I have no doubt that there will be sufficient propaganda campaign and a false flag event to rally Americans behind a war against the PRC over Taiwan. This jingoism will escalate as the PLA strike some U.S. bases, ships, and planes. The challenge of course is that no matter the fervor, we will never match the will of the PRC -- and its own Chinese citizens -- from a protracted, damaging war to reclaim Taiwan. As always, the end result of U.S. "white saviorism" will hurt/kill/destroy those who Americans pretend to want to save -- the people of Taiwan.
I have little doubt that many Taiwanese would be willing to fight and die in order to try and preserve the island's de fact separate sovereignty from mainland China, and that many of them would cite their desire to prevent harsh, illiberal Chinese rule and a desire to preserve the hard-fought liberal democratic political system of the island as key reasons to preserve that separate sovereignty. However, any halfway realistic Taiwanese must realize that they have no realistic chance of maintaining the sovereignty of the island in a one-on-one conflict with China. If China tried to reunify the island, Taiwan would need allies willing to fight China both politically and militarily in order to do so. I do not object to Taiwanese who think it is worthwhile to sacrifice their own sons, daughters, and treasure in order to resist a takeover by Beijing. The problem is when they ask *other* countries to sacrifice their children and their treasure in order to do so.
Taiwan obviously has a direct stake in this issue, but the United States does not. Obviously, Taiwan would like the US to fight a potential war on its behalf. Taiwan is not averse to passing the buck, especially in the context of a conflict where Taiwan cannot hope to foot the whole bill itself. But the US has no real stake in this conflict. We can buy semiconductors from Taiwan whether it is self-ruled or ruled from Beijing. The benefits the US will receive as a result of fighting China to preserve Taiwanese sovereignty are small compared to the incredible costs it would take to fight China. Even if the objective is limited to preserving Taiwanese independence, mission creep is inevitable: Taiwan is only 90 miles from the Chinese province of Fujian, and it is a given that the US would have to attack PLA artillery positions stationed in mainland China in order to stop artillery attacks from the mainland. A war over Taiwan, in other words, would inevitably spill over into mainland China. In such a situation, China can be expected to reciprocate harshly, exacting huge costs -- perhaps unspeakable ones -- on the US. It is not worthwhile to pay these potentially existential costs to preserve the sovereignty of another county, especially when the political status of this country is contentious and when China has a narrow, historically-based argument for asserting control over the island.
Ideally, however, we should simply stick to the strategic ambiguity policy. This policy has preserved Taiwan's de facto independence while keeping the issue of Taiwan's political status out of the spotlight. If Taiwan's political status is out of the spotlight, China's political leaders can keep kicking the can down the road indefinitely and Taiwan can remain de facto independent. But if the issue is forced into the international spotlight, Beijing's political leaders will face steep public pressure to "look strong" and attempt to reunify the island through military means. Do not believe anyone who says that revising the strategic ambiguity policy is meant to deter Beijing; it is not. It is meant to provoke a confrontation with Beijing.
Agreed on the U.S. policy of ambiguity, but unfortunately I strongly disagree about the average Taiwanese person's willingness to die or even suffer extreme economic hardship. I watch Taiwanese TV and media regularly. The independence blowhards are absolutely confident they can sit back and let Uncle Sam and maybe Japan do most of the fighting and dying.
One reason for our miscalculated view on the PRC (including ignoring the fact that their citizens wildly support their government) is that the average Chinese national is pretty optimistic about their lives. Moreover many Taiwanese are either of pro-China KMT sentiment or else have significant economic/educational/religious/relationship ties with the Mainland, including many military, business, and political leaders. Millions of other Taiwanese also know that it's really NOT THAT BAD in Mainland China, and in fact is a country with brighter economic prospects.
I hope we've learned that we need to assess the warfighting will of our allies and adversaries before the U.S. blunders into its next conflict. Because based on the reality on the ground, PRC nationals are far, far, far more willing to die over Taiwan, than Americans or even Taiwanese to preserve/establish de jure independence.
OK -- but War industry is sooo profitable for all involved.
“The most powerful government in the world is run not by its elected officials but by a loose nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agency insiders who Americans never get to vote for. This has been obvious for a long time and gets more obvious by the day”.
