Taiwan is an Independent Country - called the Republic of China

[Gaius Baltar]

In recent days the US Secretary of State Antony Blicken posted on his Twitter account..." Taiwan is a critical partner to the United States and a democratic success story. Taiwan should have meaningful participationin the @UN system, especially as we face an unprecedented number of global challenges."

Taiwan has never been ruled by the CCP despite their claims to the island enclave. Perhaps it is time to recognize them as a sovereign state. Acceptance of the current status as fact by the CCP would go along way to defusing tensions. Also, any attempted invasion of Taiwan would likely result in catastrophic losses and a military defeat, which could alter internal politics in the CCP.

[Heathen Hammer]

It will certainly be an uphill battle, given how a significant portion of American ruling class are CCP assets (like traitor-general Milley, Biden's son and whoever's Biden's handler himself, not to mention the "democratic socialist" fifth column), while CCP also has a pretty strong sway in "united nations". Having said that, if Beijing succeeds in invading Taiwan, it will be over for America as world power. Nobody would ever take Uncle Sam seriously when he can't defend his closest allies.

[Gaius Baltar]

Biden has indicated that he US will defend Taiwan. The presence of US and allied forces in the area, and the position of their strategic posture, makes it obvious that a move by China to attack Taiwan will be met forcefully. The other linchpin would be South Korea. Like Taiwan, any attempt to attack would be countered. These are corner stones of US strategic posture, and the allied position in the area.

The bluster by China's Xi Jinping is just that, bluster to shore up his ideologically corrupt positions. The appearance of the virus next to a biological research facility in Wuhan and severely weakened his own economy and will likely produce serious consequences for China in the near future. Aggressive moves on the Indian border and the occupation of islands in the South China Sea are a volatile mix that has endangered not just the nations in the immediate region but the world. The choice of strategies by China are leading the world to the brink of destruction. China has a warlike past, with wars against India, Vietnam and South Korea. The buildup of its economy and military can be compared to Nazi Germany before World War II. The gradual absorption of nearby countries seems to be the choice for their militaristic expansion.

[Legio_Italica]

There are compelling points for and against strategic ambiguity; really it depends on whether you think the US has an edge and should use it to deter Beijing, or otherwise leave options open in case the USG does not in fact intend to go to war on Taiwan’s behalf.

There’s also the argument China’s geography predisposes a central government to authoritarianism, and the country’s rise naturally compels it to seek regional domination as the US did in the 19th century. However, Taiwan’s transition to liberal governance and integration into the global liberal order despite Beijing’s attempts to isolate Taipei makes one wonder how the US’ strategy of engagement and opening up might have succeeded in an alternate history where we’re dealing with a victorious ROC and not PRC.

Whether the USG accepts it yet or not, the US faces an array of growing existential threats from the PRC. The risk of war over Taiwan is why turning security partnerships like the Quad into a Pacific NATO must be an urgent priority. Unless an attack on Taiwan is understood by all parties in the region as a de facto attack on the US and our allies, the US faces the two untenable alternatives of stumbling into world war or a Suez moment in the Asia Pacific region.

China can be deterred from invasion for the foreseeable future, but only if the US makes it too costly to attempt. The Korean War is an example of what happens when the enemy miscalculates due to an impression of US weakness. As things stand, an invasion of Taiwan is a question of when, not if, and whether the US intervenes or not, it will be a disaster for the region and for what’s left of the liberal world order. Bottom line is, if the USG has any real willingness to defend Taiwan, Americans must be at least as prepared to fight and die in a long, full scale war as we were on December 8 1941, and the USG has fundamentally failed to prepare for and communicate that reality. This leads me to think the USG either does not appreciate the gravity of what “defending Taiwan” means, or they don’t actually intend to do so militarily. The Politburo appears to be banking on the latter.

[Gaius Baltar]

It will certainly be an uphill battle, given how a significant portion of American ruling class are CCP assets (like traitor-general Milley, Biden's son and whoever's Biden's handler himself, not to mention the "democratic socialist" fifth column), while CCP also has a pretty strong sway in "united nations". Having said that, if Beijing succeeds in invading Taiwan, it will be over for America as world power. Nobody would ever take Uncle Sam seriously when he can't defend his closest allies.

The extent of collusion between the US Democratic party and the CCP is yet to be discovered. But yes, having so many high-placed actors in the pocket of the CCP raises serious questions about their long-term goals. Im not sure there enough gravitas there to change the US posture overall, but if Milley is phoning his Chinese handlers with information on US forces than we have a problem, Houston.

Almost certainly any Chinese move will be seen as a failure of US foreign policy, successful or not. If there is a delay of support than I think you could see serious ramifications for other US alliances in troubled spots on the globe (Africa, Mid-East, etc.)

