"America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking to them over time.

That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global competition.

What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale, recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been tested and failed.

President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next election.

More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.

Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that matters.

In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can” approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
....
Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.

Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United States loses.

Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.

Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.

The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive potential strategies.”

In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 5:50:28 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking to them over time.

As long as the U.S. continues to hold these "confrontational attitude towards China", the U.S. can never win, can never be a world leader towards peace in this world. China is winning already by its offering of BRI around the world, building highways, railroads, airports, seaports, dams, reservoirs,... to make life easier for the ordinary people...

>
> That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global competition.
>
> What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale, recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been tested and failed.
>
> President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next election.
>
> More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.

Stop thinking of "how to hand China"!!! There is no way to "handle China". Think of how to treat others... War, destruction, killing,... are a way of life with the U.S.

>
> Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby argues, is putting Beijing in its place.

No, no, no,... There is no way to put "Beijing in its place". China is already putting us in our place!!!
or perhaps, we are putting ourselves in our place.

> That reflects a general strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that matters.

Yeah!!! Putting a dragon in its place is impossible...

>
> In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can” approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.

Yeah!!! all stale ideas... but perhaps, maybe trying to co-operate with China to build a better world for all, to co-operate with China to conquer space... to make the moon, Mars... livable for humanity....

> ...
> Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks.

How do you stop a meteorite from falling into earth???? There is no way to stop China from rising...

> He recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.

Oh!!! yes, being a head man of the world and control all countries from dealing with China....
Being the dictator of the world...

>
> Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United States loses.

As it is already... The U.S. lost...

>
> Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.

The U.S. didn't win against Vietnam.
The U.S. didn't win against Afghanistan....
And you expect the U.S. to win against China??? You gotta be crazy...
China is factory to the world...
China has everything...

>
> Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.

Ha ha ha ha...
You are really really crazy...
We couldn't "dominate" Vietnam...
We couldn't "dominate" Afghanistan...
How can we "dominate" China???

>
> The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive potential strategies.”

Let's develop better weapons first...
We don't have hypersonic weapons
We don't have rail gun...
China even has more warships than we have...

>
> In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”

China has it, we don't...

>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews

On 13/9/2021 8:50 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking to them over time.
>
> That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global competition.
>
> What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale, recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been tested and failed.
>
> President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next election.
>
> More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.
>
> Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that matters.
>
> In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can” approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
> ...
> Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.
>
> Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United States loses.
>
> Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.
>
> Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.
>
> The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive potential strategies.”
>
> In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews
>

Colby is the ex-defense advisor under the Trump administration.

He is on a bribe to broker a commissions to instigate the US to order
more weapons from the defense industries.

Defense industries need people like him to write about hegemony around
the world and how US can defeat them by buying more weapons for it.

He makes himself like a stupid fool of what US had done to those wars
with thousands of Americans died and even for it and worse without a
purpose.

Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
power, or for what end game is this purpose for?

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:02:49 AM UTC-4, rorro wrote:
> On 13/9/2021 8:50 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking to them over time.
> >
> > That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global competition.
> >
> > What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale, recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been tested and failed.
> >
> > President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next election.
> >
> > More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.
> >
> > Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that matters.
> >
> > In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can” approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
> > ...
> > Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.
> >
> > Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United States loses.
> >
> > Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.
> >
> > Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.
> >
> > The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive potential strategies.”
> >
> > In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”
> >
> > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews
> >
> Colby is the ex-defense advisor under the Trump administration.
>
> He is on a bribe to broker a commissions to instigate the US to order
> more weapons from the defense industries.
>
> Defense industries need people like him to write about hegemony around
> the world and how US can defeat them by buying more weapons for it.
>
> He makes himself like a stupid fool of what US had done to those wars
> with thousands of Americans died and even for it and worse without a
> purpose.
>
> Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
> power, or for what end game is this purpose for?

The Military-Industrial Complex is now a well established and well tolerated if
not well accepted institution. Not surprised if Eldridge “Bridge” Colby's preferred
strategy also benefits weapon manufacturers. Nevertheless I agree with the author
of the article that his book is worth reading.

Basically, he is proposing a limited war to shock and awe China such as the later
would, at least, slow down its hegemonic seeking orientation. With that, the US
could easily form strong and long lasting coalition to contain China in-definitively.

The preface of the book is available from sites such as
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-strategy-of-denial-1

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:02:54 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:02:49 AM UTC-4, rorro wrote:
> > On 13/9/2021 8:50 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking to them over time.
> > >
> > > That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global competition.
> > >
> > > What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale, recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been tested and failed.
> > >
> > > President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next election.
> > >
> > > More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas, breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.
> > >
> > > Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that matters.
> > >
> > > In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can” approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
> > > ...
> > > Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.
> > >
> > > Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United States loses.
> > >
> > > Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.
> > >
> > > Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.
> > >
> > > The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive potential strategies.”
> > >
> > > In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”
> > >
> > > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews
> > >
> > Colby is the ex-defense advisor under the Trump administration.
> >
> > He is on a bribe to broker a commissions to instigate the US to order
> > more weapons from the defense industries.
> >
> > Defense industries need people like him to write about hegemony around
> > the world and how US can defeat them by buying more weapons for it.
> >
> > He makes himself like a stupid fool of what US had done to those wars
> > with thousands of Americans died and even for it and worse without a
> > purpose.
> >
> > Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
> > power, or for what end game is this purpose for?
> The Military-Industrial Complex is now a well established and well tolerated if
> not well accepted institution. Not surprised if Eldridge “Bridge” Colby's preferred
> strategy also benefits weapon manufacturers. Nevertheless I agree with the author
> of the article that his book is worth reading.
>
> Basically, he is proposing a limited war to shock and awe China such as the later