Caitlin Aug 24 -- OMG Afghanistan Is Invading Afghanistan: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone - Caitlin’s Newsletter (substack.com)
The objective of the advocates of "forever wars", it should be clear by now, is not to accommodate allies nor to defend democracy; the objective is to make money by selling armaments. The entire US economy is based on this. The US seeks out any and all opportunities to sell arms, while avoiding as much as possible, putting its own troops in "harm's way". The problem is that the world is on to this strategy and, more and more, countries avoid provocations, keep their cool, leaving the US arms industry in a fix, as the US deficits grow, homelessness spreads, second rate healthcare becomes the norm, crumbling infrastructure prevents safe travel, as all resources are devoted to feeding the giant military leech. All those articles appearing in The Atlantic or The New Yorker with high sounding titles about how we are losing our will to win, or how our allies are taking advantage of us, are nothing but a psy-ops on American tax payers, who are much more preoccupied with day to day injustice in their own country and completely clueless when their leaders go around the world trying to drum up antagonism against their new great adversary, China. The hope is that there will come a self reflection on the self harm created by leaders, who dutifully go around bad mouthing China, a country that is universally admired.
That may be true for people in the industry, but probably falls flat on plenty of conservative hawks who see no financial benefits of the endless wars they advocate. I’d suggest that it’s mostly ideological for them—either as some Captain America comic-book fantasy, some notion that Islamism can be eradicated like Marxism in Central America if only you fund enough death squads or other militant groups, or they see themselves as some kind of Winston Churchill figures in defense of Western Civilization itself against the dark hordes at the gates. They mistake the shallowness and lack of nuance and self-awareness in their worldview for moral clarity. Even the ones who aren’t “on the take” seem equally committed to their position.
I agree with Paul. It is certainly true that some specific industries advocate hawkish foreign policy because it benefits them commercially or because they are paid lobbyists/advocates for foreign states who want to shift the cost of their geopolitical objectives onto the US. But we should not forget that there are many true believers in hawkish foreign policy for its own sake. Their commitment to interventionism -- though crazy and destructive -- is not the product of a conflict of interest. Rather, it is a product of their worldview. One good example of this: if press leaks from Mark Milley are to be believed, Mike Pence advocated a military strike on Iran at some point after Trump lost the 2020 election. Someone in the room asked Pence why the US ought to attack Iran and he replied "because they're evil." I have no doubt that Pence actually believes this and has been conditioned to think this way by the media, lobbyists for foreign governments in Washington, and perhaps even his own intelligence agencies.
It is tempting to believe that destructive foreign policy decisions are the result of bad or corrupt intentions on the part of key decision-makers. But very frequently, they are the result of decision-makers who actually believe that they are doing the right thing.
I have no doubt that there will be sufficient propaganda campaign and a false flag event to rally Americans behind a war against the PRC over Taiwan. This jingoism will escalate as the PLA strike some U.S. bases, ships, and planes. The challenge of course is that no matter the fervor, we will never match the will of the PRC -- and its own Chinese citizens -- from a protracted, damaging war to reclaim Taiwan. As always, the end result of U.S. "white saviorism" will hurt/kill/destroy those who Americans pretend to want to save -- the people of Taiwan.
I have little doubt that many Taiwanese would be willing to fight and die in order to try and preserve the island's de fact separate sovereignty from mainland China, and that many of them would cite their desire to prevent harsh, illiberal Chinese rule and a desire to preserve the hard-fought liberal democratic political system of the island as key reasons to preserve that separate sovereignty. However, any halfway realistic Taiwanese must realize that they have no realistic chance of maintaining the sovereignty of the island in a one-on-one conflict with China. If China tried to reunify the island, Taiwan would need allies willing to fight China both politically and militarily in order to do so. I do not object to Taiwanese who think it is worthwhile to sacrifice their own sons, daughters, and treasure in order to resist a takeover by Beijing. The problem is when they ask *other* countries to sacrifice their children and their treasure in order to do so.
Taiwan obviously has a direct stake in this issue, but the United States does not. Obviously, Taiwan would like the US to fight a potential war on its behalf. Taiwan is not averse to passing the buck, especially in the context of a conflict where Taiwan cannot hope to foot the whole bill itself. But the US has no real stake in this conflict. We can buy semiconductors from Taiwan whether it is self-ruled or ruled from Beijing. The benefits the US will receive as a result of fighting China to preserve Taiwanese sovereignty are small compared to the incredible costs it would take to fight China. Even if the objective is limited to preserving Taiwanese independence, mission creep is inevitable: Taiwan is only 90 miles from the Chinese province of Fujian, and it is a given that the US would have to attack PLA artillery positions stationed in mainland China in order to stop artillery attacks from the mainland. A war over Taiwan, in other words, would inevitably spill over into mainland China. In such a situation, China can be expected to reciprocate harshly, exacting huge costs -- perhaps unspeakable ones -- on the US. It is not worthwhile to pay these potentially existential costs to preserve the sovereignty of another county, especially when the political status of this country is contentious and when China has a narrow, historically-based argument for asserting control over the island.
