As I watch the conduct and communications coming from the US leadership, I can’t help but think of an old meme of a screenshot from the Call of Duty franchise with the caption, “is it bad that everything I know about World War II came from Call of Duty?” I think it’s symptomatic of how the US views the rest of the World, through the glow of post World War II mythology. Easily eliding away the sacrifices and importance of other countries. And while claiming the leading role in all things.

This is the language of Great Britain or France “owes” the US, otherwise, France and England would be speaking German. Or that the US should have extracted some greater toll from Japan. And that the US showed up the unassailable might. And one the US showed up, it was only a matter of time before was over. That was far from clear in 1942 and had Lindbergh come to power, it might have not happened at all. And that the exact same type of person that’s MAGA today, might likely have been at rallies for Lindbergh and the America first isolationists.

The truth of World War II is more subtle and interesting than one might imagine, and until the second half of the war it was as much luck as skill and might. Had Bletchley Park failed to decode the enigma devices, or the Germans not bought the story of a landing at Calais, or the Americans failed to find the carriers at Midway, or any number of a dozen other happenstances, the war might have been longer, bloodier, the outcome not as decisive, or even ended with an occupied France and China. And certainly, had Lindbergh won the presidency, it would not have ended as it did.

But that’s not the myth of American might they believe. They believe that once the US showed up, the tide of the war changed because the “professionals” had arrived. Truth be told, the Americans were not perceived as having the same caliber of leadership as the British or Germans. For many of the English, the Americans were more like a pack mule, able to carry much more than the average Brit but you must properly lead them. And some US equipment left a lot to be desired, but the US could make them faster than the Germans and Japanese could blow them up or shoot them down.

That arrogance was why Vietnam was a debacle. Or why toppling Saddam was the easy part. That mythology imprinted itself into the four day victory in the first Gulf War, where World War II style parades were held. It clouds American strategic thinking. It’s why Trump is using the words “Unconditional Surrender” without understanding what that means, or what obligations that would place on the victor. Who do they surrender to? The Germans literally had to lay their arms down and be taken prisoner, as did the Japanese. The surrendered to the US and allied militaries. Who would be there to accept the arms and prisoners? The 2,500 man Marine expeditionary force that may land somewhere in Iran?

Iran is an irritant. It is in a region that has largely quieted down, as Israel has shown it can do business with countries in the Middle East that need to have a story beyond pumping oil. Something they are aware is finite, harder to find, and facing increasing customer ire. That might mean become the AI, influencer, and crypto-fraud haven for the World. With the region moving away from random wars threatening oil supply, the US felt like it could finally disengage to focus on the threat to Taiwan. But that irritant keeps dragging the US and its (dwindling) cadre of allies to the Middle East, and away from Taiwan.

One nightmare for the US is it has to fight a two-front war. Pinned down by cheap Iranian drones and missiles while China performs an air assault to take Taiwan. Of the 10 active Carrier Strike Groups, I believe six are in maintenance. One of which is having its reactor serviced, so no amount of hurry up will get it to sea, quickly. Two are tasked to Epic Fury (Epstein Files), one is in headed for South America and one in Japan. Iran could pin at least one CSG to deal with a war of stupidity the US chose to start. Depending on how much longer the Gerald Ford could stay deployed, maybe three carriers could be quickly routed to Taiwan, but probably not four. One would be America’s oldest carrier. Another one already deployed for 9 months. The fourth carrier would be pinned to the Middle East, trying to get the oil flowing through the strait of Hormuz.

I think China is smarter than we give them credit. I don’t think they’re going to use boats to cross the Taiwan strait and unload their army. I imagine it would be a quick air assault from China combined with domestic unrest and operations by the portion of Taiwan sympathetic with China. Maybe combined with cyber attacks to hamper communication throughout Taiwan and create confusion about who’s in charge. More like the Russian “little green men” combined with a “benevolent” China coming in to secure the peace. The goal is to create a fiction that enough countries can plausibly support. It wasn’t China invading. It was China acting as a responsible party, unlike Americans, to preserve order in Taiwan.

Combine this with a population that’s tired of war. Combine this with low stocks of hard to manufacture, cutting edge munitions, and a reliance on those weapons. Combine that with an American reputation that is cratering. Combine that with a belief the US is not being led by competent people. You could very well have three carriers steaming in toward Japan with nothing to do. We could find a fait accompli on the island and no one willing to challenge it. We may have a world and allies more comfortable with accepting China’s fiction about Taiwan than siding with the US to dislodge China. And the US finding it doesn’t have the munitions or capacity, without allies, to dislodge China.