[antaeus]

The extent of collusion between the US Democratic party and the CCP is yet to be discovered. But yes, having so many high-placed actors in the pocket of the CCP raises serious questions about their long-term goals. Im not sure there enough gravitas there to change the US posture overall, but if Milley is phoning his Chinese handlers with information on US forces than we have a problem, Houston.

Almost certainly any Chinese move will be seen as a failure of US foreign policy, successful or not. If there is a delay of support than I think you could see serious ramifications for other US alliances in troubled spots on the globe (Africa, Mid-East, etc.)

All this "shill of the CCP talk" reeks of an attempt at McCarthyism... We know the GOP loves a good moral panic... or trying to make the narrative about who's the most anti-CCP, rather than one of pragmatism. Biden in particular, hasn't changed track on any of Trump's China policy decisions, and if anything he has doubled down. But he's not GOP so he must be a shill. It doesn't really help the conversation.

-

Re: Strategic ambiguity... it is a powerful position to hold, because it allows for ongoing economic engagement with the mainland. The moment the US openly declares it will defend Taiwan, the world (including the US) goes into economic crisis - because it would force the CCP to decouple for real, and prompt a crisis. That said, I agree with Thesaurian in that it allows room for significant miscalculation on the part of the CCP - and considering Xi is in quite an information bubble at the moment, surrounded by lackies... this is an area of worry.

From what I can see there is already a misunderstanding on the part of the wolf-warrior-sphere of the nature of support within the US populace for action in defence of Taiwan. The US doesn't begin wars because of public support, it ends them because of a lack of public support - they are two different propositions entirely. Certainly there is significant room for miscalculation here - particularly if it was combined with the dangerous narrative that the US is a faltering power - which it is not.

One wildcard is Xi, and how closely he has tied Taiwan to his success criteria behind closed doors in the Politburo. All their rhetoric so far has been for domestic audiences, but we don't know what the actual discussions are behind closed doors. In particular Xi may use Taiwan as a solution if some other crisis of legitimacy occurs to challenge his rule. In recent weeks, since the CCP anniversary, they've reined in the war hawks a touch - partly at US insistence. Which suggests that the sabre rattling was more for domestic show and not part of a steady ramping up of provocation (as per Cold War poking and prodding - to normalise manoeuvres). But if Xi has indeed tied Taiwan to his legitimacy, then as he ages sooner or later we'll see more direct provocations - some of which will be intended to draw the US out of strategic ambiguity and in order to provoke the US populace to force a future president's hand into withdrawing support for Taiwan. Again this would be a misreading. Because strategic ambiguity is as much an economic tool as it is an attempt to grey Chinese strategic thinking.

Another wildcard is how the decoupling of economies proceeds. Trump was correct in his judgement on China trade. And Biden has largely continued his policies (all be it with an aged velvet glove). But in reality, tariffs and barriers haven't dented Chinese industrial clout - thanks to Covid the world is more dependent on Chinese industry. If real decoupling of economies did occur before a confrontation on Taiwan, it really does take away one of the key reasons for the CCP to worry about US ambiguity. Ambiguity only works because it is multi-faceted. It achieves more than just confusing China's strategic decision matrix. It has allowed for the economic engagement to the world that has created the modern CCP as it exists today. Once economies decouple, there really isn't much that can be gained by ambiguity, and the material costs of confrontation on both sides reduce significantly (Other than the existential risk of nuclear war of course).

[Ludicus]

T the country’s rise naturally compels it to seek regional domination as the US did in the 19th century.

In fact,the US seek regional domination in the 19th century.A must have for US history teachers and students. Superbly well done, luxuriously illustrated. From Ancient America before 1492 until America in the 21th century. Boundless US History | Simple Book Publishing - Lumen.The chapter The Gilded Age: 1870–1900 teaches you about the first steps of the American Imperialism In the next two centuries, the US seek global dominance.Until now, it seems that China does not seek global domination.
The New York Times

China is authoritarian and on the rise. But it is hardly Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. China is open for business, whether on fair terms or not; the world’s largest trading nation makes a strange candidate for a totalitarian menace whose every activity closes off the earth. And unlike 20th-century rivals, China has long abstained from armed conquest. Though it threatens Taiwan, no one thinks it is about to invade U.S. allies like South Korea or Japan.

