This one's been bugging me. It's not very geopolitically intelligent, and that's kind of what The Economist is known for, right?

The article ignores the fact that wars are fought against something and that the conflicts of the past five years have been pretty muddy. We tried a "war on Terror" and a "war on Drugs" and the result has been a cynicism for wars on abstractions. The United States isn't "worn out by the blood and treasure squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan" it's worn out by pointless war. We effected no regime change in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody can make sense of Syria. Egypt is an utter mystery to most Americans. Only one in six Americans can point out Ukraine on a map, let alone explain the intertwined histories of Ukraine and Russia. Mention that the Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev while drunk and to no one's surprise, Americans become even less interested.

It also glosses over the fact that American exceptionalism was balanced out by Soviet expansionism and with the Soviets gone, Americans are tolerated a lot less (particularly post-Gulf War). They'd have you believe that China and Russia are vying for the USSR's former slot but it's a tough argument to make.

Finally, both China and Russia are acting jingoistic and territorial for the same reason countries always act jingoistic and territorial: domestic doldrums. The Chinese economy is slowing. Russia's economy is calcifying. Stir up shit abroad and people flock to the flag; how many yellow ribbons did we see on cars from 2002-2008? By way of contrast, Obama doubled down on domestic economic policy and while it ain't the '90s, it ain't 2008 either.

Anyway. To me, "restraint" isn't the same thing as "weakness." It's always good for the military industrial complex when your domestic policy is "send troops somewhere" but for once, the United States isn't invading things for fun and profit. I can't see that as a bad thing.