Unimpressed by the hooligan tone & general righteous swagger of some critics of Charles Glaser. I don't share all of Glaser's assumptions or judgements - and have something in train on Taiwan - but some of his critics might consider that the issue is fraught. (Thread)

First, the "values" preaching. Glaser is concerned about avoidance of major war. Peace is a value too. Policies of ambiguity, non-ambiguity & outright abandonment could create pathways for war. Assumptions that commitment will work, based on loose 30's analogies, are glib.

Doctrinaire statements about absolute duty to commit to defending democracies, even to point of risking catastrophe over issue China regards as supreme, are at odds with China hawks' usual (& reasonable) support for abandoning Afghanistan, and more measured stance on Hong Kong.

But much of commentary deflects away from what is at stake. A commitment to Taiwan isn't analogous to SK or Japan, not only because it is not a treaty ally, but because Beijing assesses Taiwan differently. A cocksureness abounds that China will surely back off once US ramps up.

Whether US security is best served by committing further is not so obvious in this case. But it isn't un-American, or antithetical to US values, to worry that a harder line could lead to a calamitous war that would kill many people and itself threaten America's position in Asia.

But the vulgar moralism on display over the past 24 hours has been regrettable. Reasonable, conscientious people can disagree. Especially over the underlying issue of whether survival of US democracy requires such full commitments. And which pathway makes war likelier.