CRS (Congressional Research Service). What has changed since 2015? China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy Key Statements from Washington, Beijing,and Taipei (2015

This CRS Report, updated through the 113th Congress, analyzes the “one China” policy since U.S. Presidents began in 1971 to reach understandings with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China (ROC) and does not recognize the PRC. There are three sets of issues: sovereignty over Taiwan; PRC use of force or coercion against Taiwan; and cross-strait dialogue. The United States recognized the ROC until the end of 1978 and has maintained non-diplomatic engagement with Taiwan after recognition of the PRC in 1979. The State Department claims an “unofficial” relationship with Taiwan. The United States did not explicitly state Taiwan’s status in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. The United States “acknowledged” the “one China” position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Since 1971, U.S. Presidents—both secretly and publicly—have articulated a “one China” policy in understandings with the PRC. Congressional oversight has watched for any new agreements and any shift in the U.S. stance closer to that of Beijing’s “one China” principle—on questions of sovereignty, arms sales, or dialogue. Not recognizing the PRC’s claim over Taiwan or Taiwan as a sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled. With added conditions, U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait: a “peaceful resolution” with the assent of Taiwan’s people and without unilateral changes. In short, U.S. policy focuses on the process of resolution of the Taiwan question, not any set outcome.

[Legio_Italica]

The world should be so lucky to be dominated by the US (just ask Western Europe), but it’s unlikely to ever be possible, under realist assumptions of global anarchy, and states as the most important of rational actors in that system. The US undermined the first assumption by becoming the sole superpower in the 90s, thus liberal theory has enjoyed prominence as American power made world peace through institutional integration seem plausible. China has undermined the assumptions of liberal hegemony and tipped the scales back to the realist world of great power politics.

Beijing’s global ambition is no secret. The Politburo sees China as ascendant and the US as declining, and are investing more and more into military capabilities with the obvious goal of kicking the US out of Asia and establishing regional hegemony and global supremacy, either by force or by acquiescence. The first step to get there is to accomplish what Beijing sees as the full reunification of One China by “reclaiming” territory from neighbors like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, India, Japan, etc. As with the Entente in WWI, we can already see the balancing act play out as China’s neighbors look to the US containment strategy for their medium to long term survival.

A long-standing trope in the U.S. debate on that subject is that China itself doesn’t know what it seeks to achieve, that its leaders haven’t yet worked out how far Beijing’s influence should reach. Yet there is a growing body of evidence, assembled and interpreted by talented China experts, that the Chinese government is indeed aiming for global power and perhaps global primacy over the next generation — that it seeks to upend the American-led international system and create at least a competing, quasi-world order of its own.

It doesn’t take unparalleled powers of deduction to reach this conclusion. Top Chinese officials and members of the country’s foreign policy community are becoming increasingly explicit in saying so themselves.

Yet we ought to recognize that the debate about what China wants is growing stale, because China’s leaders and behavior have increasingly answered that question. When a proud and powerful challenger starts to advertise its global ambitions, Americans should probably err on the side of taking those ambitious seriously.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...nate-the-world

The U.S. asks China to share responsibilities but is unwilling to share power. We need to press the U.S. to do so. My surmise is that we are not going to have war against the U.S., but we will squeeze it out [of the South Sea and Taiwan Strait]. This is quite probable.

The U.S. is a real democracy with diversity, more democratic than any other democracies in the West. The upside is people having the freedom to express their views; the downside is the difficulty in getting consensus. For the U.S., the best situation is to have only one external enemy. If there are two, it would be at its wits’ end.

We are managing to squeeze the U.S. in various ways. (1) creating conditions to cause it to make mistakes; (2) exhausting it so that it will finally suffer from “depression” and quit [its position as the leader of the world]; (3) entangling, or enmeshing, with it so that the two countries will be inseparable, to the point that “I have you in me, and you have me in you.” This is a result of globalization, a natural factor of binding.

Our government hopes that eventually China will have investments in each and every congressional district in the U.S., making it possible for China to control thousands of votes to influence congressional members’ stance toward China. In fact, the U.S. representatives can be controlled.

From 1949 on, our new country has experienced two phases: to survive and to develop. President Xi now wants dignity. After this is achieved, we will learn from the U.S. to enter the 4th phase. But that will be achieved by the next generation. The task of this generation is to gain equal footing with the U.S. while that of the next generation is to administer all other countries, the United States included.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...w-world-order/

As Jin makes clear here, forcing the US out of Taiwan and East Asia is merely the first of many objectives in pursuit of global hegemony.

