Currently reading Elbridge Colby's "Strategy of Denial" since it's becoming a very influential book in the US.
Most striking to me is that the book is based on the premise that China is a threat to the US.
But the explanation for why that is is incredibly insane.
Small ๐งต
Most striking to me is that the book is based on the premise that China is a threat to the US.
But the explanation for why that is is incredibly insane.
Small ๐งต
Colby starts the book by explaining that "the fundamental purposes of American strategy" is to "provide Americans with physical security, freedom, and prosperity."
No argument there, it's almost a no-brainer.
No argument there, it's almost a no-brainer.
Where it gets shakier is when he explains that in order to do so, the U.S. has to remain the global hegemon.
As he puts it, the U.S. has to retain "a favorable balance of power with respect to its key interests", i.e. remain the most powerful state in all respects, everywhere.
As he puts it, the U.S. has to retain "a favorable balance of power with respect to its key interests", i.e. remain the most powerful state in all respects, everywhere.
He is very transparent about this: "The most effective way to check another from doing something one does not want to abide is to be more powerful than the other is with respect to that interest."
He goes on: "To fulfill its core purposes, the United States should seek sustainably favorable military-economic balances of power with respect to the key regions of the world."
To him, power is mostly about death, the ability to kill. I'm not making it up:
"Physical force, especially the ability to kill, is the ultimate form of coercive leverage. While there are other sources of influence [...] they are all dominated by the power to kill."
"Physical force, especially the ability to kill, is the ultimate form of coercive leverage. While there are other sources of influence [...] they are all dominated by the power to kill."
He continues: "One with the ability to kill another can, if willing, escalate any dispute to that level and thus prevail [...] Left unaddressed, might trumps right. Therefore, to protect its interests, the U.S. must be especially concerned about the use of physical force."
The whole book derives from this foundation.
China is a threat because it's on a trajectory where the U.S. might one day not be a threat to it!
The U.S. should retain the ability to kill China and the prospect of China evading this is the "China threat"!
China is a threat because it's on a trajectory where the U.S. might one day not be a threat to it!
The U.S. should retain the ability to kill China and the prospect of China evading this is the "China threat"!
All this might be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic if Colby wasn't the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy at the Pentagon (i.e. the guy in charge of defense strategy for the U.S.) and if his book wasn't so presently influential in Washington.
The most powerful counter-argument to the U.S. needing the ability to kill every state on earth so it remains "secure, free, and prosperous" is that, save for the U.S. itself, there are countless states out there that became "secure, free, and prosperous" without such power.
Heck, take China itself.
It rose to the level of peer competitor to the U.S. while under constant military threat by the U.S., literally surrounded by American military bases. And it did so without launching a single war, it hasn't fired a single bullet abroad in 40 years!
It rose to the level of peer competitor to the U.S. while under constant military threat by the U.S., literally surrounded by American military bases. And it did so without launching a single war, it hasn't fired a single bullet abroad in 40 years!
Therefore the idea that you need to be a global military hegemon so as to do well for your people is non-sensical.
In fact the contrary is probably true: because the U.S. spends so much on its military and wars, it does much less for its people than what they ought to have.
In fact the contrary is probably true: because the U.S. spends so much on its military and wars, it does much less for its people than what they ought to have.
That's also a vision of power that's fundamentally offensive, as opposed to defensive.
Does the U.S. need the ability to attack and kill every state on earth in order to provide its people with "physical security and freedom"?
No, it simply needs the ability to defend itself.
Does the U.S. need the ability to attack and kill every state on earth in order to provide its people with "physical security and freedom"?
No, it simply needs the ability to defend itself.
As soon as the U.S. has the ability to thwart any attack against its territory, Americans' physical security and freedom are secured.
In fact their meddling abroad probably makes them less safe, because it drives a hostility against them that they otherwise wouldn't have.
In fact their meddling abroad probably makes them less safe, because it drives a hostility against them that they otherwise wouldn't have.
As far as prosperity is concerned, again the fact that the U.S. lags behind many other much less powerful states on many prosperity metrics is a proof that it doesn't need such power to ensure its people's prosperity, and that its military power might even be detrimental to it.
Then there are the moral implications.
States like China or India, with 4X the US population have a moral right to want their people to achieve the same level of prosperity as the average American.
But what this "strategy of denial" implies is that the U.S. can't allow that.
States like China or India, with 4X the US population have a moral right to want their people to achieve the same level of prosperity as the average American.
But what this "strategy of denial" implies is that the U.S. can't allow that.
Indeed, were China or India to have an economy 4 times larger than the U.S. thanks to their population, they'd be far more powerful than the U.S.
As per this book, that'd shift the "balance of power" in their favor, and the whole point of the book is a strategy to deny them that
As per this book, that'd shift the "balance of power" in their favor, and the whole point of the book is a strategy to deny them that
In fact the whole book is on another level of moral bankruptcy.
Read the extract below.
A large part of Colby's "strategy of denial" is to provoke China into attacking Taiwan and to purposefully get them to strike civilians, which Colby is adamant shouldn't be defended ๐คฎ
Read the extract below.
A large part of Colby's "strategy of denial" is to provoke China into attacking Taiwan and to purposefully get them to strike civilians, which Colby is adamant shouldn't be defended ๐คฎ
In short he wants to trigger Taiwanese civilian deaths for their PR value ๐คฎ
To conclude, I've rarely read such an evil book. Its large influence in Washington today is absolutely terrifying.
What this book achieves to demonstrate is that the threat is very much not China...
To conclude, I've rarely read such an evil book. Its large influence in Washington today is absolutely terrifying.
What this book achieves to demonstrate is that the threat is very much not China...
Loading suggestions...