6 Comments
User's avatar
Randy Garbin's avatar

For better or worse, the US pushed the UK out of its role as the world's guardian of the sea lanes. For the next 30-50 years, we sailed unchallenged in that capacity, and it had immediate benefits for world commerce. Shutting down the Houthis falls under this responsibility. One could argue the legitimacy of this from a libertarian perspective, but if this was the ONLY thing our defense establishment did, we wouldn't have to pay so much for it.

The problem is that very few of these merchant vessels fly under the US flag, which in theory once guaranteed that the US Navy would defend them from pirates, etc. It assumes that the cost of such registration pays for that protection, but ships today are more likely to fly under the Liberian or Panamanian flag than ours. Perhaps Trump should address this?

Expand full comment
Perry Willis's avatar

Anything that moves in the direction of having the shipping industry bear the costs directly would be a good thing. Meanwhile, having U.S. taxpayers do it is far from the worst use of taxation.

Expand full comment
Randy Garbin's avatar

Yes, there are direct benefits to the US economy in general.

It wasn't that long ago that I grasped why until WWII the War Department and the Navy were two separate entities. While the Founders didn't much like standing armies, they didn't seem to have the same concerns with a navy.

Expand full comment
Perry Willis's avatar

The navy was less of a threat to overthrow the domestic government. I do think they underestimated how much it would be used to project power overseas in bad ways.

Expand full comment
Randy Garbin's avatar

Still, it was curious to me that the Navy wasn't part of the War Department.

Expand full comment
Perry Willis's avatar

Yes, that is interesting.

Expand full comment