I have a different proposal for-posture in the Middle East—closing U.S. bases and leaving the region entirely. Just out today: defensepriorities.org/wp-con…

I am glad to see @Carr12Brandon & @jyjamespark engage w/ my second island chain strategy proposal & offer their view. I'll briefly respond to their critiques here: 1. They argue that if the U.S. pulls back militarily, China will be able to use economic & political power to force Japan, ROK, & others to its side. However, countering China's economic and political influence is not a job U.S. military power can accomplish. To do this, the U.S. needs a coherent economic strategy. Look at Latin America where Chinese economic influence continues to increase even as the U.S. surges military power to the region. U.S. military power in Asia cannot counter Chinese economic hegemony. 2. They are concerned about the risks of nuclear proliferation to allies if the U.S. retrenches. As I note in the paper, this is possible. But I also see some proliferation as inevitable & the result of Trump administration policies, including the war with Iran. The U.S. nuclear umbrella already lacks credibility. My view is some proliferation can be managed & is better than continue U.S. overextension. 3. They argue that the United States essentially cannot defend the first island chain from the second. This is correct, but I don't suggest it should. I acknowledge there are a small set of contingencies where the United States might use force to protect core interests & these contingencies could be managed without a major first island chain presence. Moreover first island chain bases are not survivable or defensible, so what's the logic for keeping them & planning to fight from them? 4. They leave unaddressed several of the core drivers of my recommendations, including the unsustainability of the current strategy (cost wise & limits of military power) & the effect of any U.S. first island chain presence on the risk of war with China, which they seem to accept. The status quo simply doesn't work any more, so any recommendation for future U.S. policy has to address these underlying issues, even if the changes recommended aren't the ones I propose.

So we took a strait that was open and turned it into a strait that requires permanent U.S. military presence to be sort of open at a higher cost. Is this a win?

It is great news when an ally says it's ready to be independent. The Trump administration should take this seriously.