President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem. Cannot he correct the problem?

"President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example.”
....
A New Cold War?
The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs..” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.

In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem.

It's NOT an American problem. It's a White race problem since the days of the Viking...
Viking all over Scotland, all over Russia, Europe, North America,...
Then Portugal, Spain, the Netherland, England, France,...
then enslavement, taking/stealing wealth from other nations/people/...

> Cannot he correct the problem?
>
> "President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example.”
> ...
> A New Cold War?
> The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.
>
> In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem. Cannot he correct the problem?
>
> "President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example.”
> ...
> A New Cold War?
> The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.
>
> In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "

Commenting on US experience in Afghanistan, Harry Tarpey had a piece in the National
Interest entitled "Lessons From Afghanistan: America Needs a Less Emotional Foreign
Policy."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/lessons-afghanistan-america-needs-less-emotional-foreign-policy-193626

The phrase of "emotional foreign policy" was not used in the article. Nevertheless,
Harry Tarpey is right on target concerning emotional foreign policy which contributes
to US militarism.

"Symptomatic of a wider ideological rigidity that has defined the U.S. foreign policy apparatus
in the post-9/11 world, this unwillingness to recognize and evaluate on-the-ground realities
plays an increasingly central role in the quagmirical misadventures of the United States military,
whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Central Asia."

Emotion adds a sense of urgency. Urgency calls for quick action. Hence
the unwillingness/inability to evaluate on the ground realities more thoroughly.
Militarism becomes by default

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 10:39:37 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem. Cannot he correct the problem?
> >
> > "President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example..”
> > ...
> > A New Cold War?
> > The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China.. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating.. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.
> >
> > In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "
> Commenting on US experience in Afghanistan, Harry Tarpey had a piece in the National
> Interest entitled "Lessons From Afghanistan: America Needs a Less Emotional Foreign
> Policy."
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/lessons-afghanistan-america-needs-less-emotional-foreign-policy-193626
>
> The phrase of "emotional foreign policy" was not used in the article. Nevertheless,
> Harry Tarpey is right on target concerning emotional foreign policy which contributes
> to US militarism.
>
> "Symptomatic of a wider ideological rigidity that has defined the U.S. foreign policy apparatus
> in the post-9/11 world, this unwillingness to recognize and evaluate on-the-ground realities
> plays an increasingly central role in the quagmirical misadventures of the United States military,
> whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Central Asia."
>
> Emotion adds a sense of urgency. Urgency calls for quick action. Hence
> the unwillingness/inability to evaluate on the ground realities more thoroughly.
> Militarism becomes by default

When it comes to war--- killing/destruction...emotion cannot have any part....
It gotta be iron-cold-calculated-will-power... gotta be done, period!!!

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:39:37 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem. Cannot he correct the problem?
> >
> > "President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example..”
> > ...
> > A New Cold War?
> > The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China.. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating.. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.
> >
> > In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "
> Commenting on US experience in Afghanistan, Harry Tarpey had a piece in the National
> Interest entitled "Lessons From Afghanistan: America Needs a Less Emotional Foreign
> Policy."
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/lessons-afghanistan-america-needs-less-emotional-foreign-policy-193626
>
> The phrase of "emotional foreign policy" was not used in the article. Nevertheless,
> Harry Tarpey is right on target concerning emotional foreign policy which contributes
> to US militarism.
>
> "Symptomatic of a wider ideological rigidity that has defined the U.S. foreign policy apparatus
> in the post-9/11 world, this unwillingness to recognize and evaluate on-the-ground realities
> plays an increasingly central role in the quagmirical misadventures of the United States military,
> whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Central Asia."
>
> Emotion adds a sense of urgency. Urgency calls for quick action. Hence
> the unwillingness/inability to evaluate on the ground realities more thoroughly.
> Militarism becomes by default

Of course, Harry Tarpey only begs the question why the US has an emotional foreign policy.
One contributing factor is the propensity of not putting events in the right context.
Chinese military planes entering ROC air defense identification zone and US reaction serves
as an example.

"Over the past week, China has flown an increased number of military planes around Taiwan airspace. Some on the American right have responded to China’s escalation in kind rhetorically, presenting further violations of Taiwan’s sovereignty as a red line the Communists on the mainland ought not cross, lest they risk military engagement with the United States..

