Answer: "Strategic damage" typically refers to the harm or negative impact that occurs as a result of a deliberate and calculated action taken as part of a larger strategy or plan.
In a business context, for example, a company might take an action that causes short-term harm to a particular division or product line, but is part of a larger strategy aimed at achieving long-term success for the company as a whole. In this case, the harm caused to the division or product line could be considered "strategic damage."
In a military context, "strategic damage" might refer to the damage caused by a targeted attack on a key enemy asset, such as a military base or command center. While the attack may cause significant harm in the short term, it could be considered a strategic move if it weakens the enemy's ability to fight or achieve their objectives in the long term.
Overall, the term "strategic damage" suggests that the harm caused by a particular action is not an unintended consequence, but rather a deliberate and calculated part of a larger strategy or plan.
Explanation: In the context of the given passage, "strategic damage" refers to the harm or negative impact caused by the worsening position of the British in the Middle East. This harm was not just limited to the military losses suffered by the British, but also had broader strategic implications. The passage suggests that the weakening of British morale and position in the Middle East was a matter of grave concern to the American government, as it could have a ripple effect on other nations and peoples who were looking to the British for leadership and support.
The passage also implies that the strategic damage caused by the British losses in the Middle East was linked to the larger question of control over the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic, which were seen as key theaters in the global war effort. The control of these two strategic waterways would, in the view of the American government, ultimately decide the outcome of the war.