Trump And The China Hawks

Being a China Hawk has been a popular position among GOP senators—obviously they think Sinophobia is a real thing among potential voters, no matter how stupid the concept really is. That was apparently a Trumpian idea, at least at the start of Trump 1.0. He bought on to common idiocy of making up with Russia (if we couldn’t subjugate Russia) and then turning hard against China. We won’t know about Trump 2.0 for a while yet, but the sounds we’ve heard from The Donald so far suggest that he’s revised the whole idea in the direction of getting along with China. Which is, like, why not? We’ll always have some differences, but international relationss don’t have to be binary, War or Peace.

There are still China Hawks out there, and some hope to get positions in Trump 2.0. One of those whose name gets mentioned a lot is Elbridge “Bridge” (not kidding) Colby, who happens to be a grandson of William Colby. The younger Colby is, accurately but perhaps a bit uncharitably, characterized by Wikipedia as “an American bureaucrat”. He’s considered a top choice for some important national security position. The good news is that he failed to get a spot on the Jeb! campaign in 2016 because of objections to him by "prominent, interventionist neoconservatives". That’s because his long held view has been to stop getting in all those other wars and concentrate on China.

Today at Will Schryver’s X account there’s some discussion of Colby, and this encapsulates the usual criticisms:

Will Schryver @imetatronink

The #EmpireAtAllCosts cult is more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestige.

But there are #NoEasyWarsLeftToFight.

Quote

Will Schryver @imetatronink

Replying to @baoshaoshan

Unobtainium

Colby essentially acknowledges the reality that, among many options, the US can choose one — and ONLY ONE — overseas war to fight.

However, he blinds himself to the reality that in order to prosecute this "ONE WAR", it would be necessary for the US to effectively vacate every major American military base on the planet — there would be no other way to generate a force sufficient to even attempt war against Russia, China, or Iran.

And even though it would take at least a year to concentrate such a force in any of those putative theaters of battle, the US strategy will necessarily depend upon quick victory, which they cannot obtain.

And they simply cannot sustain a protracted high-intensity campaign against ANY of their adversary choices.

Defeat lurks behind every door in this game. And afterwards, the US will be effectively disarmed in terms of expeditionary warfare for at least a generation.

This is the cold hard reality of the situation at present, and I defy Colby or any of his fellow #EmpireAtAllCosts disciples to counter the many arguments I have made to that effect.

8:27 AM · Nov 11, 2024

The reason I bring this up is because yesterday Tucker put up an interview with “Bridge”, which I took to be a sort of job interview for a position in Trump 2.0. Follow the link for the full hour, but this will give an idea of what they talked about—it’s actually pretty interesting. I’d say he takes a more moderate view toward China than in the past, but he still views China as aggressive and hostile to our “interests”:

Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson

Elbridge Colby is one of the very few experienced national security officials who actually agrees with Donald Trump. He’s likely to play a big role in the new administration.

(0:00) The Steps Trump Needs to Take To Avoid WWIII

(9:10) The Dangers of War With Iran

(18:03) Why Is The Blob Pro-War?

(20:52) We Need to Hold the CIA Accountable

(28:49) What Should Trump Do About Russia and Ukraine?

(43:50) The Pentagon’s Support for Foreign Wars

(55:12) The Wall Street Journal Is in Trouble

(58:10) Who Will Run Trump’s Foreign Policy? Includes paid partnerships.

12:14 PM · Nov 10, 2024

Half way through or so I jotted some notes from one exchange that showed Colby at his most in touch with reality:

Kissinger: Big shifts don't take place by acts of virtuosity. They reflect underlying trends.

The military knows: our readiness is down, our defense industrial base is in trouble, the Chinese are coming on like gangbusters, they know the Russians aren't a joke, we can't afford to get into another big ME war

A lot of people who made it to the top of a very flat pyramid--here's the thing about the military--the people at the top of the pyramid are often people who have satisfied the criteria for promotion and selection. This is gonna have some pathologies. (IOW, their actions will be geared strictly toward promotion)

So, what he’s telling us is that the military could very well end up being on Trump’s side if what Trump wants is to avoid war—which is what he should want. On the other hand, they will probably fight Trump tooth and nail if he tries to bring an end to their gravy train and institute some sort of accountability for their stewardship of our military.

Now, two days ago China Daily put up an 18 minute video, an interview of John Mearsheimer by a Chinese student:

Mearsheimer on China-US: The US can no longer stop China's rise

In an exclusive interview with #MediaUnlocked in Beijing, Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the intensifying security competition between the US and China.

He emphasizes that the US is primarily focused on containing China, but it can no longer stop China's rise. The US claims of promoting "democracy" are designed by American elites as a "velvet glove over the iron fist".

Mearsheimer is, in fact, quite frank about the American rhetoric claiming that we are “promoting democracy.” He admits it’s nothing but gaslighting. What the Chinese student clearly had trouble coming to grips with was Mearsheimer’s standard claim—his non-negotiable ideology—that all great powers behave the same way: they expand until stopped by force or geography, and therefore China and American are inevitably in a “security competition.” The student couldn’t understand what threat China poses to America, why America feels compelled to travel all the way around the world to stage a “security competition” in China’s back yard, and why Mearsheimer is unable to acknowledge (because his ideology won’t allow him to) that China has never attempted to expand outside its very immediate environs. She attempted to suggest that, since China’s power rests on its attention to its economy, maybe America should emulate that approach by growing its economic power, too. Mearsheimer acknowledged the sense of that, but could only repeat that the two countries are in a “security competition.”

I prefer Doug Macgregor’s oft repeated view. China presents no threat to America. It’s logistical madness to think that the US can project power to the other side of the world against a country like China. Whether we like China or not, we have to come to terms with that reality and act on that reality. This is one of the main issues that Trump will be faced with.