[Ludicus]

The world should be so lucky to be dominated by the US

A different perspective,Why America Thinks It Has to Run the World - The Atlantic
---
There are still those like you who hate the "anti-American" idea that the US has always been imperial. William Appleman Williams writes,”Empire has become so intrinsically our American way of life that we rationalized and supressed the nature of our means in the euphoria of our enjoyments of the ends”.
Caitlin McLean argues “The wax and wane between imperial inclinations in the United States is most likely due to populist restraint on elite imperial impulses”. America an Imperial Power
I guess she’s right.
There are distinguished American historians who don't agree with you. President of the Organization of American Historians, William Appleman Williams (1921-1990) was one of the 20th century's most prominent historians of American diplomacy.Empire As A Way of Life: An Essay on the Causes and Character is a seminal work on the study of American imperialism.
The Tragedy Of American Diplomacy is the most influential study of US imperialism written in the 20th century. I have this book in my personal library.
A summary of William Appleman Williams' The Tragedy

The tragedy that Williams promotes to the title of the book is the fact that American ideals contradicted themselves: they spoke about freedom and self-determination while simultaneously depending on privileging American access and control.

I also recommend "The United States: Empire as a Way of Life?” in: Robert Aldrich (ed.), The Age of Empires (London: Thames and Hudson): 278-303.

Prof. Shumacher writes, in the book "Embedded Empire: The United States and Colonialism”,

the U.S. colonial project in the Caribbean Basin and the Pacific Ocean relied heavily on colonial ideas and practices developed by European powers and the Japanese Empire. While the United States was thus an important participant in global imperial knowledge exchanges, its nationalist ideological inventory simultaneously denied such proximities and borrowings.

European Journal of American Studies- Wesley Renfro and Dominic Alessio "Empire?" https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.15946

As Immerwahr demonstrates in his aptly title work How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States, most Americans are in a state of denial about their nation’s own imperial status. This is perhaps not surprising given the myriad ways in which Americans have denied or attempted, via euphemism, to conceal their empire.
Discussing this Schumacher opines, "This omission is in part the result of a century of obfuscation in American commentary on colonialism. With its discursive recourse to exceptionalist nationalism and its rhetorical demarcation from European imperialism, such commentary helped to obscure the U.S. colonial project as anti-European decolonization".

forcing the US out of Taiwan

Taiwan is 100 miles offshore the Chinese mainland. It's a Chinese territory. Biden recently told reporters: "we’ll abide by the Taiwan agreement". Read my previous post "U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait".
Taiwan - United States Department of State

The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The United States does not support Taiwan independence

Everything else is pure speculation and nationalistic tirades.

[Legio_Italica]

Gosh darn those pesky libertarian facts, constantly refuting the auth left shill narrative every time. Beijing’s designs for global domination are not speculation nor pro-US propaganda just because some self loathing anti-US circles would rather be dominated by China so long as the US is disadvantaged by it. One only needs to believe the intentions of top Chinese advisers and officials when they boast of plans to “administer all other countries including the United States.” Predictably, the only response to that revelation once caught lying is to deflect again to how the US is this and that. All that is accomplished by calling the US an evil empire is to make America’s so-called imperialism look like the best thing that ever happened to the world in recorded history.

[EmperorBatman999]

Gosh darn those pesky libertarian facts, constantly refuting the auth left shill narrative every time. Beijing’s designs for global domination are not speculation nor pro-US propaganda just because some self loathing anti-US circles would rather be dominated by China so long as the US is disadvantaged by it. One only needs to believe the intentions of top Chinese advisers and officials when they boast of plans to “administer all other countries including the United States.” Predictably, the only response to that revelation once caught lying is to deflect again to how the US is this and that. All that is accomplished by calling the US an evil empire is to make America’s so-called imperialism look like the best thing that ever happened to the world in recorded history.

To add, this Whataboutism is intended to specifically denigrate and degrade the United States. When American leaders in charge of the United States (and the voters who put them in charge) no longer believe that the United States is a net force for good in the world, then they are no longer determined to maintained America's status in the world, all of which only benefits America's authoritarian rivals by opening up space for them to operate. It also means that the American Mission no longer has any special value to it, and is merely equal to the Russian Mission or the Chinese Mission.

The Taiwanese people have repeatedly and emphatically voiced their favor for the American Mission over the Chinese Mission. If you want to look towards the benefits of an American-administered world, just look at the Taiwanese.

[Heathen Hammer]

There is a pretty big nuanced difference between America's globalist war crimes in Balkans, Middle East and North Africa (Clinton, Bush and Obama should be handed over to be tried as war criminals to Serbia, Iraq and Libya respectively) and rather rational and reasonable duty to defend one's allies such as in case of Taiwan. While Iraqis were certainly justified in annexing Kuwait (a made-up nation-state, only carved separate from Iraq by European colonials because it was rich in resources), Republic of China stands as the last legitimate form of Chinese government, as the mainland remains under communist occupation.
Having said that, defending an island should be neither difficult nor costly, given the obvious strategic and tactical advantages.

