A very good point. However nothing says both must be fought with carrier aircraft. B-2s, or in a more permissive air environment, B-1s and more permissive still B-52s, armed with JDAMs or LGBs, represent sent a heck of a lot of firepower. If necessary they can be based right in the US, although something closer would obviously be better, as they would eat up fewer tanker assets and be able to fly more sorties per aircraft, from closer in.
And you can't afford to fight two wars simultaneously because you will be vulnerable, unless you can fight THREE wars simultaneously...but then you might have to fight three, so you'd better have enough forces to fight four...no, five...
Are you beginning to see that we have a wee bit of a problem with your theory?
The "two-war strategy" was far less about actually the military being able to perform its mission in the post-Cold War era and far more about protecting its budgetary turf. And in the name of protecting its budget, the Army allowed itself to be used as an international meals-on-wheels force.