Restraint vs. Ideological Zealotry

Exercising restraint elsewhere but then abandoning it when it comes to China policy makes no sense.

Kelley Vlahos interviewed Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, and he had this to say about China:

But not with China. When I asked, Roberts was quite emphatic about Ukraine “distracting” the U.S. when the real threat was Beijing. “China is the existential threat,” he said. “We need to be focused on China.”

“Eliminating the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) root and branch is the 1st, 2nd and 3rd priorities” of the Heritage foundation, he added.

If foreign policy restraint is defined by anything, it is defined by a recognition of the limits of U.S. power and also by a recognition of the limits of U.S. interests. The U.S. does not have the means to “eliminate” the ruling party in China (a party with more than 90 million members) short of a nuclear war that will kill us all, and it does not have any compelling need to “eliminate” it. Pursuing such a goal has nothing to do with defending the U.S. or its allies. It is ideological zealotry at the expense of the national interest, and it is the antithesis of prudent foreign policy.