Admiral Scott Swift - A Responsible US Approach to the Chinese Military Challenge

Join Lyle Goldstein, Visiting Professor of International and Public Affairs, for a conversation with Admiral Scott Swift USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Adm. Swift served in the U.S. Navy for more than 40 years, rising from his commission through the Aviation Reserve Officer Candidate program to become a Navy light attack and strike fighter pilot. He commanded at all levels including F/A-18 weapons school, aircraft carrier-based squadrons, Carrier Air Wing, Carrier Strike Group and the U.S. Seventh Fleet forward deployed to Japan, finally completing his uniformed career as the 35th Commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet in 2018. During his years of service, he participated in combat Operations Praying Mantis, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and received a master’s degree from the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island.
He is a graduate of San Diego State University and the U.S. Naval War College.
As founder of The Swift Group LLC, previous MIT Center for International Studies Robert E. Wilhelm Fellow, MIT Research Affiliate, Senior Fellow at the Center for Naval Analysis, Adjunct Professor at the Naval War College, US Naval Institute Board Member and Spirit of America Advisory Board Member, Admiral Swift continues to explore opportunities to serve where his interests, abilities, experience and national need align.

[@accountantthe3394]

Welcome back Prof. Goldstein! Your presence online has been missed 🙏

[@tonyyin8524]

What is this "rules-based order" Admiral Swift mentioned? Who makes the rules and where can people go to see copies of it?

[@dancerinmaya6813]

Professor Goldstein is concerned about Taiwan b/c he knows China better than most. Perhaps you could ask Admiral more on the Second Thomas Shoal as it's increasingly more apparent that's the US' doing, consistent w/ the US' strategy to pit and use "allies" surrounding CN to poke fights w/ China, and therefore to consume CN's energy/reputation. US expressed previously that it doesn't want to get into a territorial dispute in response to PH's request for "common defense". I wonder what the Admiral thinks in case there is a war between CN and PH, what the chance is for the US to get involved. The Admiral has a lot more common sense than most of the US political elites/thinktanks in the sense that the competition between China and the US is an economics one. However, he later let out some of his real thoughts. But I think the Admiral doesn't know China at all: he even quote covid control as evidence of China's internal problems, that's quite funny. In fact Covid lock down could be seen as a show for societal mobilization. Also the Admiral doesn't understand China nor Chinese culture. They'll report and wait for a superior to make a decision ordinarily, but at time of a real war, from time almost immemorable, Chinese has the saying "将在外，君令有所不受” （when a general is out in the battlefield, all the emperor's orders are not followed）, that's recognition of the generals or soldiers in the field would know better of the circumstances than the superiors many miles away--that's ultimate delegation: you don't want to delegate the decision of a war to junior officers, that's why you report up and let those old guys above there consider the decision cautiously in the context of the whole country's strategies/vision/capabilities/bigger picture. But once the war starts, it's a different story. Climate change may be a state security issue, but it's not an issue that should be the military's concern, let other gov branch deal with it. Also the liberal democracy part is just weird--Ukraine was the most corrupted country in Europe, and the gov was made possible by US regime change, the Admiral was talking about "liberal democracy", that shows the internal incongruence in the US military: you have to be fluent in political correctness in order to survive and be successful in a branch of state organ which requires the most efficiency, expediency and pragmatism. It's probably to Professor Goldstein's relief that the Admiral basically confirms his judgment that it's a terribly bad idea to get involved militarily as the US can't really beat CN, the logistics is impossible and there will be great costs to the US Navy and a great deal of US deaths, and ultimately the first principle question is "why". However the US national sentiments as brainwashed and inflamed by the US MSMs and many ignorant but combatant political elites are in favor of going to a war with China to "defend" a part that the US recognizes as part of China, the real reason is that they have no genuine vision for your country and ppl so they have to compete to be the hardest hawk on CN in order to gain votes--and your gov can't handle the heat (just think about the balloon), to be against the popular fervor and risk losing votes. That's why it's dangerous. 70% of Americans don't know where Taiwan is on the map--it is reported. The number may be higher or lower, the point is that they don't give a damn, and they know nothing about it, but they want the US to go into a hot war with a nuclear power over it. There is nothing to worry about on the part of CN, CN gov can always control/divert nationalist fervor. Also there is no such thing as Western MSMs speculated that CN is in serious internal political trouble. Corrupted leaders/generals are taken out no matter who--unlike the US, corruption is formalized and legalized to be part of the system. That's why the Pentagon with close to a trillion annual budget constantly wants more, complains of not enough, but can never pass an audit. It's comforting if military ppl are more pragmatic and have more common sense (than those clown congressmen/women and think tanks advocating a war against CN constantly). But then they start to talk about gender, climate change and liberal democracy, that's actually worrying. 😂😂😂

[@felipearbustopotd]

Thank you for uploading and sharing.

[@timferguson593]

I just found this. Not easy to see these on U Tube.🎉

[@user-qw1er2ty3ui4o]

Sobering and pragmatic dialogue.

[@mistman5640]

A responsible approach would include stopping playing irresponsible table top war games. Seems to me every think tank loves table top war gaming, but the games are design to serve the interests of the few as opposed to simulate real fighting

[@good2freelance1]

''German is back in the pacific''. Why? Because German is US poodle now.

[@oswarz]

International Rules Based Order: US makes the RULES and ORDERS everyone else around. And most of the world is waking up to that fact. How can you be a firm believer when you see with your own eyes how the US regularly violates the "rules based order"(in other words, THEIR rules which change whenever they become inconvenient) but demands that other countries follow it. I have yet to see a clear description of this "rules base order". Perhaps you could clearly state what the "rules based order" is. It seems to me it is only the United States that holds the competative/provocative/cocky stance. China seems to seek partnership in trade; cooperation in technology and mutual respect. These words are alien to the establishment's real vocabulary (lip service does not count). What I see is relentless provocation on the part of the US. What I do not see is the US waking up to the historic fact that the US cannot/will not be the world hegemon. Pax Americana was never Pax in the first place.

[@willysgn]

Read the first draft of the phase 1 trade deal between the PRC and the US. Then look at what was agreed to in the phase 1 trade deal. Trump tried to further couple technologically and economically with the PRC and the CCP rejected it. Liu He will be remembered by the American People as intelligent and authentic man. That said, He failed to influence General Secretary Xi that further coupling with the US was good for the peoples of China.

[@magnaviator]

Exactly. As far as I know, China is perfectly willing to follow the UN Charter. It is the US that violates international law at will and makes up shit like RBIO to justify every deviation.