If you read the New York Times you know that the front part of the paper is devoted to international news, and that international news is, primarily, a depiction of the official enemies of the United States, countries such as Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela.
The United States possesses, or did possess, what is known as the "two-war construct," the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously in two different parts of the world. This doctrine was quietly shelved by the Pentagon starting with the Obama administration. Performance in Iraq and Afghanistan chastened planners.
But large proxy wars first in Syria and then in Ukraine rekindled affection for the two-war concept. As long as there were committed forces willing to fight, the United States would serve as an "arsenal of democracy."
We are now witnessing the unwinding of this new arsenal of democracy two-war doctrine. First, the U.S. and its European allies have been unable to fulfill the many needs of the Ukrainian military. Whether it's missile defense systems, artillery shells or armored vehicles, the NATO countries cannot keep up with demand.
Then came Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. The United States has approved over 100 weapons shipments to Israel since October 7, not to mention the construction of a partially functioning floating pier. Yet Israel is no closer to conquering Gaza than it was eight months ago.
The rebooted two-war construct is failing. And what I would argue is that it is failing at the cognitive level. Two wars strains the ability of a daily newspaper the size and expertise of the New York Times. "The newspaper of record" can barely devote any space to tarring the largest adversary of the United States, China, particularly since the second half of the front page is devoted to the war at home being fought against Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment