Skip Navigation
Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias - Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
More

Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. His first book, with the working title Heads in the Sand: Iraq and the Strange Death of Liberal Internationalism, scheduled to be published next spring by John Wiley and co., deals with the Democratic Party's struggle to find a post-9/11 foreign policy, focusing primarily on the rise and (hopefully) fall of the liberal hawk movement.

Previously, he was a staff writer at The American Prospect and an Associate Editor at TPM Media, where he contributed to the group blogs Tapped and TPMCafe. His main blog, now at The Atlantic, has existed in various forms since the dark ages of the blogosphere in January 2002.

His writing has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The New Republic, and The Washington Monthly, and he is a regular on BloggingHeads.tv and makes the occasional radio or television appearance.

Desperately out of touch with the American mainstream, Yglesias was born and raised in Manhattan and studied philosophy at Harvard where he was editor in chief of The Harvard Independent, a campus alternative weekly.

His latest writings can be found on the Matthew Yglesias blog.

Plans for a Bad Day

By Matthew Yglesias
Mar 28 2007, 4:14 PM ET Comment

Richard Bush and Michael O'Hanlon offer the following guidelines "that should inform Chinese and American leaders if they found themselves in the early stages of a military conflict" over Taiwan in their forthcoming book, A War Like No Other: The Truth About China's Challenge to America:

  • Not to expand the geographic scope of any U.S.-PRC fight beyond Taiwan's immediate vicinity, with a particular effort to avoid attacks on mainland China, Japan, and Guam (or the territorial waters surrounding them).
  • Not to escalate to general conventional war (with possible attacks on command and control sites or other facilities near Beijing, Honolulu, San Diego, and so on).
  • Not to fire (even conventionally) upon the other major power's nuclear forces.
  • Not to ready nuclear weapons for use.
  • Not to use nuclear weapons in any way, even against ships or isolated land bases or (via high-altidude bursts) against electronics.


As should be clear from the nature of the discussion, the authors, despite the title, don't actually believe that China's "challenge to America" is especially profound. Rather, they worry that China might "challenge" America by seeking to exercize de facto control over the entire extent of China's de jure territory.

UPDATE: I'm not saying it's a bad idea to try to preserve Taiwanese autonomy from the PRC, which is certainly a complicated issue (see here for the case for abandonmnet). Nevertheless, this simply isn't an instance of a Chinese challenge to America (we derive no tangible benefits whatsoever from Taiwanese autonomy). There's a Chinese challenge to Taiwan and the possibility of an American challenge to Beijing on behalf of Taiwan.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

For the St. Louis Art Museum, a Legal Victory Raises Ethical Questions St. Louis Museum's Legal Victory Raises Ethical Questions
How 'Natural' Is Stevia? How 'Natural' Is Stevia?
Sex Selection in America: Why It Persists and How We Can Change It The Right Way to Fight Sex Selection
What Happens When They Get Drones? What Happens When They Get Drones?
The Edwards Trial: A Bad Idea From Before the Start The Edwards Trial: A Massive Waste of Time

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Afghanistan: May 2012

Jun 1, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)