To be clear, I disagree with Glaser's FA piece. But this "takedown" is off, in several ways. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/03/taiwan-policy-us-china-abandon/

Yes, the US is declining. Has been for decades. But just about any conceivable metric. That doesn't mean the US is powerless, or that China is even likely to continue gaining relative to the US. But claiming that the US is in decline does not sacrifice Glaser's credibility.

The argument is as much about China's desire or willingness to attack as its ability to do so. China cares about Taiwan much more than it does Japan or SK. That said, Glaser's point holds: China is more capable of occupying Taiwan than it is Japan or SK.

Don't do this in your writing. Just don't.

What evidence do you have for this? @IainDHenry has written very persuasively that the exact opposite is very likely true. US ability to reassure regional allies while withdrawing from Vietnam directly contradicts this claim.

Taiwan falling under China's control would indeed shift the balance of power. But it's already shifting, and will likely continue to shift irrespective of Taiwan's status. Glaser is basically arguing it's not worth risking a war to delay (not prevent) this shift.

Don't do this either.

First, that's not what counterfactual means. Second, what evidence do you have to support this claim? I don't think "domino theory" is inherently wrong, but the claim that "appeasement" inevitably leads to more aggression isn't so clear cut you can make it with zero evidence.

I actually agree here. I think any grand bargain would be inherently tenuous and subject to Chinese reneging so long as power continues to shift. See: commitment problems. But again, this is only an issue if China's rising, which he disputes.

Again, don't do this. You have no idea what troubles him. I could just as easily say the author is untroubled by the risk of nuclear war that attends the US commitment to Taiwan. But that'd be really obnoxious. And probably incorrect.

So yeah...I disagree with Glaser, but for very different reasons. And the argument here is at least as "flimsy and error-ridden" as it accuses Glaser's of being.