European Navies Leave the U.S. High and Dry
As an intelligence officer aboard the USS Enterprise in April 1988, I helped plan Operation Praying Mantis, the biggest U.S. Navy battle since World War II. Afterward I flew to the French carrier Clemenceau to brief their admiral on the destruction we had rained down on the Iranian Navy. Not much has changed ('Down Go the Houthis?,' Review & Outlook, May 7). They and other European ships in the area sat out that fight, as they continue to do now.
There are 178 U.S.-flagged cargo ships—or less than 1% of worldwide shipping—and few pass through the Red Sea. Several thousands more fly European Union flags, and many of them sail near Yemen. France, Britain, Italy and Spain all have aircraft carriers. France has a base in Djibouti, 400 miles from the Houthis. Why does it fall to the U.S. Navy to deal with these threats on our own? U.S. sailors are being stretched to the limit—witness the recent loss of two USS Truman fighters. Our European 'allies' need to step up. Play fair and do your share.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A US Navy warship captain said the Red Sea conflict was a 'knife fight in a phone booth.' China would be way more challenging.
America's conflict with the Houthis gave the US Navy a taste of high-tempo air defense operations. The Navy is using the conflict to inform planning for future maritime wars, like a clash with China. One warship captain said a fight in the Pacific would be vastly different from the Red Sea battle. The US Navy's exhausting shootout with the Iran-backed Houthis has given American military planners a clearer view into the complexities of high-tempo air defense operations. The Red Sea conflict, now in the second month of a cease-fire, has been a heavy strain on the Navy, stressing warship crews and draining critical munitions. Though this fight has been a challenge, leaders within the service believe that it is but a taste of what a future war against China, which has far more sophisticated missiles than the Yemeni rebels, would look like. And it's not just the missiles. Rather, it's a range of factors that would make a China confrontation significantly more difficult, but the Navy is learning key lessons from the Red Sea that it could apply to a future fight. "In a lot of ways, the Red Sea — it's a knife fight in a phone booth," Cdr. Cameron Ingram, the commanding officer of the USS Thomas Hudner, told Business Insider aboard the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer during a recent underway in the English Channel. "The geography is extremely tight, and that geography operating that close off of China-controlled territory would be very, very challenging," he said. "That would be a much more long-distance fight," Ingram said. "Also, their long-range surveillance and tracking is much more advanced. Their intelligence community is much more advanced. And so there are still a lot more complexities and challenges that would make it very difficult in a China fight." Since October 2023, the Houthis have launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel and international shipping lanes off the coast of Yemen, specifically in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Navy warships and aircraft operating in the region have shot down many of the Houthi weapons, from drones to anti-ship missiles, in self-defense and in defense of Israel and merchant vessels. Thomas Hudner is one of America's ships with confirmed kills. These interceptions — sometimes leveraging multimillion-dollar missiles to take down drones worth only thousands of dollars — have strained US stockpiles and raised concerns about readiness for potential future armed conflicts. In the case of China, which has been described as America's "pacing threat," naval air defense capacity is a priority; a potential conflict between the two would likely unfold primarily at sea. China maintains a formidable arsenal of anti-ship weapons, including ballistic and cruise missiles, that are vastly more capable than what the Houthis have been employing, making it imperative that the Navy has enough interceptor missiles on hand; however, it has already expended hundreds of these battling the rebels. Ingram said a China war would be challenging and complex for the Navy because of Beijing's advanced weaponry, long-range surveillance and tracking, and intelligence operations. "That environment will have to be fought at a different level," he explained, adding that it would see engagements at longer distances than what the Navy experienced in the Red Sea. The Navy has learned a great deal about air defense from the Red Sea conflict and tested by unprecedented engagements against dangerous threats such as anti-ship ballistic missiles. Ingram spoke highly of the Aegis Combat System, which uses computers and radars to help warships track targets and intercept them. He said it has "operated probably better than most of us expected it to, as far as success rates of engagements." The Red Sea conflict has also informed the Navy about its magazine capacity, reloading capabilities, and munitions inventory. The sea service has changed its firing policy and reconsidered the amount of ordnance warships ought to expend in attempts to neutralize a threat. A big focus area is trying to drive down the cost ratio for air defense missions. Using a $2.1 million Standard Missile-2 to intercept a $20,000 drone isn't on the right side of that curve, but Ingram argues that it can be worth it to protect a $2 billion warship and hundreds of lives. The challenge, however, is sustainability. The US and its NATO allies have demonstrated in the Red Sea that they can use cheaper air defense alternatives to take down the Houthi threats. American fighter jets, for instance, used guided rockets. Ingram said the Navy is working to bring the cost difference between threat and interceptor "a little bit closer to parity." Ingram added that there is increased attention being directed at warships' five-inch deck guns, which have a much deeper magazine capacity than a destroyer's missile-launching tubes and have served as viable means of air defense in the Red Sea. "If I can stay in the fight longer by shooting five-inch rounds, especially at a drone, maybe I should do that and save my higher-capacity weapons systems for larger threats," he said. Rearming is another consideration. US warships have to travel to a friendly port with the necessary supplies to get more missiles, which takes up valuable time and keeps vessels off-station for extended periods. This could be a major issue in a high-tempo Pacific conflict. However, the Navy is looking to close the gap with its reloading-at-sea capabilities. Ingram credited the Red Sea fight as being a resounding air defense success story that could affect China's calculus and military planning. On the home front, the conflict has given the Navy more confidence in its weapons systems and accelerated the development of its tactics, techniques, and procedures. Ingram said it's difficult to predict what the future will look like, "but I think there are a lot of things that everyone has to consider based on what the Red Sea has been over the last 18-plus months." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
France's president will visit Greenland in a show of EU unity, Danish leader says
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron will travel to Greenland next weekend, the Danish prime minister's office said Saturday — a visit by a high-profile European Union leader in the wake of U.S. expressions of interest in taking over the mineral-rich Arctic island. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and the French leader said they will meet in the semiautonomous Danish territory on June 15, hosted by Greenland's new prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The visit by Macron, whose nuclear-armed country has one of the EU's strongest militaries, comes as U.S. President Donald Trump hasn't ruled out using force to carry out his desire for the resource-rich and strategically located island to become part of the United States. While the issue of U.S. interest in Greenland has drifted from the headlines in recent weeks, Nielsen said in late April that such comments by U.S. leaders have been disrespectful and that Greenland will never be 'a piece of property' that anyone can buy. In the statement Saturday, Frederiksen acknowledged the 'difficult foreign policy situation in recent months' but praised 'great international support' for Greenland and Denmark. 'President Macron's upcoming visit to Greenland is yet another concrete testament to European unity,' she said, alluding to the membership of France and Denmark in the 27-member-country EU. The three leaders were expected to discuss security in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, as well as issues of economic development, climate change and energy during the visit, her office said.
