This is good as far as it goes:
As the Chinese Communist Party commemorates 70 years of the People’s Republic of China by parading its military hardware in Beijing, the people of Hong Kong are struggling for their rights. For months, the world has watched as protesters in Hong Kong stood bravely in the face of police and state violence. They deserve our support.
What is happening in Hong Kong illustrates the challenge posed by China and the limitations of the United States’ current approach. In many cases, the United States will need to cooperate with China—for example, on climate change—but it must also stand firm when its interests and values are threatened.
The first paragraph is certainly true, but the second dilutes it so much with some reality that it is really hard to argue we aren't doing that right now. And it is an exit strategy to make supporting Hong Kong protesters less than real support.
And I remembered the standard operating procedure of the left. The struggle we are in now is never as justified as a past struggle and never as important as a future struggle that we should be preparing to fight:
Some people will just never support the war we are in right now. I doesn't matter what the war is at the moment.
They will cover their opposition by saying they supported a past war that we won (or even a lost war) even when they opposed such wars at the time. Just listen to those who now claim that they supported the Gulf War or Afghanistan campaign or who even respect the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. It's just this war in Iraq they oppose.
They may even say that another problem is more severe and must be met first--possibly with force--before waging the war in question. North Korea and Iran spring to mind. But you can always be sure that if the issue they once said is more important comes up, there will be another problem that must be dealt with first.
Whether too hot or too cold, the question of a war to defend us is never just right.
Obviously, the question of war applies to preparing for war.
And the two steps Warren says are important for standing up to China are so tiny that they bear no relation to the scope of the China threat she laid out not too many paragraphs earlier.
The only purpose of Warren's opinion piece is to attack Trump. She would not stand up to China as she says Trump should.
Because by then--God forbid--there will be a more urgent threat to confront. Probably climate change, eh? That's the big innovation that ends the dilemma of choosing what country can be safely called the most important threat.
UPDATE: Michael Yon in Hong Kong:
Sorry it is RT. Normally I would not use them. But it is on YouTube and is straight live shots (with an odd repeat).
