Thread by @BaldingsWorld

Very fair and common question but to be honest I don't like this question because it has almost no relation to policy/actual action and everything to do with the PR spokesperson. We should never equate policy with politics. Reframe this question about policy 1/n

https://twitter.com/justapersonage/status/1343598050418122753

If we focus on the policy actions, I think the US has every reason to be very proud of its actions over the last four years. Let me emphasize this does not mean a full throated endorsement, I does not mean I would have done everything the exact same way, however, the policy 2/n

within foreign policy I think is a strong record that has really been at the forefront of changing the discussion specifically about China but also expanding on previous changes. Let's go over a couple. First, USG has challenged China directly across a range of policy 3/n

Domains (and this is important) where there are plausible paths to victory or not ceding ground. FONOPS in the SCS, telecom, espionage in the US and elsewhere, and yes seeking cooperation with Asian allies concerned about China. More broadly, in policy areas the conversation 4/n

Has changed much more to tacit admission that the policy problems cited (NATO, WTO, US security guarantees for free riders) are deeply problematic. These debates started out as fury they were even being raised but now at least garner recognition they are deeply problematic 5/n

Different countries have different views about all of these issues, but are least moving to confront these issues much more directly. Personally, I think one of the biggest "failures" of the last 4 years come from two areas. First, presenting well formulated alternatives. 6/n

This stems from some Trump mistakes such as pulling out of TPP but also very much from simply needing to change the framework. In 2016, China and these issues did not garner nearly the thinking they do now. Try talking about a broad Indo Pacific Security framework or alliance 7/n

Because of the China threat in 2017 would have been laughed out of the room. Previous administration did not take China seriously. The conversation needed to change for these ideas to gain broader acceptance. Second, I think the last 4 years if anything suffered from a lack 8/n

of ambition. Take telecom as a simple example: yes, the US is right on Huawei, ZTE, and all Chinese tech to be honest. However, just making a persuasive argument isn't going to make nearly the impact compared to making a capital contribution to the Development Finance Corp 9/n

And allowing them to lend money at 0% to any country who blocks Chinese network gear to fund 5G roll out. That could be done for a couple billion a year, which is couch cushion money in USG terms. You can't simply make the moral or persuasive argument to change global events 10/n

You have to bring real resources to bear that move plants, change decisions, and alter the course of alliances. If anything we haven't been ambitious enough. Make no mistake, we have been vastly more ambitious than pretty much every other country on the planet. Period. 11/n

No other country is even close. Europe is an embarrassment. If you want to change the discussion and course of history, Asia is the theater. Period. Geopolitics isn't a popularity contest its about policy that changes decisions. I'd say the past 4 years were generally positive.