My book "Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict" is out. I hope you'll consider reading it. In the interest of persuading you it's worth your time, the blurbs are 👇 & threaded below.

yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030025…
“This is a realist’s book, laser-focused on China’s bid for mastery in Asia as the 21st century’s most important threat.”— @DouthatNYT
“Rigorously argued and compelling. This book will define the basis for future debate about U.S. defense strategy in Asia. Mr. Colby earns a place as an intellectual heir to the Cold War strategists who thought seriously about how to thwart Soviet designs." @DAlexBlumenthal
[He] is courageous in forcing readers to think concretely about the unthinkable. . . . The task of deterring Chinese aggression is urgent, and Mr. Colby’s book presents a needed path forward.”— @DAlexBlumenthal
“An outstanding book. For anyone interested in understanding what a possible war between China and the US might look like, The Strategy of Denial is the place to start. It is analytically rigorous, well-informed, and filled with interesting and smart insights.”—John Mearsheimer
“This is an incredibly important book …The definitive work on U.S. defense strategy that should guide our strategic competition with China for the years to come.” — @cdbrose - author of The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare
“The book is just a marvel of analytic clarity and of ruthless logic...a true pleasure to read...[and] a marvel of clear argumentation and deductive reasoning....[It] cuts through a lot of politics and uncertainty in a really helpful way.”-— @profLind, Dartmouth College
“[A] brilliant . . . book on how to deal with the geopolitical and military threat from China. Will be much discussed and constantly referred to as we grapple with this challenge.”— @RichLowry, editor of @NRO
"Anyone interested in US strategy should read this tour de force from the primary author of the celebrated 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy."—Robert O. Work, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, father of the Third Offset Strategy
"This well-written, masterfully constructed, logically compelling book conveys the essence of strategy from one of the best current practitioners of the trade. Highly recommended!" - Robert O. Work
“An exceptional book. [This is] a book on defense strategy that reaches a level of theoretical mastery akin to Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. There is no better guidebook to how we should think about war & peace in this new age of great power competition.”—Robert D. Kaplan
“An engaging, vigorously argued and refreshingly readable case for a U.S. strategy focused on deterring China to reduce the danger of war.”– @DoyleMcManus, Washington columnist, Los Angeles Times
“Thoughtful and rigorous. . . . The book’s fundamental strength. . . . is Colby’s willingness to test all sides of complicated debates. . . . Required reading for lawmakers, national security hands, and 2024 presidential hopefuls.”— @AdamWSJ @dcexaminer
"What to do about China’s rising might and territorial ambition? Brilliant strategist Elbridge Colby takes on this vexing and increasingly urgent challenge with a clear-eyed, forceful but carefully thought-out approach...
Cogently, lucidly, he uses the lessons of history to show that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for war."—Evan Thomas, co-author of The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made
“Exceptionally well-thought out. . . . A well-argued . . . case for why the United States should care about Beijing’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. . . . Its arguments are both self-evident and well explained [and] it is thoroughly enjoyable to read.”— @joshuachuminski
“I suppose there are others who could have written such a book, but they didn't, at least not with such mastery of analysis. I think I've read most [of the] worthwhile books on U.S. defense strategy that have appeared in the last two decades, but I've rarely come across one...
that has the intellectual rigor, the systematicity of analysis, and the sheer ruthlessness of logical reasoning-—not to mention the erudition-—found in The Strategy of Denial.”-—Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Fellow, @CarnegieEndow
“This book brings together pure intellect, wide knowledge, and practical experience to show how U.S. defense strategy must change—and fast.”—Edward Luttwak, author of The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy
"Colby gives us an original and provocative approach to containing adversaries, especially China...distinguished by its moving seamlessly from international relations theory to detailed questions of diplomacy and force deployment."—Robert Jervis, author of How Statesmen Think
“This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.”— @JJCarafano @TheNatlInterest

