Thread by @MMazarr

Since we are now firmly committed, in defense policy at least, to China as the main rival and "pacing threat," maybe it's time to answer a fairly simple question: What does *success* in this rivalry / competition look like? Precisely + specifically, not abstractly?

No answer can use any of the following terms: Primacy, predominance, dominance, hegemony, overmatch, dilemmas, synergy, multi-domain, calibrated, or dynamic. No answer can recycle statements of vague aspirational outcomes ("preserving the commons," "advancing American values")

Responses must offer precise lists of outcomes that identify success, and those which indicate failure. Example: "China is unable to forcibly fracture any existing US alliance" could be an indicator of success; "China enforces ADIZ over SCS" may indicate failure

Some identified goals will likely speak to warding off China's externalized suppression of dissent--i.e., success means no US/friendly institutions (companies, universities) impose constraints on dialogue or public actions as a result of Chinese threats

China has (some) goals inimical to the US; its system is coercive + repressive; rivalry is real. But we're approaching this in such a generic, jargony, catch-phrase-y, aspirational way as to lock ourselves into an indiscriminate + universal opposition w/o clear goals

A thoughtful answer will admit that US success doesn't demand PRC "failure" in fundamental ways. The Cold War is misleading in this sense: The existence of a rivalry doesn't automatically mean that success is equivalent to the systemic collapse of a rival

Any such assessment should also avoid the trap of defining success mostly in terms of relative geopolitical power. That's one goal. A more fundamental way of understanding national "success" = protecting the safety, prosperity + freedom of citizens

One huge issue buried in the larger question is Taiwan. Is preventing forcible (or even peaceful) PRC takeover a necessary condition for US success in the overall rivalry? If so, why? What hard evidence exists for the rationales behind that assertion (eg, credibility dominoes)?

Precise definition of goals can help avoid an exaggerated + escalatory approach to the rivalry, focus national security (+ nat'l resilience) investments, and shape our diplomacy. Without knowing what success looks like, we risk stumbling around + getting into unnecessary wars

So, the question: What specific, identifiable and/or measurable outcomes should define what success and failure look like for the United States in the rivalry with China?