[Legio_Italica]

The problem isn’t just the difficult matter of intercepting a PLA invasion force before they can encircle and overwhelm Taiwan. It’s that if the US/allies find themselves in battle against the PLA, it will likely mark the beginning of a huge war, if not a world war. It’s not as though the Politburo will be able to tell the hyper-nationalist citizenry they’ve created that they tried and failed to take Taiwan, so it’s all over and done with and China is defeated. As Prof. Jin Canrong explains:

The two nations have very different thinking in military strategy. The U.S. is YANG, meaning firm and strong; China is YIN, soft and hidden. The U.S. tells you that he is Tyson and shows you his muscles to terrorize you; China does not show its prowess but hides it. We have hidden killers never made known to others. Americans follow strict scientific thinking while we Chinese are romantic. That’s why the U.S. needs to have military conversation with us.

Beijing has made the tremendous gains it has over the last 30 years by using the US system to develop economically and advance its own interests, even as it works to undermine that system from within. It’s a kind of subtle warfare the western stooges who’ve enabled and continue to enable it clearly don’t grasp, or at the very least, haven’t taken seriously. As Chinese capabilities increase, a passive strategy is less and less necessary. A battle over Taiwan will mean that passive strategy is no longer viable, both because the CCP cannot afford to look weak domestically, and because the attack would make China a political pariah in the region. Every incentive at that point would be for the Politburo to pursue a full scale war, mobilizing its military and economic capacity to accomplish what it failed to do otherwise: push the US out of Asia and establish its own exclusive sphere of control.

Since the US has made no visible attempts to prepare its people for that war - which could break out at any time - the only feasible outcomes from the US perspective are maximum deterrence and containment, or surrender. The successful Chinese strategy of “economic entanglement” with the US means China cannot be contained the way Russia was. Nevertheless, the US and especially China’s neighbors face outcomes ranging from “really bad”’to “apocalyptic” if we fail to do so. This is further complicated by prospects for more covert options:

In a veiled reference to China's recent aggressive moves on Taiwan, Japan's defense minister pointed to Russia's annexation of Crimea as an example of how an invasion can begin without deploying troops.

Russia's act was an "illegal annexation of Crimea," Nobuo Kishi said on Friday in a video message to the 18th CSIS/Nikkei Symposium. "An invasion may begin without anyone realizing it, and a war may be fought without the use of military forces."

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Int...sion-of-Taiwan

If that happens, the US wouldn’t be able to do anything but reeee and issue economic sanctions, as has been the (failed) strategy vs Russia.

Americans have been here before. Time will tell if we still have what it takes.

Spoiler for hurty words: 

[Ludicus]

. America’s so-called imperialism look like the best thing that ever happened to the world in recorded history.

To add, this Whataboutism is intended to specifically denigrate and degrade the United States.

Sorry to interrupt the patriotic, blind and warmongering nationalist propaganda. Another “anti-American” distinguished historian writes, We don't need a new Cold War with China -Andrew Bacevich
(Btw, Bacevich served in post-war Germany, fought in Vietnam, and taught at West Point. Bacevich began his writing career in right-leaning publications such as the National Review and the Weekly.He is now a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Nation, and TomDispatch.com. Professor Emeritus of History and International relations at Boston University. Taught at West Point and John Hopkins before joining the faculty at the Boston University. Bacevich has described himself as a Catholic conservative)

He writes, and I agree,

...Notably, however, even as the Cold War subsided in the late 1980s, the machinery that the United States had created to wage it kept on humming. As expressed by an imperial presidency, the size of the Pentagon budget, unaccountable intelligence agencies, a corruption-inducing military-industrial complex, a sprawling network of bases, unsavory allies and a penchant for armed intervention abroad, Cold War routines persisted.
The Red Threat may have vanished along with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, but the apparatus devised to counter that threat endured.

As much or more than a professed commitment to democracy and human rights, the United States today is defined by that apparatus.

In short, as Washington gears up to confront China. Note too that China is not the Soviet Union. “Xi Jinping Thought” does not represent an exportable ideology. Unlike the Soviet leaders who railed against capitalism, China’s leaders embrace it, demonstrating a remarkable aptitude for harnessing the market to create wealth. The Soviet economy produced next to nothing that American consumers were interested in buying. Today, China produces almost everything that American consumers hanker to buy, which we do using money agreeably loaned by Chinese banks...

Read the full article. Bacevich fundamentally disagrees not only with current U.S. militarism in the Middle East but with the unwieldy behemoth that the American national security state has become.
-----
A few pearls of wisdom,let's go back to 2010. Jake Whitney interviews Andrew Bacevich. 2010. Key excerpts,

President Eisenhower dubbed it the “military-industrial complex”—“an immense military establishment” married to a “permanent armaments industry” whose “economic, political, even spiritual” influence reached into “every city, every Statehouse, and every office of the Federal government.” The heads of the new agencies that formed this complex concocted a self-sustaining credo that Washington continues to worship: American global militarism is essential to preserving peace, it is always benevolent, and to withdraw it would mean “isolationism, chaos, and catastrophe.” These are the “Washington rules,” and they’ve been embraced by every American president since Truman.

