An additional point. It has been questioned (e.g. by VP Vance) why the US must take the lead in, say, punishing the Houthis or keeping the sea lanes open. There are a variety of answers. But there is one that is largely overlooked. I have mentioned before the virtual non-existence of Chinese combat experience. I would argue that every time the US engages militarily, it sharpens the spear. Equipment, personnel, and tactics are evaluated in real-world situations, skill-sets maintained.
"An additional point. It has been questioned (e.g. by VP Vance) why the US must take the lead in, say, punishing the Houthis or keeping the sea lanes open."
I'd have to read Vance's exact words on that. Because if he thinks the US should stop keeping sea lanes open then I would never vote for him.
The US has been the chief power in the Persian Gulf since we pushed out the Brits. For this history read this classic book.
An additional point. It has been questioned (e.g. by VP Vance) why the US must take the lead in, say, punishing the Houthis or keeping the sea lanes open. There are a variety of answers. But there is one that is largely overlooked. I have mentioned before the virtual non-existence of Chinese combat experience. I would argue that every time the US engages militarily, it sharpens the spear. Equipment, personnel, and tactics are evaluated in real-world situations, skill-sets maintained.
"An additional point. It has been questioned (e.g. by VP Vance) why the US must take the lead in, say, punishing the Houthis or keeping the sea lanes open."
I'd have to read Vance's exact words on that. Because if he thinks the US should stop keeping sea lanes open then I would never vote for him.
The US has been the chief power in the Persian Gulf since we pushed out the Brits. For this history read this classic book.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/415138.Arabia_The_Gulf_The_West