The Taiwan debate is quickly reflecting a degree of emotionalism + moralism not likely to produce sound strategic decisions. To be clear, I am *not* in favor of "abandoning" Taiwan, "bargaining" away its security, or formally promising the US would not respond to an attack

However: There are powerful arguments for limits + caution in US commitments and actions on this issue. If it occurred, this war would likely be as devastating to the US military as WW2, and far more destructive to the US homeland

There are good arguments to be had about the degree of US interests involved (IMHO: big but not vital and nothing close to existential), the degree of China& #39;s regional ambitions that would be "unleashed" by a campaign, etc. Simple assertions on such things are likely to mislead

And a US pledge = risks: Avril Haines testified that Beijing would find it "deeply destabilizing," confirming "that the U.S. is bent on constraining China’s rise ... and would probably cause Beijing to aggressively undermine U.S. interests worldwide" https://thehill.com/opinion/international/551536-will-biden-provide-strategic-clarity-or-further-ambiguity-on-taiwan">https://thehill.com/opinion/i...

We need a deep, rich debate about these issues. If voices urging caution are shouted down as appeasers + fools, we& #39;ll engineer another throttled national deliberation. Dissenting voices will be demonized + the strait jacket of conventional wisdom will tighten w/each passing year

It& #39;ll be a replay of 1961-1965 or 2001-2002: Advocates of toughness grabbing the stage, sneering that doubters "just don& #39;t get it." We must welcome, not condemn, questions and dissent. The only moral failure would be to slide into a thoughtless choice on an issue this profound