The Biden administration commits to indefinite intervention in Yemen, a livestream event today, U.S. military exercises worldwide, and more.

STRATEGERY

U.S. strikes on Yemen aren't working, Biden admits. Maybe try something else?

After 10 days of near-daily strikes on Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been attacking ships in the Red Sea, Biden administration officials told WaPo on Saturday that they are settling in for the long haul, "crafting plans for a sustained military campaign."

How long? Hard to say! Officials "don't expect that the operation will stretch on for years like previous U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria"—which isn't saying much, as those wars lasted 20, 18, and 10+ years, respectively. Beyond that hollow promise, they "can identify no end date" or even estimate when a strategic goal might be achieved.

Perhaps that's because, as President Biden himself observed, U.S. strikes aren't working: "Well, when you say 'working,' are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Yes."

Here's a rundown of how we got this Kafkaesque strategy—and what we could do instead.

Red Sea strikes

"Since mid-November 2023, the Houthis have conducted more than 30 attacks on international vessels transiting the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden," as DEFP's Michael DiMino explains in a new policy brief. But the details matter:
- "To date, the group's drone and missile volleys have not caused casualties or sunk any ships."
- "The overwhelming majority of Houthi attacks have either missed their targets or been defeated."
- "The group's few successful hits have resulted in minimal damage with ships remaining seaworthy." [DEFP / DiMino]
"With respect to a wartime action, the Constitution is quite clear: The legislative branch has the sole responsibility to decide whether the nation enters hostilities," whether that is through a formal declaration of war or at least a narrowly defined authorization for use of military force. [Chicago Tribune / Daniel DePetris]
And strikes on Houthi positions haven't deterred further attacks. Indeed, some analysts think "this new phase of hostilities may strengthen the Houthis" by garnering attention and clout. [WaPo / Ishaan Tharoor]

'An unenviable choice'

"Very predictably, attacking the Houthis failed to stop them from attacking shipping, and they have instead escalated," as Friedman wrote. "Now we are left deciding whether to back down and look feckless, or pointlessly escalate." [X]
"The Biden administration is now confronted with an unenviable choice," noted DEFP's Daniel R. DePetris: "Take more military action after each Houthi attack, or hold your fire. The first increases the prospects of escalation, which the U.S. should be avoiding. The second will make the U.S. look confused and disjointed." [NYT]
"Ideally," DePetris added, "U.S. officials would have thought through these dynamics before the initial order to strike." [NYT]

What next?

"There is no credible military option that will guarantee a cessation of Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea. Strikes alone are unlikely to alter Houthi strategic intentions; decrease the frequency of attacks on cargo shipping; or significantly degrade Houthi" capabilities. [DEFP / DiMino]
Instead, "a policy response of diplomatic engagement could be considered. It would include incentives-based inducements and negotiation, which are low-cost options for the United States that might resolve the crisis." [DEFP / DiMino]
Alongside diplomacy, the U.S. should also consider complementary low-risk options like "strategic inaction" and "zone defense," DiMino argues, with extensive analysis of the costs and benefits of these and other options. Read his full analysis here.

LIVESTREAM TODAY @ 2

Heightened Chinese military capabilities, rising tension, and limited U.S.-China diplomatic engagement fuel growing concerns that a war could break out between the world's two largest powers. What strategy will serve U.S. interests best?

Please join Defense Priorities today, Wednesday, January 24, for a thoughtful discussion on these important issues, featuring David Kang, Peter Harris, Susan Shirk, and Lyle Goldstein.

Quoted

"[Strikes] won't work. They won't sufficiently degrade Houthi capability or will stop their attacks on shipping. Why do something that is so evidently reckless? […] We always have the option not to employ pointless violence."

– DEFP Policy Director Benjamin Friedman, as quoted in, "The era of interventionist dominance is over." [TAC / Kelly Beaucar Vlahos]

Mapped

Countries with U.S. counterterrorism exercises, 2021–2023

In recent years, the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy has turned from counterterrorism to great power conflict, particularly the prospect of a U.S.-Russia war (linked to Ukraine), a U.S.-China war (over Taiwan or North Korea), or a regional conflagration in the Mideast.

But post-9/11 counterterrorism continues to a degree many Americans do not realize, USA Today reports, based on a new publication from Brown University. That includes U.S. counterterrorism military exercises in the dozens of countries mapped above.

"We still have this counterterrorism apparatus trudging onward," said Brown researcher Stephanie Savell. "It makes U.S. forces vulnerable to attack and increases the likelihood of the U.S. engaging in a much bigger offensive war."

Read more from USA Today, or see the full report from Brown's Watson Institute (PDF).

"Well, when you say 'working' …"