This argument doesn’t survive the most basic scrutiny. Bottom line: I’d recommend checking out the Biden Administration’s report on China’s military buildup in the context of last twenty years. Decide for yourself whether it’s a serious thing.

media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/03/20…
Also FWIW I’m not really a hawk on North Korea so gives you a sense of how much the argument travels.
Logically, it’s not at all clear that more proximate states will always see the threat clearer, especially small ones with limited analytic capacity. Were 1939 the Netherlands and Denmark more “hawkish” on Germany than Churchill? They were more immediately threatened.
To get a sense of how much things have changed, check out what the nonpartisan FFRDC @RANDCorporation assessed half a decade ago. You can (kinda) argue the PRC won’t use its newfound power but you can’t credibly argue with its reality.

rand.org/content/dam/ra…

• • •

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

8 Oct
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
Read 21 tweets
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

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!

:(