www-us.org

Chapter 47: The Dragon in the Room

Julian’s forceful, historically-grounded stance on Ukraine had solidified his credentials as a serious foreign policy thinker. It was a clean, logical argument that resonated with a public tired of endless, indecisive conflicts. But in the war room, the success of the speech had only raised a larger, more difficult question.

“It’s a powerful message, Julian,” Ben Carter, the communications director, said during a strategy session. “But it opens you up to the most obvious counter-attack. What about China?”

He was right. The foreign policy establishment, and a significant portion of the electorate, viewed Russia as a declining power, a distraction from the real, long-term strategic challenge: the rise of an increasingly assertive and authoritarian China.

“Marcus’s old friends in the Republican party will frame this as you being ‘soft on China,’” Carter continued. “They’ll say you’re so focused on the ghost of the Soviet Union that you’re ignoring the dragon in the room.”

Julian nodded, acknowledging the validity of the critique. “Then we will address the dragon,” he said. He turned to the team. “We need a coherent, first-principles policy on China and Taiwan. Let’s wargame it.”

What followed was an intense, day-long strategic simulation, a deep dive into the most complex geopolitical challenge of the century.

Julian began by dismissing the simplistic, binary approaches of the two parties. “The hard-right wants a new Cold War, a complete economic decoupling that would be catastrophic for both our economies. The corporate left wants a return to the old status quo of appeasement, ignoring human rights abuses in exchange for access to their markets. Both are lazy, ideological, and strategically bankrupt.”

He then focused on Taiwan, the most dangerous flashpoint. “The central problem,” he explained, “is that our current policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ is failing. It was designed for a different era, for a weaker China. Today, it is a recipe for miscalculation. Beijing might gamble that we won’t intervene. We need to replace ambiguity with clarity.”

He then made a surprising and counter-intuitive argument. “The great irony,” he said, pulling up a map of the region, “is that Beijing has handed us our entire Taiwan strategy. They did it when they systematically dismantled the ‘one country, two systems’ promise they made to Hong Kong.”

He explained. “For fifty years, the West’s policy was based on a hopeful fiction: that as China grew richer, it would grow freer, and that eventually, a peaceful unification with a democratic Taiwan might be possible. Hong Kong was the test case for that model. And the CCP failed the test in the most spectacular way possible. They proved to the world, and most importantly, to the 23 million people of Taiwan, that their promises are worthless.”

“Our job,” he continued, “is not to invent a new policy. It is simply to state the obvious truth that Beijing itself has revealed. We will say to the world: ‘We believed in the promise of ‘one country, two systems.’ We no longer do, because the Chinese Communist Party has broken that promise. Therefore, we cannot and will not ever ask the democratic people of Taiwan to trust a promise that has already been proven to be a lie.’”

This, he argued, would be the new foundation of American policy. From it, the tactical approach flowed logically. He called it the “Porcupine Strategy.”

“We will not formally recognize Taiwanese independence, which would be an unnecessary provocation,” he said. “But we will, openly and massively, arm Taiwan with the most advanced defensive weaponry in our arsenal. We will make the island a porcupine—a creature so prickly and difficult to attack that any potential predator would conclude that the meal is not worth the pain of the attempt. The goal is to make the cost of an invasion so catastrophically high for the CCP that it becomes an unthinkable option.”

To contrast his sober, strategic approach with the bluster of his predecessor, he then brought up the strange, almost forgotten episode of Greenland.

“My opponent’s approach to geopolitics is that of a real estate developer,” he said, a note of quiet disdain in his voice. “He sees a sovereign nation, a home to thousands of people, and asks, ‘How much?’ He wanted to buy Greenland. This is not just insulting to our allies in Denmark; it is a profound and disqualifying display of strategic ignorance.”

He looked around the room. “And why would the people of Greenland, or any nation, ever entertain such an idea? They only need to look at how America has, at times, neglected its own citizens in its territories, like Puerto Rico, leaving them to fend for themselves after a devastating hurricane. They only need to look at the historical struggles of indigenous populations in our own hemisphere. An offer from a nation that treats its own people that way is not an opportunity; it is a threat. My opponent’s approach did not build relationships; it created deep and lasting mistrust. My approach is not to buy friends or bully neighbors. It is to be such a competent, reliable, and respectful partner that free nations choose to align with us.”

