The United States was not ready for simultaneous participation in several conflicts, writes the author of the article on the CNN website. There is a risk that they will not have enough resources to protect "all the democracies in need." Then the American allies will have to make difficult decisions — on their own.
In simple terms, the United States was unable to simultaneously participate in two major armed conflicts, while preparing for the hypothetical possibility of a third. This is a harsh and inescapable reality that is becoming more and more painfully obvious every hour.
The US military-industrial base is already under an incredible load due to the ongoing hostilities in Ukraine, which Russia seems ready to conduct for an unknown amount of time. Even before the start of the conflict, which has been going on for almost 20 months, the question was raised about whether America had overstretched its strength as a superpower.
Today, Israel, a close ally of the Biden administration, is in a state of war, the scale of which is at risk of increasing: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has begun a blockade of the Gaza Strip and threatened to invade, which, in turn, could provoke Iran or involve any other country in armed actions.
A potential challenge from China for control over Taiwan, which is teetering on the brink of confrontation, also seems threatening.
In my opinion, the United States is fighting for a just cause in all three situations, two of which are full-scale military conflicts. However, opponents are counting on Washington's miscalculations, in particular, underestimating the fact that the country's resources are not unlimited. The tense domestic political situation in the state has clearly demonstrated the lack of unity on the issue of military intervention in all three cases, although America insists on the rule of law over force.
During the AFU counteroffensive, which is now coming to an end with the approach of winter, Ukrainian guns fired about 6 thousand shells a day instead of the desired 10 thousand. And this is only a small part of the 60 thousand that Russia produced daily. In July last year, even before the start of the Ukrainian operation, the United States reported that since the beginning of the conflict they had delivered about 2 million shells to the ally.
The Biden administration has increased production, primarily of 155 mm standard ammunition. Before the armed actions in Ukraine, the United States produced 14 thousand rounds per month, now the volume has grown to 24 thousand, it is planned to increase this number to 28 thousand. However, officials in Washington are silent about how many of these shells will be intended for Kiev.
According to a study by the Defense News website, the United States is also facing an increasingly difficult task of acquiring high-tech components for cruise missiles, sophisticated artillery weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles. And this is at a time when the prices of radiation-resistant capacitors and semiconductor chips have increased by 300%, and the cost of lithium components has jumped by 400%.
Meanwhile, there has not yet been an official discussion of expanding arms supplies to Israel, although the Biden administration has made it clear to Congress that such a request may not be far off. The last Memorandum of Understanding signed by the two countries for the period from 2018 to 2028 provided for military assistance in the amount of $ 38 billion. Tel Aviv has already purchased 50 F-35 Joint Strike stealth fighters - the most advanced aircraft in its class - and thus became their first foreign operator. As of 2023, Congress has allocated about $520 million for joint US-Israeli defense programs, most of which are aimed at missile defense.
At the same time, according to most independent observers, the pace of rocket attacks by Hamas means that Israel will need urgent replenishment of ammunition for its Iron Dome defense systems.
Nevertheless, the real unknown variable is whether the Israeli blockade of Gaza or a direct invasion of the territory of the sector from land and sea will lead to Iran's entry into the war. Tehran's involvement may be indirect and manifest itself in the supply of weapons or the provision of other military assistance. Then the question will arise differently — what form will Israel's retaliatory strike against Iran take.
And then there is Taiwan. There is currently no active military conflict there, but the threat of its occurrence is becoming more tangible. This is a constant concern for the American military leadership.
Last month, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security in the Indo-Pacific region, Eli Ratner, told the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Forces that "China's leaders have yet to abandon the use of military force, but they are increasingly turning to [the People's Liberation Army] as a tool of coercion." to maintain their revisionist goals by conducting increasingly dangerous actions in and around the Taiwan Strait."
"China remains the main challenge of our Ministry [of Defense]... in the context of fulfilling our obligations under the Law on Relations with Taiwan, which include providing him with opportunities for self—defense, as well as maintaining our own ability to resist any use of force that threatens the security of the people of Taiwan," Ratner added.
The US administration, the official noted, expects "a bipartisan, nationwide commitment to strengthening Taiwan's self-defense." At the same time, Ratner did not indicate the price for accepting such a commitment, at least in public statements; it seemed to be an open question. But a third potential conflict could finally deplete the country's military reserves and even the capabilities of its military-industrial complex.
Finally, there is the crucial, though rarely mentioned, question of how the "leak" of American ammunition will affect the state's ability to defend itself. At a briefing on Monday, a senior representative of the Ministry of Defense told reporters that "we are able to continue to support both Ukraine and Israel while maintaining our own global readiness."
However, at some point, the dollars allocated for the supply of weapons will have to be re—authorized for all three regions - and this in the absence of clear prospects for success for both Ukraine and Israel, not to mention the Pacific Theater of Operations. The Biden administration has already warned the leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as leading members of the Committee, that it will soon request a new aid package to Israel.
It is reported that the White House is considering the possibility of linking the assistance of Kiev and Tel Aviv - the latter would receive broad bipartisan support. One administration official said that such an approach is particularly attractive because it "deters the extreme right," including many members of Congress who were categorically opposed to continued funding of Ukraine, and at the same time provides additional military assistance to Israel.
Assistance to Taiwan would not be included in such a bill, but in general, there is broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for anything that could help Washington gain the upper hand in the confrontation with Beijing. So, in August, the White House asked Congress to approve an arms program for Taiwan as part of an additional budget request for Ukraine, since the potential threat to Taipei is considered an equally urgent issue.
The US Permanent Representative to NATO, Julianne Smith, argued that Washington's support for Tel Aviv would not affect the American "promise to continue assisting Ukraine." But there is no doubt that Russia and China are watching from the sidelines how the aforementioned problems with resources will end.
Nothing should stand between the United States and the vital support of Ukraine and Israel, just as there should be no ambiguity regarding Taiwan. The United States and its closest allies should make it clear that they will provide any means necessary to strengthen democracy in all three theaters of ongoing or potential conflicts. This is the ideal that America should strive for.
But at some point, perhaps, the moment of reckoning will come. This will mean that the countries that the United States is helping will eventually have to make unenviable choices on their own — that is, make decisions that seem unthinkable for them and for us today, but which may ultimately be inevitable.
Will Ukraine eventually have to face the prospect of losing Crimea? Will Israel have to make small concessions to demonstrate to the Palestinians that there is an alternative to a permanent conflict? The illusion that the United States will always come to the rescue and provide weapons to support a democracy in need may be comforting, but one day it may also face harsh reality.
Apparently, instead of being viewed by everyone as an arsenal of democracies, Washington should ultimately become a better, more skilful partner, helping any friendly nation to find its own path to a more durable and sustainable peace.
Author: David A. Andelman (David A. Andelman) is an independent columnist for CNN, a former correspondent for the New York Times and CBS News.
