As recently as a decade ago, it would not have been hard to unite a broad majority of Republicans and Democrats around a shared idea of what America's military power should be for.
Defense of the homeland. Deterrence of would-be aggressors. Cooperation with treaty allies and protection of kindred democracies confronting common foes. Humanitarian aid and relief. The security of the global commons: sea lanes, air corridors, undersea cables, digital networks. Upholding the laws of war.
In sum, the ability to prevent war wherever possible and win it whenever necessary — all for the sake of a safer, more open, rules-based world.
The Trump administration brings a starkly different mind-set to the issue. Out with the Department of Defense; back to the Department of War. Well-established rules of engagement have yielded to blowing up small boats on the high seas. In place of standing with Ukraine’s embattled democracy against Russia’s invasion, the administration has adopted a course of moral equivalence between the two sides while seeking profits from the war through arms sales and mineral deals.
Preventing a world where dictators can attack at will requires a military that has the right tools, the right tactics and the right culture.
www.nytimes.com
Before launching in to the usual personal attacks, dismissive deflections, whataboutisms, and disparagements of the source, I ask a question of those who disagree with the content of the editorial. What, IYO, did the authors get wrong?
I don't want to limit the scope of the discussion to the regime's activities in the Caribbean, but is this not true?
Well-established rules of engagement have yielded to blowing up small boats on the high seas.