In total, 56 Chinese aircraft flew around the outskirts of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on Monday, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense data show. The group included 34 J-16 fighter jets, 12 H-6 bombers, and ten other aircraft. The 56 flights set a single-day record since Taiwan started releasing data on Chinese flights around their airspace in September 2020.

....half a world away in the West, some analysts embellished the severity of the situation. They used such comments from Taiwan’s leadership to suggest the island nation was waiting with bated breath for the possibility of a Chinese invasion. The beat of the war drums began to sound.

The editors of National Review started to tap their feet and sway to the beat, and published an editorial titled, “We Must Support Taiwan.” But no one on the right really questions whether or not the United States should support Taiwan. The question is to what extent and in what form that support should come, judged by whether any undertaking will ultimately achieve its desired result and advance the American national interest.
....
What is unfolding in the skies above the seas does represent an escalation, but it is by no means something new.

If you extend the time frame back to September of 2020, when Taiwan’s defense ministry first started releasing data regarding China military flights along Taiwan’s AZID, the total number of Chinese military flights around Taiwan’s ADIZ is 841 flights.

What’s more, even prior to Taiwan’s ministry of defense regularly reporting such incursions, such flights were taking place fairly regularly. According to then-Taiwan Minister of Defense Yen De-fa, China had sent 1,710 military aircraft sorties (as well as 1,029 military vessels) into Taiwan’s ADIZ from January to October of last year. Approximately 380 such incursions crossed the Median line in the Taiwan strait or encroached on the southwest corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ in all of 2020. In the year prior, 2019, a few dozen PLA sorties crossed the median line or entered Taiwan’s ADIZ in the southwest corner.

Then, as they did Monday, Taiwan responded by operationalizing their own forces to monitor the PLA’s activities, conducting nearly 3,000 military aircraft sorties of their own over that same time period, Yen claimed.

Zoom out even further, and you’ll see that over the years, the Chinese military has flown in Taiwan’s ADIZ thousands of times, although it is important to note that these tallies often include flights considered in Taiwan’s ADIZ but that are west of the Median line, as Taiwan’s ADIZ extends over the Chinese mainland.

China’s recent probes into Taiwan’s ADIZ—not to mention the decades-long build up of its defense capacities—mean the U..S. should continue to keep a watchful eye on China and its regional intentions, but they are not enough of a change of pace to shift the paradigm."

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/putting-the-chinese-flights-in-context/

