Thank you for your consistent support. I appreciate it.

I am currently reading this article,, and a paragraph says,

Every president since Ronald Reagan has visited the 1953 armistice line, except for George H.W. Bush, who visited when he was vice president. The show of bravado and support for one of America's closest military allies has evolved over the years to include binoculars and bomber jackets.

Would two words, which are binoculars and bomber jackets, in my guess try to imply that since 1953 America's support for allies against North Korea provided ( probably huge ) military support?

Thank you for analysis.

Thank you for your consistent support. I appreciate it.

I am currently reading this article, and a paragraph says,

Every president since Ronald Reagan has visited the 1953 armistice line, except for George H.W. Bush, who visited when he was vice president. The show of bravado and support for one of America's closest military allies has evolved over the years to include binoculars and bomber jackets.

Would two words, which are binoculars and bomber jackets, in my guess try to imply that since 1953 America's support for allies against North Korea provided (probably huge) military support?

I'm asking this question because these two words (goods) are not substantially big enough to imply military support. (Had they been such as "bombers" or "air defense systems", I would've understood.)

Or would they mean "monitoring and staffs in charge"?

Thank you for analysis.