News of US air strikes against Houthis in Yemen over the past week have dominated much of the news in the Middle East. Since November 2023, the US has conducted aerial campaigns against the Houthis for interfering with shipping. The conflict between Yemen and the US is complicated with numerous actors. The civil war since 2014, Saudi Arabian involvement, other terrorist regimes, etc have created a complicated situation. Confrontation goes back even to the 2000 USS Cole bombing in a Yemen harbor that, although claimed by Al Qaeda, shows how far back and muddied the issues are.
Strategic bombing as a concept is not new. Excluding nuclear weapons, the implication is that aerial strikes can win wars. Bombing emerged late in WW1 but was too late and too ineffective to have much strategic impact as the war wound down. Aerial bombardment in WW2 in both the European and Pacific theaters clearly had an effect on strangling the supplies and industrial capacity of the Axis Powers. That being said, even the atomic bombs alone likely did not end the war. It was more likely the bombs AND the millions of Soviet and American troops preparing to invade Manchuria and the Japanese home islands, respectively, that achieved final victory. Bombing didn’t win the Korean War. Despite heavy bombing in Vietnam, North Vietnam still ultimately won. Gulf War bombing was impressive, but it took ground forces to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Iraq and Afghanistan were more failed ventures that featured heavy aerial strikes using planes, helicopters, drones, and missiles.
Bombing is not ineffective, admittedly. It can be argued that Libya’s Qaddafi was silenced for years after then President Reagan bombed his house in retaliation for attacks on US soldiers in Europe. However, the raid didn’t invoke regime change and it had a very limited objective. Similarly, bombardment can be useful when used to support ground assaults.
For over a century, the US has increasingly relied on aerial power as a form of ‘diplomacy by other means.’ It has, however, never been responsible for the ending of conflict/war.
It is now 2025. The US under President Trump is once again increasing bombing attacks on a country that America wishes to apply pressure to. Despite months of attacks, the Houthis were still able to send a missile towards Israel just yesterday.
The US Departments of State and Defense failed America for nearly two decades with their unimaginative tactics in Afghanistan and heavy use of air power. Nearly 100 days into the new administration’s regime, bombing does not appear to be showing any significant signs of ending the conflict.
Bombardment carries less domestic political risk than ground assaults. Perhaps this is a reason why modern Presidents have such a proclivity to order air strikes.
In the age of mass media, loud explosions and night vision assessment of strikes deliver great imagery and sound bytes to the electorate. Perhaps this is another reason for the penchant to continually order air strikes around the world.
In the end, the big question remains: ‘Are airstrikes doing any good?’ The military industrial complex benefits monetarily. It is no accident that the dud smart bomb found in the Yemeni desert this week1 was made by Raytheon (the company the last SECDEF worked for). The politicians get to tell the voters they are ‘doing something.’ The generals get to appear like they are leading. Statesmen get swagger for the continual application of American force around the world. At the end of the day, the American bombings go on and on without true effect.
Interestingly, the Chinese seem to have nearly as much influence globally, a feat they accomplish without a single bullet or bomb or missile. There is indeed much to ponder.
- https://defence-industry.eu/unexploded-u-s-gbu-53-b-stormbreaker-bomb-discovered-in-yemens-shabwah-desert/
