U.S. Protects Shipping Lanes, Except When It Doesn't
The New York Times breathlessly reports on a U.S. strike in the Pacific, killing three from a 'small boat,' with Southern Command issuing a terse statement about 'counter-narcotics' operations. One might wonder about the timing, given the ongoing regional tensions, but rest assured, it’s just the usual 'stability' mission. The context conspicuously absent? The global shipping industry is actually
up in arms about Red Sea attacks, yet somehow, these Pacific strikes against nameless 'threats' are the ones making headlines. (_Always follow the priorities of those who dictate the news cycle_). We are told the U.S. is committed to 'freedom of navigation,' but selectively. When Houthi rebels target actual cargo ships in the Red Sea, the global arteries of trade, the response is often diplomatic
hand-wringing or ineffective reprisals. But a lone boat in the Pacific, far from major shipping lanes, gets swift and deadly intervention. It appears some 'freedoms' are more equal than others. How many 'counter-narcotics' operations conveniently divert attention from actual geopolitical flashpoints?