Mike Whitney – The Unz Review May 2, 2025

The Trump tariffs are one part of a multi-pronged strategy aimed at preventing China from becoming the dominant power in Asia. The military component of this strategy is designed to work in sync with the trade war by encircling China with military bases and hostile neighbors that have enlisted in Washington’s anti-China alliance. The author of this containment plan is Elbridge Colby who currently serves as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, a senior Pentagon position that assists in the shaping of defense policy.

Colby is not a neocon, in fact, his appointment was challenged in the senate on the basis that he was insufficiently committed to attacking Iran, which he does not regard as a serious threat to US national security. Colby is laser-focused on China which he sees as an existential threat to the “rules-based international order”. Here are a few excerpts from the 2018 National Defense Strategy, a document that was heavily influenced by Colby. The excerpts underscore how threatened western elites feel by China and why (they believe) they must act to protect their interests:

China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system by exploiting its benefits while simultaneously undercutting its principles and ‘rules of the road.’” (2018 NDS, p. 2) https://www.dau.edu/sites/default/files/Migrated/CopDocuments/2018%20National%20Defense%20Strategy%20Summary.pdf

China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage.” (2018 NDS, p. 2)

The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. (2018 NDS, p. 1)

Colby’s 2018 NDS, marks the end of the War on Terror and the beginning of a “great power competition”. It represents a strategic rebalancing of US assets from locations in East Europe and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. It also suggests that the US will be involved in different types of conflicts than it has been for the last 20 years; conflicts that require conventional weapons, combat troops and robust industrial capability rather than covert action, guerilla warfare and boutique weapons systems. War is returning to its original form, a deadly and destructive clash between sovereign states.

As we noted earlier, Colby’s primary objective is preventing China from emerging as Asia’s regional hegemon. In order to achieve that objective, he recommends a policy of forward deterrents (more bases, troops and lethal weaponry), strong regional anti-China coalitions, and “a reformed Pentagon capable of responding quickly to developments in Asia.”

Colby does not see his policy as provocative or escalatory but simply regards it as the best way to preserve America’s place in the world order.

In practical terms, he advocates for The Strategy of Denial, (which is the name of his 2021 book) a plan that focuses on preventing China from achieving regional hegemony by creating obstacles that are too costly to overcome. The goal is to convince China that any attempt to break Washington’s encirclement (via military force) will result in unacceptable losses. This strategy of denial is the de facto operational policy of the Trump administration.

Not surprisingly, Colby sees his strategy as a way to avoid war, not start one. Here’s Colby:

“The goal is not to fight a war but to deter one by making clear to Beijing that it cannot succeed in its aggressive aims, particularly against Taiwan or other key allies.” (Foreign Affairs article, October 2021)

China’s “aggressive aims”? The United States is provoking China in its own back yard while—under the Monroe Doctrine—the US asserts control over an entire hemisphere. Here’s Colby again:

“Taiwan is the linchpin of the First Island Chain, and its fall to China would fundamentally undermine the United States’ strategic position in Asia, emboldening Beijing and weakening our alliances.” (The Strategy of Denial, p. 87)

“Defending Taiwan is not about sentimentality but about hard-nosed strategic interest. If China controls Taiwan, it will dominate the Western Pacific, threatening Japan, the Philippines, and our credibility.” (Testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee, January 2025)

So, under the Trump policy, the US intends to deny China access to an island (Taiwan) it has already agreed is legally part of China (One-China policy) and then proceeds to provoke Beijing by conducting naval drills in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea? Is that the plan?

How is this different than Biden’s policy?

Isn’t the US already using its intelligence agencies and NGOs to strengthen the independence movement in Taiwan? Isn’t the US already ‘arming Taiwan to the teeth’ in an open display of contempt for the government in Beijing? Isn’t the US already building more military bases, strengthening anti-China alliances and making itself a nuisance wherever it goes across the Indo-Pacific?

Colby’s restrained tone and deferential rhetoric make his “denial” policy sound more innocuous than it is. In truth, the strategy is just Containment 2.0; more hectoring, more harassment and more incitement the likes of which we’ve seen repeatedly for more than a decade.

Needless to say, Colby’s views on China align closely with Trump’s. Both men regard China as America’s primary strategic enemy, both men support the strengthening of anti-China alliances in the region, and both men want to enhance US military deterrents. And while Trump’s rhetoric may be more inflammatory than Colby’s, they both appear to agree that China must be treated with an iron fist.

Naturally, China is concerned that Trump’s confrontational approach will trigger an incident that will be used as a pretext for war. China would prefer to engage the US diplomatically to see if the parties can resolve their differences peacefully, but that might not be an option. After all, the administration is the exclusive purview of hardliners, neocons and warhawks. There are no ‘doves’ on Team Trump nor in the entire foreign policy establishment. That means ‘peace’ will not be on the list of choices.

Note—We asked Grok AI whether there was even one “dove” in a position of power in either the Trump administration or in the US foreign policy establishment. The only name Grok could came up with was Rand Paul, who is neither in the administration nor the foreign policy establishment. The number of advocates for peace in the government is zero.

Source