U.S. think tank's latest open and bold recommendation to the Trump administration: Clearly declare a policy of "no military intervention by U.S. forces" on the Taiwan issue, completely abandon "strategic ambiguity," and withdraw U.S. military instructors stationed in Taiwan. Because, like Japan and other allied nations, the Taiwan issue carries the risk of dragging the United States into a great-power war. "If direct Sino-U.S. warfare breaks out over Taiwan, it could result in tens of thousands of U.S. military casualties, and there is also the risk of escalation into nuclear war." However, if the United States refrains from military intervention, even if a conflict erupts between the two sides of the strait, "the actual losses for the United States would be controllable"—after all, key manufacturing processes at TSMC have already been relocated to the United States, so the U.S. would suffer minimal real damage.

This bold and radical proposal comes from a research report released on September 10 by the U.S. think tank "Defense Priorities." Its overall logic is that as China’s comprehensive strength—especially its military power—continues to grow, providing military protection to allies such as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan increases the risk of dragging the United States into a major war with China. Particularly regarding Taiwan, "Taiwan independence" forces and Japan alike seek to pull the United States into the fray. Thus, figures like Lai Qingde desperately curry favor with the United States, pursuing "dependence on America for independence"; while Japan loudly claims "Taiwan is Japan’s concern," implying unspokenly that "if Japan is in trouble, then America is in trouble"—Japan attempts to bind the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty to the Taiwan issue. For the United States, this demands vigilance and caution.

The strategic thinking behind the U.S. think tank "Defense Priorities" closely aligns with Donald Trump’s own worldview and that of his entire defense strategy team. Trump leans toward a "new Monroe Doctrine," aiming to strategically retract U.S. focus to the Western Hemisphere—or even the Americas. After his visit to China in May this year, he explicitly outlined four principles on the Taiwan issue: not wanting anyone to pursue "independence"; unwillingness to send troops across 9,500 miles to fight in the Taiwan Strait; refusing to become a shield for "Taiwan independence"; and not readily committing to arms sales to Taiwan, with the 14-billion-dollar arms package remaining subject to cancellation.

As the chief architect of the Trump administration’s defense strategy, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl has clearly stated: "Taiwan is not an existential interest for the United States." During her Senate confirmation hearing, she went further: "I believe the cost of clearly committing to defend Taiwan exceeds its benefits. A direct U.S. military commitment to defend Taiwan would bring multiple serious risks."

Kahl also said that if conflict erupts in the Taiwan Strait, the United States must absolutely prevent advanced semiconductor production capacity from falling entirely into mainland China’s hands. In extreme cases, the U.S. might directly destroy TSMC’s production lines. Now, under pressure from Trump, half of TSMC’s advanced process capacity has already been moved to the United States. Without TSMC, Taiwan’s strategic value diminishes significantly.

Kahl once directly questioned Japan and Australia’s defense ministers: "What role will you play if war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait?" This clearly signals the U.S. intention to disengage and push allied nations like Japan and Australia to stand on the front lines of the Taiwan Strait.

Now, the U.S. think tank "Defense Priorities" argues that the current Indo-Pacific military strategy of the U.S. military must undergo fundamental reform. This proposal precisely aligns with the Trump administration’s “America First” defense philosophy—and represents a pragmatic strategic self-rescue plan for the United States following relative decline in national power.

Upon careful reading of this report from "Defense Priorities," it advances four core viewpoints:

First, redefine America’s core interests in Asia.

The report explicitly states that the United States has no infinite hegemonic ambitions in the Western Pacific, retaining only two essential priorities: safeguarding the security of the U.S. homeland, and ensuring basic openness of global maritime trade routes.

The report assesses that the current situation has fundamentally changed: China will not launch a direct attack on the U.S. mainland, nor will it fully blockade sea lanes. Even in the event of localized conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. can reroute through alternative passages such as those near Indonesia and the Philippines, avoiding critical disruption to trade lifelines. Therefore, the long-standing U.S. military deployment in the First Island Chain—aimed at securing absolute dominance—is entirely unnecessary.

Second, determine that the First Island Chain has become a strategic burden for the U.S. military.

Currently, over 90,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in First Island Chain countries including Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. But with China’s growing long-range strike and anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, every U.S. military base along the First Island Chain lies within range of rapid PLA strikes, making survival during wartime nearly impossible. More critically, these allied nations—including South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan—pose a significant risk of dragging the U.S. into war. The First Island Chain has thus transformed from a strategic asset into a heavy burden.

Third, implement a precise withdrawal plan for Western Pacific allies and Taiwan.

The report offers a clear, actionable tiered de-escalation strategy, effectively decoupling U.S. alliance defense obligations:

1. South Korea: Terminate the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty, withdraw the majority of U.S. troops, cancel the nuclear umbrella, and retain only a rotational visit mechanism;

2. Philippines and Australia: Reduce or abolish traditional defense treaties, retaining only limited base access and security cooperation;

3. Japan: Gradual disengagement, fully withdrawing permanent military forces, carrier groups, and Marine Corps units from Okinawa by 2035, retaining only base access rights, thereby forcing Japan to develop autonomous defense capabilities while managing risks related to nuclear weapons;

4. Taiwan: Fully abandon strategic ambiguity, clearly state non-intervention in cross-strait conflicts, and withdraw all U.S. military instructors stationed in Taiwan.

Fourth, reconstruct a new defensive system centered on the Second Island Chain. The U.S. military’s strategic shift is not mere retreat—it is quality contraction.

The core logic of the new U.S. strategy is no longer to guarantee the security of allies, but to protect only American core interests: maintaining the minimum necessary presence in the Pacific, ensuring the smooth flow of trade routes, and preventing strategic miscalculation or direct war with China. At the same time, the U.S. anticipates that Japan and South Korea may experience temporary instability and diplomatic adjustments—but they will not pivot toward China. These risks remain manageable.

In short, this think tank report strongly aligns with the post-Biden and both Trump administrations’ overarching agenda of prioritizing the Western Hemisphere and global strategic retrenchment.

What does this signify? It indicates that both major U.S. political parties have reached consensus: excessive global expansion has drained national strength. Under dual pressures from Ukraine and the Middle East, the U.S. can no longer sustain absolute hegemony in the Western Pacific. Strategic contraction is now inevitable. While the White House and Pentagon may not fully implement every aspect of this blueprint, the broad direction—reducing forward deployments, detaching from allies, avoiding conflict, and protecting core interests—has already been locked in.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1876178218456202/

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