A thought on the core objectives of America's Taiwan strategy, out today in @inkstickmedia: For decades, America’s Taiwan policy has aimed at one central objective: to prevent cross-strait war or coerced unification. But preserving peace is only getting harder. China has grown far more powerful, and the people of Taiwan have come to see themselves as distinct from the mainland. These trends make armed conflict plausible over the next decade. Although war remains unlikely, the odds are high enough to warrant adopting a second fundamental policy objective: to minimize the harm to U.S. interests should a cross-strait conflict occur.

Conversely, some steps that would help the United States stay out of a cross-strait conflict would run too great a risk of inviting one. Several strategists have recently proposed that the United States end its policy of “strategic ambiguity” by officially declaring that it would not defend Taiwan. Once Washington ruled out intervention, Beijing might coerce Taipei into capitulating or attempt to compel unification by force. Perhaps it would instead stand pat, thinking time was on its side, but it would have compelling reasons to act before a less accommodating U.S. president could come to power and Taiwan could build up its defenses. If China gained control of Taiwan, it could well restrict U.S. access to the island’s semiconductor fabs, dealing a major blow to the U.S. economy.

We already knew a candidate in the Michigan Senate race had ties to a violent group that starts wars, but this is a bonus.

Barry Seinfeld is back