Daniel Larison

Colby: "It is no entirely clear what Washington's defense obligations are if Thailand is attacked." But our credibility hinges on going to war for Taiwan? Yeah, ok

Colby: "This explains why America's lasting alliances in Asia have historically been with island nations" Ah, yes, the famous island nation of Thailand

The belief that Russia is a "natural" partner in an "anti-hegemonic coalition" against China is one of those things that sounds good, but makes no sense when you look at how the Russian government thinks about this.

Colby argues that both US and China have incentives to keep any war between them limited. That might be true at the beginning, but states tend to expand goals as a war goes on. War is uncontrollable.

A “quasi-alliance” isn’t a thing. Stop using the term “quasi-alliance”!

Colby dubs Taiwan a “quasi-ally” and “confederate,” but as he well knows the US is under no obligation to come to their defense. The US might do so, but it is not the same as a treaty commitment and won’t be judged as such.

Colby’s argument on credibility is very slippery. He correctly acknowledges that ending peripheral wars and commitments elsewhere doesn’t damage US alliances in Asia, but then tries sleight of hand to make defending Taiwan essential to the same. Not buying it.

Colby: “And a firm basis for this is the pledger’s reputation for reliability based on its prior behavior. In this, credibility is like an individual’s or firm’s credit rating.” That’s wrong. That is not how such promises are judged.

Colby: “But so long as US efforts are clearly directed at any denying Beijing hegemony rather than dismembering China, occupying it, or forcibly changing its government, the security dilemma should be manageable.” Famous last words. How do you think China will view this?