The Hong Kong protesters are doomed. But, the West cannot ignore their fate or waver in support because President Xi Jinping is using Hong Kong as a testbed for what ultimately yearns to do in Taiwan.
The ability to design and manufacture advanced computer chips has yet to be mastered by China. It is the last major technological advantage the West has over China/. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) just undercut that advantage earlier this year. Things are about to get ugly, as I write in my column at The American Spectator.
In my recent op-ed for The American Spectator, I argue that President Trump’s decision not to bomb Iran was the correct one and that the Washington foreign policy elite are wrong to undercut Trump on this issue while at the same time denying critical arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
It’s likely that Iran has a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability. Why have they not used it? What’s their plan? I suspect that they would use such weapons if their arsenal were more developed, but as it stands Iran’s leadership knows they cannot win in a war against the United States. Perhaps Washington should focus on massive increases in its intelligence collection operations in Iran to answer some of these questions rather than mindlessly burbling about military escalation against Iran — especially since the mere threat of American military action is no longer sufficient to cow Mideast enemies into submission.
“Much as Mattis’s outlook will be missed — and he should be treated with respect — a president deserves a secretary of defense who actually believes in his agenda, not someone who will resist it.”
“Forget negotiating with Congress. It’s a dead-end. Just as he ordered the Pentagon to send the troops to the border, he could order the Defense Department to begin construction on the wall immediately. There’s nothing stopping him from doing so. It’s the only way the president will get the wall.”
Clearly, history has returned to Europe. And with the return of history has also come the return of geopolitics and the need for traditional military force. If France and Germany want to build their combined military force to balance against the Americans, let them. If Berlin and Paris want to try to make nice with Moscow, let them try that, too.
“In response to the horrific slaying of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, a bipartisan group of United States Senators have banded together to stop the potential trade between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Their goal is correct. Although their reasoning is flawed. No one should care about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He was an Islamist who had malign intentions toward the United States. The real reason that one should be concerned about nuking up Saudi Arabia is that it’s ef-ing Saudi Arabia — home to 15 (of the 19) 9/11 hijackers as well as Bin Laden! Besides, the staying power of the pro-American regime in Riyadh is very much in doubt today.”
“”With the loss of Saudi Arabia as a viable partner in blocking the spread of Iranian power, the Trump Administration would be forced to revisit the oft-repeated notion that Iran is a rational actor. President Trump would have to renege on his campaign promise of ending the terrible Obama era Iran deal. He would have to reverse course and effectively reinstitute the Obama deal with Iran, in order to gain new leverage over Tehran. In other words, Trump would have to surrender the Middle East to Iran, selling out Israel in the process, just as Barack Obama did.”
“A balance of power paradigm that pits one group of foreign states mostly serving American interests against another, is the best way. Enough of over-committing U.S. forces to the field of battle at the outset of any potential conflict. Play all sides until the best deal can be reached.
The United States isn’t opposed to fighting. The country has been engaged in warfare of some kind for 222 out of its 239-year existence (that’s roughly 93 percent of American history). It’s not about being afraid to fight. The issue is when to fight and how (also, why, particularly in the case of the Middle East).
American policymakers cannot formulate a cogent answer to those questions. At least, not until the wonderfully disruptive Age of Trump.”