mission accomplished! Only one little problem, as described in the preceding quote — the U.S. Navy got rid of the ship tenders, i.e. those vessels capable of resupplying destroyers with new missiles to replace the expended rounds. In order to reload, that destroyer must sail to the nearest friendly port where the U.S. has stockpiled missiles for resupply.
Got the picture? If the destroyer must sail away then the U.S. carrier must follow. It cannot just sit out in the ocean without its defensive screen of ships. The staying power of a U.S. fleet in a combat zone, like Yemen, is a function of how many missiles the Yemenis fire at the U.S. ships.
MCViewPoint 