The strategy was complete. It was a perfect synthesis of his core principles: clear, logical, non-ideological, and grounded in the long-term, strategic value of trust and goodwill.

The Discourse, Chapter 47; Strategic Re-framing and the Power of a Precedent

Section 47.1: The Hong Kong Precedent as a Strategic Lever

The Corbin campaign's approach to the complex issue of China and Taiwan is a masterful act of strategic re-framing. The argument is that the United States does not need to create a new, confrontational policy towards China regarding Taiwan. Instead, it only needs to formally acknowledge the new reality that China itself has created through its actions in Hong Kong.

The CCP’s crackdown on Hong Kong, while a human rights tragedy, is presented here as a "strategic gift" to U.S. policymakers. It was a public, undeniable precedent that demonstrated that the CCP’s most solemn international promises ("one country, two systems") are not credible. Julian Corbin’s proposed policy is to simply take them at their word. By doing so, the blame for the breakdown in cross-strait relations is shifted away from the United States and placed squarely on Beijing. The American position is no longer an aggressive or provocative stance; it is a logical, defensive reaction to a promise that the CCP has already publicly and demonstrably broken. This is a powerful way to seize the moral and strategic high ground in the debate.

Section 47.2: The "Porcupine Strategy" as Asymmetric Deterrence

The "Porcupine Strategy" (also known as "fortress defense") is a real-world concept in military deterrence theory, and it is a perfect fit for the MARG campaign's overall philosophy. It is a form of asymmetric deterrence. The goal is not for the smaller power (Taiwan) to achieve military parity with the larger adversary (China), which would be incredibly expensive and destabilizing. The goal is to acquire enough potent defensive capability to make any potential invasion so costly in blood and treasure that it is no longer a rational option for the aggressor.

This is a profoundly systemic and efficient approach. It is cheaper than maintaining a massive, permanent U.S. naval presence in the region. It is less escalatory than a formal U.S. security guarantee or a Taiwanese declaration of independence. And it places the primary burden of defense on the Taiwanese themselves, which aligns with Corbin's "Arsenal of Democracy" model of empowering allies to defend themselves. It is a policy designed by an engineer: to achieve the maximum deterrent effect with the minimum necessary force and risk.

Section 47.3: The "Greenland Example" as a Critique of Transactional Diplomacy

The use of the Greenland episode is a powerful and specific critique of the previous administration's entire foreign policy worldview. It frames the Trump approach as purely transactional. In a transactional worldview, all international relationships are based on immediate, tangible exchanges of value (buying, selling, making "deals"). Trump saw a strategically located piece of land and thought of it as a real estate transaction.

Julian Corbin contrasts this with his own relational worldview. He argues that international relations are not a series of discrete transactions, but a long-term, complex system of relationships built on the intangible but invaluable asset of trust (or "Goodwill"). A transactional leader might achieve a few short-term wins, but they will inevitably destroy the long-term trust that is necessary for stable alliances and effective global leadership. The use of the Puerto Rico example is a devastating piece of evidence in this argument. It makes a clear, logical point: a nation that cannot be trusted to take care of its own people in a crisis cannot be trusted by other nations to be a reliable and predictable partner.

Section 47.4: Strategic Inoculation

Ultimately, the entire exercise is an act of strategic inoculation. By proactively and publicly addressing the most obvious and potent line of attack against his foreign policy ("he's soft on China"), Corbin is neutralizing it before his opponents can effectively wield it. He is not waiting for the attack to come during a debate; he is defining the terms of the debate on his own schedule. This is a sign of a mature and sophisticated campaign, one that does not just react to the news cycle, but actively seeks to shape the intellectual battlefield on which the election will be fought. He is demonstrating to the public that he has a clear, consistent, and well-reasoned worldview that can be applied to all the major geopolitical challenges of the day.