It seems to me China has already "shocked and awed" us into a defensive position where
we are constantly watching what China is doing around the world. We are reacting to China's
programs instead of leading with ours...

> would, at least, slow down its hegemonic seeking orientation. With that, the US
> could easily form strong and long lasting coalition to contain China in-definitively.

China is not re-acting to our policies... Why should we pay attention to theirs...

>
> The preface of the book is available from sites such as
> https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-strategy-of-denial-1

"rorro" AKA "nono" AKA "bernoff" AKA "bach" AKA "roove" AKA "grille" AKA AKA
"spacer" AKA "starlet" AKA "kawaga AKA "hotei" AKA "tom"AKA "golden" AKA
"lobo" AKA "kool" AKA "moses" AKA "dubenski" AKA "bobo" AKA "vonnie" AKA
"starlet" AKA "dean" wrote in message news:shn43l$vt9$1@dont-email.me...
>
> Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
> power, or for what end game is this purpose for?

I'd like to see Xi's reaction to the same question regarding China...

By meaning of limited war, it means Eldridge Colby wants US to hammer China
into a pulp, and as quickly as possible, within a limited time.

Is it like having a few rounds of boxing between Muhammad Ali and Joe
Frazier to see who will get floored with a black eye to decide who is the
winner, and the hegemon?.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:e7320926-af2c-46c2-a043-3fd4661d1e3fn@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:02:49 AM UTC-4, rorro wrote:
> On 13/9/2021 8:50 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real
> > possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to
> > serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and
> > confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail
> > only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking
> > to them over time.
> >
> > That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good
> > strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that
> > guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global
> > competition.
> >
> > What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t
> > deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its
> > national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly
> > clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale,
> > recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been
> > tested and failed.
> >
> > President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After
> > his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of
> > ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next
> > election.
> >
> > More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is
> > blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those
> > currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of
> > Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former
> > Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a
> > book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas,
> > breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.
> >
> > Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby
> > argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general
> > strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great
> > strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just
> > the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that
> > matters.
> >
> > In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale
> > “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can”
> > approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
> > ...
> > Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He
> > argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He
> > recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state
> > hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve
> > Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.
> >
> > Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the
> > United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United
> > States loses.
> >
> > Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters
> > most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win
> > limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects
> > of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the
> > United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.
> >
> > Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The
> > United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise
> > in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard
> > power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to
> > establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.
> >
> > The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military
> > strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and
> > other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s
> > approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies
> > rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all
> > eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive
> > potential strategies.”
> >
> > In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny
> > Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he
> > contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able
> > to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”
> >
> > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews
> >
> Colby is the ex-defense advisor under the Trump administration.
>
> He is on a bribe to broker a commissions to instigate the US to order
> more weapons from the defense industries.
>
> Defense industries need people like him to write about hegemony around
> the world and how US can defeat them by buying more weapons for it.
>
> He makes himself like a stupid fool of what US had done to those wars
> with thousands of Americans died and even for it and worse without a
> purpose.
>
> Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
> power, or for what end game is this purpose for?

The Military-Industrial Complex is now a well established and well tolerated
if
not well accepted institution. Not surprised if Eldridge “Bridge” Colby's
preferred
strategy also benefits weapon manufacturers. Nevertheless I agree with the
author
of the article that his book is worth reading.

Basically, he is proposing a limited war to shock and awe China such as the
later
would, at least, slow down its hegemonic seeking orientation. With that, the
US
could easily form strong and long lasting coalition to contain China
in-definitively.

The preface of the book is available from sites such as
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-strategy-of-denial-1

That is the idea.
Of course the question is that can the US really hammer China into a pulp within a limit time
without any kind of occupation with soldiers on the ground.

He specifies the following in the Preface:
"Chapter 6 argues that, in its defense planning, the United States needs to focus on China’s best military
strategies rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all eventualities or focusing on China’s
likeliest or most destructive potential strategies."

Hammer China into a pulp is more psychological impact than physical destruction.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:11:09 PM UTC-4, kakegawa bread wrote:
> By meaning of limited war, it means Eldridge Colby wants US to hammer China
> into a pulp, and as quickly as possible, within a limited time.
>
> Is it like having a few rounds of boxing between Muhammad Ali and Joe
> Frazier to see who will get floored with a black eye to decide who is the
> winner, and the hegemon?.
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:e7320926-af2c-46c2...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:02:49 AM UTC-4, rorro wrote:
> > On 13/9/2021 8:50 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "America is in an era of great-power competition where there is a real
> > > possibility that we won’t come out on top or continue to be able to
> > > serve as the world’s safety patrol, the guarantor that conflict and
> > > confrontation won’t spin out of control. The United States will prevail
> > > only by making better hard choices than its enemies will, and sticking
> > > to them over time.
> > >
> > > That combination of acumen and will is the essence of strategy—and good
> > > strategy has to start with strategists. If America doesn’t find that
> > > guiding lifeline of an idea, then it will remain hamstrung in the global
> > > competition.
> > >
> > > What is probably already apparent is that the current administration won’t
> > > deliver the next Clausewitz. Even before the Biden team published its
> > > national security and national defense strategies, it was abundantly
> > > clear that all this administration has in the brain bank is stale,
> > > recycled ideas from the Obama administration that have already been
> > > tested and failed.
> > >
> > > President Joe Biden will likely do exactly what Barack Obama did. After
> > > his ideas fail to deliver in practice, he’ll come up with a variety of
> > > ad-hoc responses, hoping it’s enough to get him through the next
> > > election.
> > >
> > > More likely, the next big idea will come from something outside what is
> > > blessed by the West Wing and be implemented by leaders other than those
> > > currently in office. One aspirant of fresh thinking is The Strategy of
> > > Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Competition, by former
> > > Trump defense official and scholar Eldridge “Bridge” Colby. This is a
> > > book well worth reading, packed with fresh paradigm-cracking ideas,
> > > breaking all the china in thinking how to handle China.
> > >
> > > Make no mistake: the foundation of American grand strategy, Colby
> > > argues, is putting Beijing in its place. That reflects a general
> > > strategic consensus among U.S. candidates for the next great
> > > strategists. Colby, however, argues that dealing with China is not just
> > > the most important thing. He pretty much argues it’s the only thing that
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > In crafting a strategy for China, Colby offers more than the stale
> > > “pivot to Asia” and “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can”
> > > approach concocted by Obama and recycled by the Biden boys and girls.
> > > ...
> > > Colby calls for a more proactive, forceful, and deliberate strategy. He
> > > argues that America must stop the rise of China in its tracks. He
> > > recommends focusing on a core objective: denying any other state
> > > hegemony over one of the world’s key regions in order to preserve
> > > Americans’ security, freedom and prosperity.
> > >
> > > Asia, he argues, is the most important region in the world. If the
> > > United States can’t prevent China from dominating Asia, then the United
> > > States loses.
> > >
> > > Another core concept in Colby’s strategy is that hard power matters
> > > most. If the United States can’t demonstrate that it can fight and win
> > > limited wars against China, then the U.S. loses. All the other aspects
> > > of competition—diplomacy, economics, and so on—don’t matter if the
> > > United States can’t demonstrate it can win wars.
> > >
> > > Colby also argues “the structure of global power has changed.” The
> > > United States lacks overwhelming advantages and will have to compromise
> > > in virtually every theater to focus the overwhelming bulk of its hard
> > > power in Asia against China. In short, the United States has to
> > > establish “military dominance” in the Indo-Pacific region.
> > >
> > > The bulk of The Strategy of Denial focuses on developing military
> > > strategies that will checkmate China, from Taiwan to the Philippines and
> > > other key potential flashpoints in the theater. The core of Colby’s
> > > approach is to focus on defeating “China’s best military strategies
> > > rather than simply pleading ignorance and preparing for all
> > > eventualities or focusing on China’s likeliest or most destructive
> > > potential strategies.”
> > >
> > > In the end, Colby’s call is for a strategy that will forcibly deny
> > > Beijing its hegemonic design. If done forcefully, swiftly and well, he
> > > contends that, rather than fighting wars, the United States will be able
> > > to achieve a “decent peace and acceptable détente.”
> > >
> > > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/getting-game-plan-guardian-america%E2%80%99s-global-interests-193480?fr=operanews
> > >
> > Colby is the ex-defense advisor under the Trump administration.
> >
> > He is on a bribe to broker a commissions to instigate the US to order
> > more weapons from the defense industries.
> >
> > Defense industries need people like him to write about hegemony around
> > the world and how US can defeat them by buying more weapons for it.
> >
> > He makes himself like a stupid fool of what US had done to those wars
> > with thousands of Americans died and even for it and worse without a
> > purpose.
> >
> > Is it to promote or defeat America's hegemony and hard power, and global
> > power, or for what end game is this purpose for?
>
> The Military-Industrial Complex is now a well established and well tolerated
> if
> not well accepted institution. Not surprised if Eldridge “Bridge” Colby's
> preferred
> strategy also benefits weapon manufacturers. Nevertheless I agree with the
> author
> of the article that his book is worth reading.
>
> Basically, he is proposing a limited war to shock and awe China such as the
> later
> would, at least, slow down its hegemonic seeking orientation. With that, the
> US
> could easily form strong and long lasting coalition to contain China
> in-definitively.
>
> The preface of the book is available from sites such as
> https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-strategy-of-denial-1