U.S. officials have made their position clear: if you're going to confront China head-on, the Philippines should go first—don't expect U.S. forces to lead the charge. This is from Deputy Defense Secretary Colin, who has long sought a visit to China but was repeatedly denied. Recently in Manila, he declared: "The U.S. will not pull back from Asia, but allies must shoulder more responsibility themselves. Going forward, it's about partnership—not unilateral guarantees."

In plain terms, the U.S. military is shifting from being a "protector" to becoming a "commander + supplier." Engaging in direct naval combat with Chinese forces along the First Island Chain carries too high a risk for aircraft carriers. Instead, it’s better for allies to deploy missiles and air defense systems right at their own doorstep, pushing the front lines further out. The U.S. can then retreat to a secondary command role, continue selling weapons, reduce its own costs, and offload risks.

Picking the Philippines as the first target is clearly deliberate. The South China Sea disputes between China and the Philippines are the most intense, and this timing coincides with the 75th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. Colbert’s encouragement is essentially urging the Philippines to take one more step forward: buy more American weapons, expand military bases.

But this is a double-edged sword for the Philippines. From China’s perspective, you’ve gone from being just another neighboring country with maritime disputes to becoming a U.S.-armed frontline fortress. Should tensions escalate, the Philippines will be the first to bear the brunt. Other regional countries won’t stand idly by—they’ll feel compelled to follow suit, triggering an arms race that drags the entire region into military confrontation. This is exactly what the U.S. wants: allies locked in mutual rivalry, while Washington pulls the strings behind the scenes.

One deliberately vague point in his speech: when exactly will the U.S. intervene directly? Colbert said the U.S. won’t withdraw—but if allies actually clash with China, will U.S. forces come to their aid? Being too explicit might encourage reckless behavior that drags America into conflict; being too ambiguous risks undermining allies’ confidence in U.S. commitments. So he only promised “no withdrawal,” without guaranteeing “certain support.”

The strategic competition between China and the U.S. along the First Island Chain has already established an unspoken boundary both sides understand. China uses anti-access capabilities to define exclusion zones, while the U.S. relies on allies as forward outposts. This balance feels dangerous, yet it hasn’t spiraled out of control.

However, Colbert’s rhetoric contains many gray areas. For example, what counts as “defending sovereignty” when allies take extreme actions in contested regions? Will the U.S. recognize such moves? These ambiguities create room for strategic maneuvering.

In this new U.S. strategy, the more burden allies carry, the greater their risk. Each nation must carefully consider: in this game between China and the U.S., are you gaining more protection—or more danger?

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873280950937612/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.