So if we were to pay for our current wars, the average household tax bill would go up by some three thousand dollars per year. If our government told us we needed to pay another three thousand dollars per year, the American people would be instantly reengaged with the wars undertaken in their name. Yet we know the cost is being passed to future generations. That we view that as acceptable is as irresponsible and immoral as imposing the burden of service and sacrifice on such a small minority. The politicians bear considerable responsibility. But we are also complicit.

Americans discovered Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. Well, the U.S. had forged a partnership with him during the nineteen eighties because it was convenient to support him against the Islamic Republic of Iran. But why was Iran hostile to the U.S.? Is it possible that it had something to do with U.S. involvement in overthrowing [Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad] Mossadegh back in 1953 and then supporting the regime of the Shah for twenty-five years? Washington doesn’t want those questions raised.

My suggestion is that we begin by bringing home those troops whose presence clearly is no longer useful. Two examples that come to mind are Afghanistan, where our continuing presence destabilizes Pakistan, and Europe. Our commitment to Europe is in some respects the granddaddy of them all. Back in 1949 when NATO was created, a U.S. commitment to secure Western Europe probably made sense. But today the threats to European security are negligible.

since 1945, there really has been only one case in which there was a potential for another conflict on the scale of World War I or World War II. That was the Cold War. In retrospect, we overstated the Soviet threat and frequently misunderstood Soviet motivation...it seems to me that most of the interventions large and small undertaken by the U.S. did not contribute in any significant way to avoiding World War III.
The notion that we have to go policing the planet to prevent Adolf Hitler from climbing back into his saddle is patently absurd. There is no Hitler; there is no Stalin.

Written in 2010, seems almost prophetic,

The rationale for the Afghanistan War has been reduced to the notion that that’s where the 9/11 plot was hatched so if we’re not in Afghanistan then there could be another 9/11 planned there. But the jihadists are not headquartered in Afghanistan.
We should not confuse the Taliban and al Qaeda. Their aspirations are quite different. Also, when that argument is made, it is posed, once again, as if there are only two choices: either we have to continue to fight the war until the cows come home or we’re just going to let the Taliban do whatever they want. There are other choices. For example, let’s say that our withdrawal led to the Taliban returning to power. It would be quite plausible for us to communicate to the Taliban the following message: ‘We don’t much care what you do in Afghanistan as long as you don’t allow Afghanistan to again become a sanctuary for terrorists intent on attacking the U.S. Should you choose to disregard this then you are going to be subjected to a very fearful punishment.’ That threat I suspect would have considerable influence on the Taliban. Why? Because they know we are capable of throwing them out of power. Since they want to stay in power, they would probably respect those kinds of red lines that we drew.

More,

There’s very little in American history to suggest that moral considerations drive decision-making.

What I’m saying here is that those who raise the moral issue more often than not either don’t think seriously about how moral issues ought to figure in policy, or in some cases raise the moral issues for cynical purposes. Their real purpose is to create this fraudulent argument for perpetuating the war.

American freedom as we understand it requires lots of cheap oil. Therefore, in order for us to make a serious effort to wean ourselves from this ever-growing dependency would require us rethinking American freedom—revising the American way of life. Were we flexible in that regard, then options to significantly reorient our energy policy would become available. But there is very little evidence that we are willing to bend.

[Legio_Italica]

Another predictably irrelevant deflection that does nothing for your whataboutist talking point in any case. Nothing in the article about Taiwan or what to do about it, nor even how to prevent or avert the “Cold War II” the author himself speculates is already underway. His talking points were outdated when he wrote them; Jin Canrong’s comments as the “national teacher” of the CCP (a moniker earned by his status as a high ranking adviser to Party officials) directly refute Bacevich’s speculation about the Party’s ambitions.

[Heathen Hammer]

While American aggressions against Serbia, Iraq and Libya are globalist war crimes, and there is nothing morally wrong with wishing a bad demise to criminals like Clinton, Obama and Bush, defense of Taiwan doesn't really fall into this category. Taiwanese themselves don't want to be part of Communist China, and we already saw what happened to HK when weak and crumbling British regime handed those poor people over to brutal communist dictatorship.
The neat part is that you don't need that much resources to prevent Chinese invasion.

[Ludicus]

Another predictably irrelevant deflection that does nothing for your whataboutist talking point in any case..