• • •

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

Keep Current with Elbridge Colby

Elbridge Colby 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 @ElbridgeColby

16 Mar
I welcome debate w @HalBrands & @ZackCooper & this important contribution! But I think lets have the debate where it actually is. Tho they link to Bob/my piece (foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…) as opposing "realism" example, their piece isnt engage w our actual arg. Some egs&thoughts. 1/
Our arg is that competition w/China isn't ***primarily*** ideological. Used word 5 times in article. World is complex so ideology et al play a role in int'l politics but our point was that primary driver is state power. Not trying to be cute - we made clear arg for primacy of 2/
state power in intl politics - but that's different than "purging ideology from American statecraft." Ditto: "Better, these analysts argue, to approach the rivalry in realpolitik terms—as a cold-eyed contest over power." In fact we said "We are not proposing a one-dimensional" 3/
Read 16 tweets
16 Mar
Wait a minute. Say what you will but Trump Admin was 💪 on Taiwan . Blaming US *attempt to focus* & clarity on need to confront China for China’s aggressiveness against 🇹🇼 is frankly absurd. Beijing is menacing all by itself. Trump Admin recognized need to address the problem. 1/
Here is Trump Administration’s ***official, directive*** guidance: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/upl…. Specifically & clearly directed @DeptofDefense to be able to defend Taiwan. 2/
The notion that US caused China to want to invade b/c strengthening our defense capability & signaling resolve is ridiculous. China’s ambitions re Taiwan are driven much more by: 1) revanchism, 2) Taiwan’s value on way to regional hegemony, 3) PRC +++ military power. 3/
Read 4 tweets
14 Mar
I'm a huge Max Hastings fan so ☹️ to see this. A number of points I have w his piece but the bottom line is this: The *WORST* US policy is half-pregnancy, which keeps our cred attach to Taiwan but doesn't resource ability to defend it. This is most dangerous & damaging if war. 1/
If Taiwan isn't worth it &/or too costly/risky to defend, we should ensure our cred isn't attached - which it now is. But if we leave this vulnerable part of our perimeter ill-defended, China has *even more of an incentive* to challenge it - beyond just revanchism. 2/
If Hastings & Blackwill/Zelikow think that, then the right policy for them should be to *abandon* Taiwan. Deftly, diplomatically, etc. but still to extricate our cred from its fate. Not ambiguity. That wld minimize the damage to our cred in Asia. 3/
Read 8 tweets
19 Feb
Quite extraordinary @POTUS speech #MSC2021. V liberal hawk. 🌍view basically ideological - systemic clash b/democs vs. authoritarians, *both* 🇨🇳&🇷🇺. Strategy based on big big bet that democs will align, yet signal is burden-sharing talk is hortatory. 1/

whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Don't take it from me. Here's @POTUS: "We are in a fundamental debate about the future & direction of our world. We’re at an inflection point b/ those who argue that autocracy is the best way forward & those who understand that democracy is essential..." 2/
"I believe that — every ounce of my being — that democracy will and must prevail. We must demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people in this changed world. That, in my view, is our galvanizing mission. 3/
Read 11 tweets
18 Feb
It's one thing to think last Admin was too tough on allies re burden sharing. But it doesn't make sense to go back to *saying* allies needed to do more but *clearly telegraphing* there will be little to no consequences for failing to shoulder their part of the burden. Some egs 1/
SD "charms NATO allies" & "mood lovey-dovey" according to @herszenhorn. "US sounded like friend...felt refreshing... participants in the meeting said." SD "emphasized that [allies'] contributions are also measured by how used, not just by size." 2/

politico.eu/article/lloyd-…
SD "offered a message of thanks and urged [allies] to keep up the good work." Does that sound like pressure on allies to spend more? Not to me. Sounds like telegraphing 0 consequences for free-riding. How's that going to enable focus on PRC/Asia? How's that fair to Americans? 3/
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
Read 27 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(