After the recent controversy surrounding a leaked conversation about potential airstrikes on the Houthis in Yemen, a significant issue remains unresolved: the Houthis continue to launch missiles into the Bab al Mandeb Strait, threatening international shipping routes near the Suez Canal. Airstrikes alone are unlikely to stop these determined attackers, who use mobile missile launchers and hide their operations among civilian populations. This situation echoes past military actions, like Israel’s invasion of Gaza, which were also prompted by similar challenges.
President Trump is expected to grow frustrated with the ongoing Houthi missile attacks. He may soon question why these threats persist. Advisors will likely inform him that a ground invasion may be necessary to eliminate the missile launchers and command centers. However, the geographical challenges in the region would require a large-scale amphibious assault from the sea. Unfortunately, the U.S. military currently lacks the capability to carry out such an operation effectively.
This lack of readiness stems from decisions made by General David Berger, who, since becoming commandant of the Marine Corps in 2019, has pushed for a radical shift in focus. He aimed to prepare the Marines for a potential conflict with China in the South China Sea by creating "Stand-in forces" equipped with anti-ship missiles. To fund this vision, he implemented a "divest to invest" strategy, which involved cutting back on tanks, heavy engineering, and much of the combat aviation and artillery that the Marines once relied upon.
The consequences of this strategy have been severe. Many countries in the region, including the Philippines, have shown little interest in hosting the small missile units Berger envisioned. Additionally, the new Navy ships needed to support this plan have proven to be costly, and so far, no contracts have been finalized or ships built. The Marine Corps’ attempts to procure new missile systems have also faltered, leaving these Stand-in forces largely ineffective.
For the first time in its history, the Marine Corps has informed the President and Secretary of Defense that it cannot fulfill missions in support of NATO in Ukraine, evacuations from Sudan, or humanitarian efforts in Turkey due to a lack of shipping. As it stands, the Corps is not prepared for a conflict with China or any major military engagement elsewhere. Its ability to respond to emergencies, which has been a hallmark of its operations for decades, is severely compromised.
Congress has largely overlooked these issues for the past five years, and the current administration has failed to recognize the depth of the problem. If action were to begin today, it might take a decade to restore the Marine Corps to its pre-2018 strength.
General Eric Smith, Berger’s successor, has not acknowledged the challenges facing the Corps. During the Iraq War, the Marines contributed a large force, but now they can barely muster a regimental combat team, lacking essential equipment for modern warfare.
While the Army could potentially provide support, training would take months, delaying any effective response. The shortage of amphibious ships means that the Navy might have to pull resources from other critical areas, such as maintaining readiness in the Pacific, to address the situation in Gaza.
The current state of Navy and Marine Corps readiness is a self-inflicted wound. Right now, the nation lacks a rapid-response force, which raises serious concerns about its ability to handle crises effectively.