W all due respect to estimatable @BonnieGlaser I don't get her counterargument. She argues that we shldn't clarify we would defend Taiwan b/c "China could respond by mounting an attack." That's certainly a real risk & one we shld consider (tactically) even in move to clarity. 1/
That implies we shld be careful b/c real risk of PRC attack. But then later: “there is little evidence that China is poised to invade Taiwan.” “Poised” is ambiguous. Capabilities clearly growing. Intent disputable, but intent can change on dime. So we shld plan they might try. 2/
Key is: If there’s real risk of China invading Taiwan, clarity removes Beijing’s doubt of US response. If there’s NOT a risk, then clarity might tick off Beijing, but a) won’t really affect Taiwan & b) what’ll they do, suppress Hong Kong? 3/
Taiwan independence issue is red herring. US has multiple levers to pressure Taiwan w/out allowing it to be taken over by China. Sanctions, etc. 4/
US has interest in Taiwan not declaring independence AND China not taking over Taiwan, no matter what Taiwan does. Reasons include key ones @BonnieGlaser point out: the island is located in the middle of the first island chain, ergo critical to defense of Japan et al. 5/
Then @BonnieGlaser seems to call for more deterrence & clarity, but blinks from implications. Worth quoting at length: “US does need to shore up its ability to deter Chinese re Taiwan…US should revise its publicly declared policy in a manner that strengthens deterrence, but" 6/
"not by issuing a statement of “strategic clarity…US policymakers could issue a warning that any Chinese use of force against Taiwan would be viewed as a threat to peace and stability and a grave threat to US. Such statement would signal US resolve w/out the downsides of..." 7/
a clear security guarantee.” Well, but how is that different from a security guarantee? That sounds like strategic clarity to me! Maybe @BonnieGlaser is pointing to key reality: US is ALREADY basically committed under TRA. So clarity would be going ~75% to 100%. So why not? 8/
Then she says: “If Beijing looks set to move against Taiwan, US could forestall a crisis by privately issuing clear warnings to China’s leader about consequences of such an action.” But would that be credible? And isn’t better to head off well before that to AVOID crisis? 9/
Closes: “Ambiguity has preserved cross-strait stability for decades and can continue to prevent war.” Maybe, but biggest error is preserving carcass of dead policies when no longer suit. Ambiguity was fine when PRC cldnt do anything. Now they can. Need to avoid Korea 1950. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Can the U.S. and its allies deter all these rivals—including Iran and North Korea—at the same time, given the decay in the West’s military-industrial base and the unwillingness of voters to spend dramatically more on defense?"
"Keith Kellogg: “Because the crises erupt at the same time, the capability is not there to handle all simultaneously, and it gets out of control,” he said. “The ability to react is limited. You’re stretched, and you never want to be stretched.” 2/
"While the U.S. and the European nations have moved to increase military production, including at brand-new ammunition plants, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, these steps are nowhere near sufficient for the requirements of modern conflict, they say." 3/
"Admiral Wikoff, who heads the U.S. naval efforts in the Middle East, shared the blunt assessment, saying that not only have U.S. strikes and defensive efforts done little to change the Houthis’ behavior, it now appears unlikely the group will be swayed by military force." 1/
"“The solution is not going to come at the end of a weapon system,” Wikoff said. “We have certainly degraded their capability. There's no doubt about that. We've degraded their ability,” he said. “However, have we stopped them? No.” 2/
"An unclassified report issued this past June by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, found container shipping in the region plunged by 90% from December 2023 through mid-February 2024." 3/
“And day after day the drones keep coming, forcing the American military to burn through hundreds of multi-million dollar missiles on a mission with no end in sight.” 1/ politico.com/news/2024/08/0…
“It’s a battle that has emerged as the United States’ most expansive and enduring military operation currently underway, a campaign that risks chewing through munitions the Pentagon would rather stockpile for a potential confrontation with China.” 2/
“It also in some ways contradicts Biden’s declaration last month, as he announced that he was ending his reelection campaign, that he is the first president of this century to “report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world.” 3/
“German defence minister Boris Pistorius has criticised his government for approving less than a fifth of the budget increase he said was needed by Germany’s military, in stark remarks on the eve of a Nato summit in Washington.” 1/ on.ft.com/4cRzqSp
“I got a lot less than I asked for. That’s annoying for me because it means I can’t initiate certain things at the speed that . . . the threat level requires,” Pistorius said.” 2/
Indeed.
“All eyes are now on Germany and on what we are doing, considering we’re the biggest EU member state and make the largest military contribution in Europe . . . We have a certain responsibility and we will live up to it,” a senior government official said.” 3/
Don't take it from me. Excellent, sound piece @fstockman @nytimes.
"The US simply can’t do everything everywhere all at once, by itself. The future requires well-armed, capable allies. The indispensable nation has to be a bit less indispensable." 1/
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme allied commander Europe, felt strongly that his mission was to get Europeans “back on their military feet” — not for American troops to become the permanent bodyguard for Brussels and Berlin." 2/
"“If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States,” Eisenhower wrote of NATO in 1951, “then this whole project will have failed.” 3/
President Trump is spot on to warn of the danger of World War III and the urgent need to prevent it in ways that protect our key interests.
This superb piece from @OAWestad @ForeignAffairs breathes the right spirit for how to do so.
We should want a decent peace. Not war. 1/
"Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership are convinced the U.S. main objective is to prevent China's rise no matter what. [Yet] China's own statements regarding its international ambitions are so bland as to be next to meaningless." 2/
"All current evidence points toward China making military plans to one day invade Taiwan, producing a war between China and the United States just as the Schlieffen Plan helped produce a war between Germany and Britain." 3/