Whataboutism is the practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.This is not the case.Listening from multiple perspectives is not a bad thing. It seems that the drums of war are beating. As we already know, US and UK will help Australia acquire nuclear powered subs.Strange as it may sound, all three nations emphasized that Australia will not acquire nuclear weapons.
Taiwan, once again a different perspective. Follow the link to read more on this subject.Andrew Bacevich on Ending the US's Forever Wars - Jacobin

...The destiny of Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or the islands in the South China Sea are problematic for those nations, and they’re problematic for us, but it’s not as if China is trying to take over the damn world.
And then you’ve got to remind yourself that they keep lending us money so we can buy stuff. We’re in their debt. So the notion that the Cold War somehow provides a model or template for the current US-China relationship is deeply flawed.

There’s no question that, in the national security state, there’s a search for the new enemy that will maintain the ability of the national security state to lay claim to resources on a mammoth scale.

The rise of China suggests post–Cold War kind of thinking is simply obsolete. It suggests the era of American primacy is over, that there’s going to be at least two or three superpowers, and that the United States has to accommodate itself to that.

Do we need to have eight hundred foreign bases? Or a national security state that approximates $1 trillion a year? And do we have to design US forces as we do for power projection, meaning that they’ll go out there somewhere and fight? ...Right now, there’s the inclination to see force as the primary instrument to advance US interests. I think it will become easier to recognize the benefits of diplomacy.

Pay attention to your blood pressure -its just a different perspective,

If we think about the preferred American history of the twentieth century from 1919 to Iraq, it’s a race-based narrative, that freedom-loving white people confronted totalitarianism and defeated it. It’s a history written by white, mostly males, and one we tend to embrace, because it’s very reassuring.

Read also- US vs China The shattering of illusions - Lowy Institute

...If the War on Terror has produced a “victor”, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is best positioned to lay claim to that title. That American folly contributed directly to that outcome is a truth to which the US foreign policy establishment refuses to own up. With the phrase “great power competition” once more in fashion, Washington appears intent on gearing up for a new Cold War, with the preservation of US global primacy the ultimate goal.
This will prove to be a fool’s errand. The primary threats to the security and well-being of the American people are not “out there” in the so-called Indo-Pacific. They are “back here” where Americans actually live.

Those threats include disease, the climate crisis, the deterioration of the natural world, cyber-criminality, economic inequality, insecure borders, and extreme partisanship reflecting the absence of an operative conception of the common good. To persist in treating such matters as afterthoughts will be to underwrite America’s decline.

----
In the Williams’ books -as well in the Bacevich’s books - the Jeffersionian concerns all there:
1- America's activist global policy is primarily driven by corporate interests
2 -it undercuts democracy at home and abroad; it involves ruinous expenditures;
3 -and it increases the risks to national security.

Bacevich is the President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft: Home
A great website...

[Legio_Italica]

Whataboutism is the practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.This is not the case.

Yes it is the case. It’s all you’ve done in this thread. Your attempts to rhetorically discredit America’s involvement in East Asia by appealing to talking points on the Middle East are completely unrelated to Taiwan.

Taiwan, once again a different perspective. Follow the link to read more on this subject.

The only perspective offered here is to directly contradict Chinese officials and top CCP apparatchiks in an effort to gaslight and discredit US policy toward China. As I said in the last post, Bacevich is simply incorrect. As Prof. Jin indicated, China is, for all intents and purposes “trying to take over the damn world,” by which he means the goal of undermining and eclipsing the US, and leveraging China’s ultimate primacy to “administer all other countries.” The idea that the PLA is not as big a threat as the Soviet military was is delusional. Plus, Bacevich reveals his bad faith argument by his own admission: the issue is less about China or what to do about it, and more about his contempt for US foreign policy and global military presence in general. None of these “perspectives” (by which you apparently mean Bacevich, Bacevich and Bacevich) offer anything regarding how to protect the interests of the US or its allies in East Asia, let alone deal with the Taiwan issue. They simply demand the US unilaterally capitulate to the PRC’s agenda on isolationist grounds and withdraw.

[Ludicus]

Your attempts to rhetorically discredit America’s involvement in East Asia...appealing to talking points on the Middle East.

Toxic patriotism, and the defense of an uncontrolled and unregulated expansionist economy makes you unable to see the whole picture. In 2020 alone Taiwan spent 5 billion on weapons from the US. Timeline: U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in 2020 total $5 billion
But it seems not enough! The MIC now complains that Taiwan’s spending on defense is still too low, trying to coerce Taiwan to buy more weapons U.S. says Taiwan military budget boost insufficient for 'resilient defense

Even you beloved CATO Institute recognized (Nov. 2020) Time to Rethink Arms Sales to Taiwan - Defense One

The reality, however, is that there is no way for Taiwan to defend itself against a concerted assault by China without American assistance. A few more missiles or fighter jets won’t move the needle much. Given this, arms sales to Taiwan increase tensions with Beijing and generate additional risk without providing any significant benefits to the United States.

