Why is the coalition against the Houthis in the Red Sea led by just four countries?

[Julie4]

The famous maritime coalition announced in the Red Sea by the USA, with 44 nations, in fact brings together only a few American, British, French and Italian ships.

The long-term consequences on world trade could be quite significant, and affect all countries, so why aren't the others taking part?

[DJB72]

That's arguably 3 of the best trained naval warfare forces in the world plus the Italians - no offense intended, I've just never heard of any major naval battles in the last thousand years that the Italians had a significant impact on the outcome of.

British naval dominance was unmatched by any force except Napoleon for centuries and the Americans have some very nice toys available.

Not to mention the additional skillset of the SAS/SBS of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, US Navy SEAL units, US Marine Corps, and the French and Italian equivalents (sorry, don't know the names of those regiments).

If the Houthis can take down the combined naval forces of those four Navys (Navies?) then honestly I say let them have the Red Sea...

[Julie4]

Oh just to clarify, the French Navy under Louis XIV had managed for a short period to be more powerful than the Dutch (which was number one) and British fleets combined. It didn't last long, but that period did exist lol

[NamerOfStars]

You've never heard of Lepanto?

[DJB72]

@Julie4 my history is a bit shaky around the assorted French kings named Louis not featured in The Three Musketeers 😉

@NamerOfStars can't say I have

[NamerOfStars]

It was the turning point of Ottoman expansion into Europe (well, the naval one), and the Christian forces were mostly Italian (though it was LONG pre-unification).

[DJB72]

That part of history is fuzzy. Never studied the Ottoman expansion

[BCA6010]

I think you overestimate how many countries actually have the means of flexing their navies on a whim. Frankly I'm surprised Italy is doing it. Some others you would probably expect to get involved don't want to spare even one ship that might be needed in the Pacific.

[NathanDavis]

because they benefit the most from such trade, so they are just protecting one of their ways of income and also because these are the countries that usually have a military base or asset around the world... precisely for this... to protect their interests

[RavVid]

Our Australian Prime Minister declined with a pretty poor excuse. It is not as if we haven't sent vessels to the Red Sea before and it is not as if the sea lanes are unimportant to an island continent. Our 2023 Defence Strategic Review specifically called out this challenge and signaled it's importance to us. Instead of a ship a contingent of personnel is being sent.

The basic reason is his woke left wing policies are refusing to see the obvious geopol.

[strateguy632]

the word "led" confuses, in any group some will "send more" than others the leading with most. but 44 better than 20.

[Staximus]

I don't know what countries are involved, but how many of them have a navy?

[abc3643]

Because they don't have the naval resources.