There is apparently some controversy within the U. S. Marine Corps over the best strategy were we to find ourselves attempting to defend Taiwan. At Military.com Gary Anderson gives us his point-of-view:
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger believes that the threat of having Marines leapfrogging from island to island plinking at Chinese warships in the South China Sea with anti-ship missiles will either deter China from starting a war or will be decisive in winning it.
He is wrong.
China’s warships are a very expendable part of its overall strategy. The Chinese believe their mobile missile launchers, high endurance drones, reconnaissance satellites and swarms of attack aircraft, combined with attack submarines, would be sufficient to create a bubble that would prevent Americans from interfering with an invasion of Taiwan.
The Chinese view their surface navy as mere pieces on the chessboard. Americans should realize that the key to deterring a war or winning it will be to deconstruct the Chinese recon-strike complex and use attack submarines to first sink Chinese amphibious ships attacking Taiwan and then strangle Chinese overseas maritime commerce.
After expanding on that thought he concludes quite forcefully:
Inciting a war is not deterrence. Real deterrence means not only showing credible military capability, but the will to use it. Unfortunately, that would require a bipartisan consensus that is sadly lacking at this time.
I’m honestly not sure which is worse: a strategy predicated on bad assumptions, inciting a war with China, or being unable to resolve our differences in a productive manner.
