President Biden has affirmed he is 'not ruling out' boots on the ground in Taiwan, in the scenario of a future Chinese invasion. While this type of response is really nothing new when it comes to American politicians being asked hypothetical questions about the future of Taiwan, it does come at a tense moment when an anti-Beijing hawk, Lai Ching-te, has just ascended as Taiwan's new president.
In a fresh interview with Time magazine published Tuesday, Biden was asked what his response as Commander-in-Chief might be if China's PLA army were to attack the self-ruled island. "It would depend on the circumstances,” the president replied. "We’re continuing to supply capacity… And we’ve been in consultation with our allies in the region."
But that's when he explaining he's not "ruling out using US military force" on the ground. He also said there are other options on the table which he cannot disclose. He added: "You would then criticize me with good reason if I were to tell you."
Below is the excerpt from the Time interview where Biden was asked about exercising the military option:
During his 40 months in office, events have tested Biden’s vision of American world leadership. Alliances haven’t been enough to win a new European war in Ukraine. U.S. power and leverage haven’t prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East, marked by alleged war crimes. Putin is trying to assemble an axis of autocrats from Tehran to Beijing.
In China, the U.S. faces an adversary potentially its equal in economic and military power that is intent on tearing down the American global order. President Xi has told his military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, U.S. officials say, raising the possibility of a dark analogue to Normandy in Asia. Biden doesn’t rule out sending troops to defend Taiwan if China attacked, saying, “It would depend on the circumstances.”
We should note that the publication's allegation that Russia's Putin is trying to "assemble an axis of autocrats from Tehran to Beijing" is a tad exaggerated and lacking in nuance.
Independent journalist Michael Tracey has also pointed out some significant flaws in the article's assumptions, especially when it comes to commentary on Biden and Trump's foreign policy visions....
First, Biden repeats the common Democratic folklore that Trump wants to "abandon" US alliances, and in particular wants to "eviscerate" NATO. At this point, this is just pure mind-melting myth. Trump brags to this VERY DAY about how he secured additional spending commitments from NATO member states. It makes zero sense for Trump to "eviscerate" NATO, a key tool of American hegemonic power, which Trump bombastically pledges to maintain and expand.
Absolutely nothing from the actual record of the Trump Administration reflects doing anything to substantively undermine NATO. Rather, the opposite: He literally signed off on two rounds of NATO expansion, and he elevated Ukraine into a NATO subsidiary status. He increased the funding of the Pentagon funding vehicle for US troops in Europe. He set up new military garrisons in Poland.
Trump even recently posted an endorsement of his pro-NATO stance from the NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg. This is so disastrous because it perpetuates the political dynamic whereby Trump is given incentive to further demonstrate how steadfastly supportive he is of NATO, to refute this never-ending myth.
Likely their views of how to handle the Taiwan crisis also line up similarly. As November draws closer, the anti-China rhetoric from both campaigns is likely to ratchet higher.
Starting as far back as two years ago, Biden publicly said he would be ready to defend Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion. Chinese military drills have surrounding Taiwan have only grown more aggressive since then.
President Biden has affirmed he is ‘not ruling out’ boots on the ground in Taiwan, in the scenario of a future Chinese invasion. While this type of response is really nothing new when it comes to American politicians being asked hypothetical questions about the future of Taiwan, it does come at a tense moment when an anti-Beijing hawk, Lai Ching-te, has just ascended as Taiwan’s new president.
In a fresh interview with Time magazine published Tuesday, Biden was asked what his response as Commander-in-Chief might be if China’s PLA army were to attack the self-ruled island. “It would depend on the circumstances,” the president replied. “We’re continuing to supply capacity… And we’ve been in consultation with our allies in the region.”
But that’s when he explaining he’s not “ruling out using US military force” on the ground. He also said there are other options on the table which he cannot disclose. He added: “You would then criticize me with good reason if I were to tell you.”
Below is the excerpt from the Time interview where Biden was asked about exercising the military option:
During his 40 months in office, events have tested Biden’s vision of American world leadership. Alliances haven’t been enough to win a new European war in Ukraine. U.S. power and leverage haven’t prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East, marked by alleged war crimes. Putin is trying to assemble an axis of autocrats from Tehran to Beijing.
In China, the U.S. faces an adversary potentially its equal in economic and military power that is intent on tearing down the American global order. President Xi has told his military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, U.S. officials say, raising the possibility of a dark analogue to Normandy in Asia. Biden doesn’t rule out sending troops to defend Taiwan if China attacked, saying, “It would depend on the circumstances.”
We should note that the publication’s allegation that Russia’s Putin is trying to “assemble an axis of autocrats from Tehran to Beijing” is a tad exaggerated and lacking in nuance.
Independent journalist Michael Tracey has also pointed out some significant flaws in the article’s assumptions, especially when it comes to commentary on Biden and Trump’s foreign policy visions….
First, Biden repeats the common Democratic folklore that Trump wants to “abandon” US alliances, and in particular wants to “eviscerate” NATO. At this point, this is just pure mind-melting myth. Trump brags to this VERY DAY about how he secured additional spending commitments from NATO member states. It makes zero sense for Trump to “eviscerate” NATO, a key tool of American hegemonic power, which Trump bombastically pledges to maintain and expand.
Absolutely nothing from the actual record of the Trump Administration reflects doing anything to substantively undermine NATO. Rather, the opposite: He literally signed off on two rounds of NATO expansion, and he elevated Ukraine into a NATO subsidiary status. He increased the funding of the Pentagon funding vehicle for US troops in Europe. He set up new military garrisons in Poland.
Trump even recently posted an endorsement of his pro-NATO stance from the NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg. This is so disastrous because it perpetuates the political dynamic whereby Trump is given incentive to further demonstrate how steadfastly supportive he is of NATO, to refute this never-ending myth.
Likely their views of how to handle the Taiwan crisis also line up similarly. As November draws closer, the anti-China rhetoric from both campaigns is likely to ratchet higher.
Starting as far back as two years ago, Biden publicly said he would be ready to defend Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion. Chinese military drills have surrounding Taiwan have only grown more aggressive since then.
Loading…
