Yesterday the AP ran a remarkable story headlined, “3 commercial ships hit by missiles in Houthi attack in Red Sea, US warship downs 3 drones.”
Yesterday, the Yemenese Houthis — a group nobody ever heard of before, from a country only one percent of college kids could find on a map — launched a barrage of missiles and drones at a flotilla of large commercial ships and a United States Destroyer, the U.S.S. Carney, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer.
The Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for ‘Supporters of God’), are a Shia muslim ‘political and military organization’ widely known to be supported by Iran (also Shia).
In 2021, citing “humanitarianism,” Joe Biden promptly un-designated the Houthis as terrorists. One man’s terrorist and so forth. Instead, the Biden regime ‘sanctioned’ the group to try to get them to behave, but in light of current events, sanctions do not seem to be working. I’m only saying.
Also in 2021, team Biden stopped supporting the official Yemenese government (Sunnis), with whom the Houthis are allegedly fighting.
The USS Carney from Jacksonville’s Mayport base, knocked down the Houthi missiles and drones and then launched a
Hellfire missile racing straight back, blowing all the former terrorists into Kingdom Come.
Wait. Sorry. Scratch that. I just assumed we fired back.
I should have said: the Carney knocked down the missiles and drones … and then did buck all. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
Wait, wait. I still got it wrong.
I should have said the Carney knocked down A MISSILE and A DRONE and then three more Houthi missiles blew into the three large commercial carriers the Carney was supposed to be protecting: the Unity Explorer, the Number 9, and the Sophie II.
And we just took it.
I’m almost there, but I suppose it’s still a smidge inaccurate to say we just took it. We did something. We promised to think about responding, which counts as doing something in the map rooms of our woke, high-heeled admirals infest.
Per the Associated Press:
The U.S. vowed to “consider all appropriate responses” in the wake of the attack, specifically calling out Iran, after tensions have been high for years now over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.
See? We’re carefully considering an appropriate response.
What could that be? Well, first of all, not launching missiles back at the Houthis, dummy. That would be an inappropriate response, which is obviously the opposite of an appropriate response. I mean, when has violence ever solved anything?
Apart from Slavery, Nazism, Communism, and two World Wars. But other than those ones, I mean?
And, don’t you agree we wouldn’t want to respond inappropriately?
That’s how inappropriate Russians like VLADIMIR PUTIN act, and just look at how things turned out for Putin. He’s died of cancer six times now. So.
Still not convinced? Gosh, you’re like a dog with a bone with this missile idea. Okay, smarty-pants, where are we supposed to get missiles to fire back at the Houthis?
The Carney? Are you kidding? We’re saving those missiles for attacks. Please. Don’t try to be a Navy admiral. It’s very, very complicated.
Only slightly more seriously, the U.S. Central Command did actually respond to the attacks with a media statement.
The CentCom statement did nothing militarily, but arguably raised the stakes diplomatically, hauling Iran partly into the spotlight with a hyper-careful bit of diplomatic word-salad:
“We also have every reason to believe that these attacks, while launched by the Houthis in Yemen, are fully enabled by Iran.”
So exactly when does considering options stop and using options begin? I suppose the good news is that, despite how frustrating it is to watch, cooler heads are in charge of things over there in the spicy Middle East and are not responding to obvious attempts to provoke a wider conflict.