The Suez Canal changes the game. The Suez Canal is one of the areas outside the U.S. that's our business.
The Houthis/Yemen/Iran make it all the more our business when they attack our ships. The U.S. Navy was created for the reason of protecting our cargo ships (1794 Navy Act, George Washington, Barbary Wars, Thomas Jefferson, Steven Decatur, William Eaton). That's not neocon Bolton stuff.
Look at the Barbary Wars. The first war ended after William Eaton completed the first U.S. marine expedition and was about to force Tripoli to surrender, only to learn that a peace treaty had been signed. Did that stop the Barbary pirates from attacking our ships? Only temporarily.
The second Barbary war ended with a much more thorough spanking of Algiers (2 ships captured, 1 sunk, 53 killed, 486 captured). In those days that was a lot. It, combined with help from England and the Dutch meant the attacks on our ships stopped.
So do you want to make the mistake of the first Barbary War and lightly wrist-slap the Houthis? Or do you want to make the mistake of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Bolton way that makes the wars drag out with no clear mission or goals? I hate both of those non-solutions. If someone attacks our cargo ships and Navy ships, I prefer to handle it like we handled the second Barbary War and how Reagan handled the almost sinking of the USS Samuel Roberts -- hit them very hard, very fast, and make it bad enough they either surrender or they're unable to fight for a while.
Exactly right. I agree.