I would rather say,without providing any benefits to the US citizens. Its a policy driven by the greed of a powerful MIC. What we are seeing is the clash of US/China capitalisms,and that it, and nothing more that that.It's not about freedom and human rights.

Thomas Piketty's new research shows rising inequality in China

...the new book widens its scope to focus on inequality in places like India, Brazil, Russia, and China. Beijing did not appreciate the scrutiny. According to the South China Morning Post, Piketty’s Chinese publisher, Citic Press Group, has demanded that all sections related to inequality in China be cut. “I refused these conditions, so at this stage it looks as if Capital and Ideology won’t be published in China,” Piketty told the SCMP.
He found that the share of the country’s income held by the top 10% of China’s population rose from 27% in the late 1970s to 41% by 2015, comparable to the levels of inequality seen in the US.

Income inequality is growing fast in China and making it look like the US.

This is what you get: two-thirds of people in advanced economies are poorer than their parents.This is certainly true for a significant percentage of the youngest readers of this post.
---
Emerging from september 11

...It is certainly understandable that Biden wants to turn the page on the war of civilisations as soon as possible. For the United States, the threat is no longer Islamist: it is Chinese and above all it is internal, with social and racial fractures threatening the country and its institutions with a new quasi-civil war. But the fact is that the Chinese challenge, like the domestic social challenge, can only be solved by transforming the economic model. If nothing is proposed in this sense, then it is increasingly towards Beijing and Moscow that the poor countries and the peripheral and forgotten regions of the planet will turn to finance their development and maintain order. The way out of 9/11 should not lead to a new form of isolationism, but instead to a new climate of internationalism and universalist sovereignty.

[Legio_Italica]

Toxic patriotism, and the defense of an uncontrolled and unregulated expansionist economy makes you unable to see the whole picture. In 2020 alone Taiwan spent 5 billion on weapons from the US. Timeline: U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in 2020 total $5 billion

As mentioned, CCP apparatchiks brag about plans to defeat the US and take over the world, and the PLA routinely practices to invade Taiwan. “Toxic patriotism” indeed. Investment in Taiwan’s defense is among the few key reasons it still exists.

But it seems not enough! The MIC now complains that Taiwan’s spending on defense is still too low, trying to coerce Taiwan to buy more weapons U.S. says Taiwan military budget boost insufficient for 'resilient defense

Arguing that the US is the aggressor because of the fact Taiwan cannot defend itself alone against a PLA invasion is self refuting.

Even you beloved CATO Institute recognized (Nov. 2020) Time to Rethink Arms Sales to Taiwan - Defense One

Your own quote from the piece argues from the assumption that the US will militarily defend Taiwan, and therefore China is such a powerful threat to the world that arms sales are not the deterrent they once were. Once again, your own source is making an argument based on factors that contradict your entire viewpoint.

I would rather say,without providing any benefits to the US citizens.

I would go into the myriad of ways the “MIC” creates jobs and livelihoods for millions of Americans, or how US international security agreements and troop deployments are directly correlated with GDP and trade growth, the vast majority of which is engaged by small and medium sized businesses, but that would mistake your sophistry for an argument.

What we are seeing is the clash of US/China capitalisms,and that it, and nothing more that that.It's not about freedom and human rights.

Advocating for the interests of expansionist authoritarian regimes simply because they oppose the US means you don’t have a “freedom and human rights” card to play. In reality, most Taiwanese reject unification with the PRC under any circumstances involving force or even a change in the status quo. Even pro-unification respondents only support it under the premise that conditions remain unchanged; that is, unification in name only. Only 32.04 percent of respondents overall were receptive to the idea of unification even under ideal conditions (status quo). From last year:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://teds.nccu.edu.tw/main.php

Most Americans support full national independence for Taiwan and its integration into international institutions and US free trade agreements. We also support defending Taiwan if the PRC invades, under a formal alliance between the US and Taiwan. By default, Americans are far more hawkish on the issue than Washington could ever afford to be, short of war. Americans want to defend Taiwan, and Taiwanese want to be defended.

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/si...an%20Brief.pdf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is what you get: two-thirds of people in advanced economies are poorer than their parents.This is certainly true for a significant percentage of the youngest readers of this post.

Not that it matters to the Taiwan question, but income inequality is higher in China than in the US, and has been for years. It remains so even as Chinese growth slows and the wealth of the top 10% in China surpasses their American counterpart.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: