Share this page!

Mike Mazarr Profile picture
Twitter logo
6 May, 6 tweets, 2 min read
The Taiwan debate is quickly reflecting a degree of emotionalism + moralism not likely to produce sound strategic decisions. To be clear, I am *not* in favor of "abandoning" Taiwan, "bargaining" away its security, or formally promising the US would not respond to an attack
However: There are powerful arguments for limits + caution in US commitments and actions on this issue. If it occurred, this war would likely be as devastating to the US military as WW2, and far more destructive to the US homeland
There are good arguments to be had about the degree of US interests involved (IMHO: big but not vital and nothing close to existential), the degree of China's regional ambitions that would be "unleashed" by a campaign, etc. Simple assertions on such things are likely to mislead
And a US pledge = risks: Avril Haines testified that Beijing would find it "deeply destabilizing," confirming "that the U.S. is bent on constraining China’s rise ... and would probably cause Beijing to aggressively undermine U.S. interests worldwide"
thehill.com/opinion/intern…
We need a deep, rich debate about these issues. If voices urging caution are shouted down as appeasers + fools, we'll engineer another throttled national deliberation. Dissenting voices will be demonized + the strait jacket of conventional wisdom will tighten w/each passing year
It'll be a replay of 1961-1965 or 2001-2002: Advocates of toughness grabbing the stage, sneering that doubters "just don't get it." We must welcome, not condemn, questions and dissent. The only moral failure would be to slide into a thoughtless choice on an issue this profound

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mike Mazarr

Mike Mazarr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MMazarr

Mike Mazarr Profile picture
6 Jul 20
It's becoming a common refrain among some China watchers: Engagement was always stupid; those now coming around to tougher position on China should have seen it before; China's harsh trajectory was always obvious. Several good sources refute that notion ...
Iain Johnston's superb essay in @TWQgw is the best one-source response: China isn't resolutely against all rules or orders; its behavior toward post-war order has been mixed, not wholly negative; criticisms use straw man versions of engagement
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
We forget that the opening to China was a strategic gambit that had big geopolitical return. Phil Gordon's new essay in @WarOnTheRocks puts it brilliantly: "The benefits of not having [China] as an enemy have endured for so long they are now largely taken for granted"
Read 7 tweets
Mike Mazarr Profile picture
10 Feb 20
Evidence grows that we may need a new narrative on China soon, at least one among several. In the Cold War we had faith that character of US system was superior in long-run to autocratic / state-controlled. China differs from USSR, but elements of the same theory apply 1/6
Fascinating new essay on how China will have difficulty competing in long-run without democratic transition. Just because engagement didn't produce liberalization (yet) doesn't mean these dynamics aren't still at work 2/6
foreignaffairs.com/articles/china… via @ForeignAffairs
Coronavirus--following on heels of Hong Kong debacle--is an example of ways in which autocratic system can face legitimacy crisis. This crisis might be gone in 6 months, but the ingredients of credibility challenge are there 3/6
ft.com/content/6f7fdb… via @financialtimes
Read 6 tweets
Mike Mazarr Profile picture
10 Jan 20
A very interesting take on China's militarized islands from the always-insightful @GregPoling at @WarOnTheRocks. The general point is well-taken: We need to be concerned. Some reactions:
warontherocks.com/2020/01/the-co…
To be sure these are a significant military planning factor--especially because, as some have argued, in the weeks before a potential clash China could surge additional capabilities into them. On the other hand ...
warontherocks.com/2016/09/chinas…
1. I am always wary of amateur, open-source military opt'l analysis--mine included. To know how hard it would be to disable these facilities we'd need to talk to planners working the issue. My sense from unclas sources is: Yes they add complexity, but they are pretty vulnerable
Read 14 tweets
Mike Mazarr Profile picture
9 Dec 19
A couple of thoughts on The Afghan Papers as someone who observed a tiny slice of the inside history:
1. Sort of amazed (but maybe not) this isn't getting more play. Would be a true shame if it passed w/o prompting a renewed soul-searching debate.
wapo.st/afghanistan-wa…
2. I still think "lying" is the wrong frame; it misses the crushing complexity of decision making for these wars. They start with a mix of urgent need + enthusiasm, and a clever scheme to make it work. This entry point then fuels path dependence + political barriers to leaving.
3. What then emerges--motivated reasoning--is a huge problem, but a different one from outright lying. The result is the same: misleading about what's going on. But the commanders & officials truly and sincerely believe their own rhetoric about projecting strength and progress.
Read 5 tweets
Mike Mazarr Profile picture
4 Dec 19
Strongly agree with the spirit of the new @QuincyInst--to find a more discriminate and restrained US global approach. As advocates work out such an agenda, though, we'll have to take seriously at least three challenges: 1/6
politi.co/33HULty via @politico
1. Distinguishing arguments for effective restraint from attacks on the malign goals of an American imperialist project. They are two different things. The more an agenda sounds like the latter, the less support it will gain from elected officials, the public and allies. 2/6
2. Developing well-defended alternative strategies to achieve US goals, rather than merely demanding "an end" to things. Example: No US administration will abandon global CT, so what does a more restrained but still effective approach look like? 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Mike Mazarr Profile picture
22 Nov 19
This is astonishing, as many have pointed out. At no point does Wolfowitz admit the tragedy produced in part by his own judgments and advocacy. He appears to analogize the US role in authoring a war of 150K - 500K dead to a cat sitting on a hot stove. 1/5
nyti.ms/2OanClT
I've argued that to call advocates of the Iraq war criminals (or worse) is misguided. They truly thought they were doing the right thing. In most cases (including--especially--Wolfowitz), they believed their own rhetoric + hoped liberation would create a new dawn for Iraq 2/5
But their refusal to interrogate their beliefs + commitments, the laziness of their analysis, and their refusal to prepare for and manage the postwar actually meet the legal standards for criminal negligence. Good intentions don't make up for irresponsible execution. 3/5
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @MMazarr has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @MMazarr!

Read all threads by @MMazarr

:(