Ideally, however, we should simply stick to the strategic ambiguity policy. This policy has preserved Taiwan's de facto independence while keeping the issue of Taiwan's political status out of the spotlight. If Taiwan's political status is out of the spotlight, China's political leaders can keep kicking the can down the road indefinitely and Taiwan can remain de facto independent. But if the issue is forced into the international spotlight, Beijing's political leaders will face steep public pressure to "look strong" and attempt to reunify the island through military means. Do not believe anyone who says that revising the strategic ambiguity policy is meant to deter Beijing; it is not. It is meant to provoke a confrontation with Beijing.
Agreed on the U.S. policy of ambiguity, but unfortunately I strongly disagree about the average Taiwanese person's willingness to die or even suffer extreme economic hardship. I watch Taiwanese TV and media regularly. The independence blowhards are absolutely confident they can sit back and let Uncle Sam and maybe Japan do most of the fighting and dying.
One reason for our miscalculated view on the PRC (including ignoring the fact that their citizens wildly support their government) is that the average Chinese national is pretty optimistic about their lives. Moreover many Taiwanese are either of pro-China KMT sentiment or else have significant economic/educational/religious/relationship ties with the Mainland, including many military, business, and political leaders. Millions of other Taiwanese also know that it's really NOT THAT BAD in Mainland China, and in fact is a country with brighter economic prospects.
I hope we've learned that we need to assess the warfighting will of our allies and adversaries before the U.S. blunders into its next conflict. Because based on the reality on the ground, PRC nationals are far, far, far more willing to die over Taiwan, than Americans or even Taiwanese to preserve/establish de jure independence.
I certainly hope Taiwan maintains
OK -- but War industry is sooo profitable for all involved.
“The most powerful government in the world is run not by its elected officials but by a loose nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agency insiders who Americans never get to vote for. This has been obvious for a long time and gets more obvious by the day”.
Caitlin Aug 24 -- OMG Afghanistan Is Invading Afghanistan: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone - Caitlin’s Newsletter (substack.com)
The objective of the advocates of "forever wars", it should be clear by now, is not to accommodate allies nor to defend democracy; the objective is to make money by selling armaments. The entire US economy is based on this. The US seeks out any and all opportunities to sell arms, while avoiding as much as possible, putting its own troops in "harm's way". The problem is that the world is on to this strategy and, more and more, countries avoid provocations, keep their cool, leaving the US arms industry in a fix, as the US deficits grow, homelessness spreads, second rate healthcare becomes the norm, crumbling infrastructure prevents safe travel, as all resources are devoted to feeding the giant military leech. All those articles appearing in The Atlantic or The New Yorker with high sounding titles about how we are losing our will to win, or how our allies are taking advantage of us, are nothing but a psy-ops on American tax payers, who are much more preoccupied with day to day injustice in their own country and completely clueless when their leaders go around the world trying to drum up antagonism against their new great adversary, China. The hope is that there will come a self reflection on the self harm created by leaders, who dutifully go around bad mouthing China, a country that is universally admired.
That may be true for people in the industry, but probably falls flat on plenty of conservative hawks who see no financial benefits of the endless wars they advocate. I’d suggest that it’s mostly ideological for them—either as some Captain America comic-book fantasy, some notion that Islamism can be eradicated like Marxism in Central America if only you fund enough death squads or other militant groups, or they see themselves as some kind of Winston Churchill figures in defense of Western Civilization itself against the dark hordes at the gates. They mistake the shallowness and lack of nuance and self-awareness in their worldview for moral clarity. Even the ones who aren’t “on the take” seem equally committed to their position.
I agree with Paul. It is certainly true that some specific industries advocate hawkish foreign policy because it benefits them commercially or because they are paid lobbyists/advocates for foreign states who want to shift the cost of their geopolitical objectives onto the US. But we should not forget that there are many true believers in hawkish foreign policy for its own sake. Their commitment to interventionism -- though crazy and destructive -- is not the product of a conflict of interest. Rather, it is a product of their worldview. One good example of this: if press leaks from Mark Milley are to be believed, Mike Pence advocated a military strike on Iran at some point after Trump lost the 2020 election. Someone in the room asked Pence why the US ought to attack Iran and he replied "because they're evil." I have no doubt that Pence actually believes this and has been conditioned to think this way by the media, lobbyists for foreign governments in Washington, and perhaps even his own intelligence agencies.
It is tempting to believe that destructive foreign policy decisions are the result of bad or corrupt intentions on the part of key decision-makers. But very frequently, they are the result of decision-makers who actually believe that they are doing the right thing.