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 6:08:56 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:39:37 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > President Biden correctly identifies militarism as an American problem. Cannot he correct the problem?
> > >
> > > "President Joe Biden would like the world to believe that the United States is changing, and in big ways. The American infatuation with war has ended, he told the UN General Assembly last month. Going forward, the United States will no longer treat military power as “an answer to every problem we see around the world,” he said. Central to the president’s message was an acknowledgment that in recent decades, the United States has not classified force as a “tool of last resort.” On the contrary, the promiscuous use of force has become a hallmark of American statecraft, so much so that phrases such as “endless war” and “forever wars” have become staples of everyday political discourse. In this new era, U.S. global leadership remains important, Biden said, but the United States will lead “not just with the example of our power” but “with the power of our example..”
> > > ...
> > > A New Cold War?
> > > The best testing ground for Biden to put his words into action is China. If force is truly the option of last resort, Biden will exert himself to prevent the increasingly adversarial U.S. relationship with China from becoming an all-out military competition. Allowing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to center on an arms race, comparable to the one that drove U.S.-Soviet antagonism in the 1950s, would be the height of rashness. Yet as the recently announced Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia suggests, Biden appears to be leaning in that very direction. In his speech at the UN, Biden said that the United States is not “seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” But actions speak louder than words, and so far, Biden seems to be either accepting a new Cold War as all but inevitable or welcoming such a prospect. In either case, with the submarine deal, the credibility of Biden’s assertion that the United States now intends to lead by example begins to look rather thin. Perhaps Biden is banking on enhancing the military power of second-tier U.S. allies to make China more accommodating. If so, he is placing a very large and risky bet.
> > >
> > > In respectable circles, “America first” rates as tantamount to blasphemy. It harkens back to the irresponsibility of the 1930s and the cluelessness of Biden’s predecessor. In fact, however, keeping America first—maintaining a position of global primacy—has long ranked as the paramount objective of the foreign policy establishment of which Biden is a card-carrying member. Members of that establishment accept it as given that the United States should enjoy privileges and prerogatives not allowed to any other country. The American people agree, classifying such privileges and prerogatives as their due. Perhaps the United States should consider the present moment as an invitation to reassess that proposition. At the very least, policymakers might consider the possibility that further misuse of military power will only serve to squander what remains of the United States’ privileged status. "
> > Commenting on US experience in Afghanistan, Harry Tarpey had a piece in the National
> > Interest entitled "Lessons From Afghanistan: America Needs a Less Emotional Foreign
> > Policy."
> > https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/lessons-afghanistan-america-needs-less-emotional-foreign-policy-193626
> >
> > The phrase of "emotional foreign policy" was not used in the article. Nevertheless,
> > Harry Tarpey is right on target concerning emotional foreign policy which contributes
> > to US militarism.
> >
> > "Symptomatic of a wider ideological rigidity that has defined the U.S. foreign policy apparatus
> > in the post-9/11 world, this unwillingness to recognize and evaluate on-the-ground realities
> > plays an increasingly central role in the quagmirical misadventures of the United States military,
> > whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Central Asia."
> >
> > Emotion adds a sense of urgency. Urgency calls for quick action. Hence
> > the unwillingness/inability to evaluate on the ground realities more thoroughly.
> > Militarism becomes by default
> Of course, Harry Tarpey only begs the question why the US has an emotional foreign policy.
> One contributing factor is the propensity of not putting events in the right context.
> Chinese military planes entering ROC air defense identification zone and US reaction serves
> as an example.
>
> "Over the past week, China has flown an increased number of military planes around Taiwan airspace. Some on the American right have responded to China’s escalation in kind rhetorically, presenting further violations of Taiwan’s sovereignty as a red line the Communists on the mainland ought not cross, lest they risk military engagement with the United States.
>
> In total, 56 Chinese aircraft flew around the outskirts of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on Monday, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense data show. The group included 34 J-16 fighter jets, 12 H-6 bombers, and ten other aircraft. The 56 flights set a single-day record since Taiwan started releasing data on Chinese flights around their airspace in September 2020.
>
> ...half a world away in the West, some analysts embellished the severity of the situation. They used such comments from Taiwan’s leadership to suggest the island nation was waiting with bated breath for the possibility of a Chinese invasion. The beat of the war drums began to sound.
>
> The editors of National Review started to tap their feet and sway to the beat, and published an editorial titled, “We Must Support Taiwan.” But no one on the right really questions whether or not the United States should support Taiwan. The question is to what extent and in what form that support should come, judged by whether any undertaking will ultimately achieve its desired result and advance the American national interest..
> ...
> What is unfolding in the skies above the seas does represent an escalation, but it is by no means something new.
>
> If you extend the time frame back to September of 2020, when Taiwan’s defense ministry first started releasing data regarding China military flights along Taiwan’s AZID, the total number of Chinese military flights around Taiwan’s ADIZ is 841 flights.
>
> What’s more, even prior to Taiwan’s ministry of defense regularly reporting such incursions, such flights were taking place fairly regularly. According to then-Taiwan Minister of Defense Yen De-fa, China had sent 1,710 military aircraft sorties (as well as 1,029 military vessels) into Taiwan’s ADIZ from January to October of last year. Approximately 380 such incursions crossed the Median line in the Taiwan strait or encroached on the southwest corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ in all of 2020. In the year prior, 2019, a few dozen PLA sorties crossed the median line or entered Taiwan’s ADIZ in the southwest corner.
>
> Then, as they did Monday, Taiwan responded by operationalizing their own forces to monitor the PLA’s activities, conducting nearly 3,000 military aircraft sorties of their own over that same time period, Yen claimed..
>
> Zoom out even further, and you’ll see that over the years, the Chinese military has flown in Taiwan’s ADIZ thousands of times, although it is important to note that these tallies often include flights considered in Taiwan’s ADIZ but that are west of the Median line, as Taiwan’s ADIZ extends over the Chinese mainland.
>
> China’s recent probes into Taiwan’s ADIZ—not to mention the decades-long build up of its defense capacities—mean the U.S. should continue to keep a watchful eye on China and its regional intentions, but they are not enough of a change of pace to shift the paradigm."
>
> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/putting-the-chinese-flights-in-context/

As I have been saying...
After the Vietnam War...
After the Afghanistan War...
Can the U.S. really help Taiwan?
The U.S. can't even help itself!!!!