Let’s have a look at the New York Times right now. Every story on the front page seems to be about a failure of U.S. military. Russia is winning. We stole some oil tankers and that’s actually costing us money instead of making us money. Missiles are falling in northern Israel. Maybe we’re firing some missiles at Iran from Bahrain, but they certainly aren’t hitting anything. We’re suffering an “oil shock” like in the bad days of the 1970s.
Let’s compare to a random day in the middle of our involvement in World War II. The British-spec’d P-51 hadn’t come into action yet so we were losing B-17 bombers and crews at a ridiculous rate. Nonetheless, the focus of the stories was on the enemy’s losses, not our own.
This is the first time that I can remember when more than half of Americans seem to be invested in the idea that the U.S. is doomed to lose a war.
(I personally believe that our best option for winning is to use bombs to (1) disable Iran’s oil production and export infrastructure, and (2) disable Iran’s electricity generation. Without money from selling oil, the Islamic Republic won’t be able to do too much that we don’t like. Without electric power, Iran won’t be able to produce a lot of sophisticated weapons. (Yes, they can use generators for some stuff, but that’s not the same as plugging a massive factory into the power grid.))
What’s the plan with this kind of coverage though? So the new Ayatollah can consolidate power? Why would the NYT be against any action that brings freedom to millions especially women?
Anon, a little secret I wanted to share with you (please keep it on the down low?). Are you serious (“what’s the plan with this type of coverage”)? Perhaps you haven’t been following current events for the past few decades, but even the mostly-demented Joseph Robinette Biden doesn’t ascribe any newsworthiness or objectivity to the NYT, nor does he believe they care two bits about freedom for anyone, least of all “women” (except perhaps transvestite “women”). Comprende?
Anon: I’m assuming that the goal is to make Donald Trump look bad and perhaps enhance Democrats’ chances of prevailing in the 2026 election (which Democrats previously said wouldn’t occur if Donald Trump were to be elected), but if that’s true it would be a historical first as far as I can tell.
Nothing of any substance in the media coverage beyond the usual middle east fighting. There’s a theory Iran could build drone ships & mines to attack oil tankers. It’s nothing compared to the AI generated videos we got last week of Tel Aviv & Dubai getting bombed into the stone ages. It’s impressive to imagine Ukraine aiding US against the insurgent drone army, but once again nothing but theories.