Elbridge Colby’s Southeast Asia Pitch and the Question of American Reliability

All Bridge Colby, Bridge Colby, the South East Asia pitch and the question of American reliability. This was covered in the FT today, maybe laugh. Bridge Colby. So Bridge Colby, he's like that American policy manager for geopolitical policy. He's been around since 2016 or so. He sits on both sides, so Republican and Democrat as a care adviser. If you're sitting in the administration, you're going to be able to do that. He's going to be picking up the phone and ringing Bridge and you'll be asking for his view on something because he is the go-to guy when it comes to like the intellectual horse power within the Pentagon, he's the guy that picks up the phone. So he's to Icededa to Hexeth, so that's where we're coming from. Bloody interesting one, this one. Really interesting. Stick around. Lots and lots. So the Pentagon's top policy official tours Southeast Asia is going on road trip, offering true partnership, quote unquote, while regional governments remain very wary. They're like, yeah, we don't trust you guys. Nobody trusts you guys of American tariffs and distant rules. Is the UESA still able to shape the balance of power in Asia? Or is its influence already eroding in the transition away from the unipolar moment? Right, Colby's message on the road. So Pentagon policy chief Albridge Colby spent the week traveling through Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, not Penn, promoting a visual vision of closer security, closer security cooperation with South-Eastern Asian nations. In a speech in Manila, the thriller in Manila, he argued for a quote, favorable balance of power and quote, in the region and rejecting the idea that Asian countries are turning away from the United States because of doubts about American reliability they are, they absolutely are. That's a big problem for us in the collective West. All right, I presume that you're in the collective West. I mean, I'm in the collective West. I presume you're in the collective West. So this is, you know, when smaller countries inside the Asian region are like, we don't trust you, Team West, we don't trust you, we don't trust you as far as we could throw you. Do you think is that good for us, is that good for our team? No, it's not good for our team. And this is the, you know, this is the cream de la cream of policy, construction, knowledge, wisdom, you know, it's the kiss and draw of our time, it's my humble opinion, he's the kiss and draw of our time and he's out there talking it up and they go, bro, we don't touch, we don't trust you as far as we could throw you. So, you know, we'll sit there and listen because that's out where it's small, you're big, but yeah, no, you're all bullshit, that's what you are. They can't say that at a course, but that's what we are seeing. We're seeing that quite clearly. Yeah, in Milila, right, in the speech in Milila, Colby acknowledged that, the current administration sees basically throwing drum under the bus, drives a heart of bargain, then its predecessors and links warmer relations to higher defense spending by regional governments. Yeah, I don't believe it, but like that's what he's saying, he framed the approach as flexible realism. Now, he is a student of realism and as it relates to geopolitics, so he is well and truly in that camp. Okay, let's have a look at this, the digger. Yeah, he's the bigger figures on his way. Yeah, so that's where he comes from, which is all about that realism, flexible realism that puts concrete American interests first, while still seeking practical partnerships across the region. Right, so why this pitch is meeting resistance. Let's go on it, but look at why this pitch is meeting resistance. So many governments in Southeast Asia remain uneasy. That is an understatement. They are, they are more than uneasy. They are incredibly distrustful of this American turning up and telling them how it's going to be about the impact of American tariffs, small hands basically, you know, throwing his hands, basically throwing hands. Yeah, and the economic fallout from the war and around energy, it's all about energy and fertiliser, greener G, drives the manufacturer of fertilizer. And how do you make rice, do you know, you make rice, you put fertilizer in the field, you know much the cost of fertiliser is now for these people and trying to make a rice harvest, it's doubled. It's more than doubled. So they're freaking out. They're like, bro, you've just totally messed up with this around thing. Yeah, look at the mess you've caused. We have people that can't put a crop in. I mean, we're getting pretty real now. We're getting pretty glad it's real. So, you know, this guy turns up, brooch, I respect brooch because I've done a lot of reading and I've looked at everything that he's basically, it's been published about him. And I think he's got his head clued up. He knows what he's talking about. He's read a lot of theory. You know, he's been to the best university's and studied the stuff. So, look, he is a good set of hands. If you're pro-America, I'm not saying mega, I think I'll pop. They're two different, right? But if you're pro-America, if you want America to succeed in the future, then you'll want him to win. You'll want him to be successful. They don't like it, right? They don't like it. They don't like the treats. And they don't like it. This is probably a partner, right? I mean, America comes in and says, we're your partner. You know, trust us. Trust me, bro. It's just like that, it's it, right? It's trust me, bro. All right, so recent Pew Research Center survey found that citizens in Thailand, citizens in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, they all expressed a clear preference for it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, China. Jesus Christ. So, this is what I'm following. This is what I'm talking about. This is a major problem. Like, it's a major problem when you've got a lot of smaller countries and they're like, look, we've got to pick a horse. We've got to get up on that horse and start all right. Do we get up onto the USA? Or do we get up on the China? Now, they are in China's backyard. Same as we are here in Australia and New Zealand. We're in their backyard. And all I'm saying is, look, the rest of Asia, I've just cited some examples. The ones that have been brave enough to talk about it, or to indicate it. They are like, bye, see you later. We're not playing that game. You've just wanked us with tariffs and you've threatened us with this, that and the other. You're not a benevolent dictator at all. You are a will munger and you are putting our lives and livelihoods at three. So we're better off with a literal communist, the communist party of China, the CCP. And they're saying, we'd rather be with a communist. Can you get your head around what I'm saying? You'll realise that something is happening. Something major is happening right now. We're going through a bit of a transition team. That's why episodes like this are so crucial to understand, just to understand. Stop for a minute and have a look at what's happening. We're going through this massive transition, where we say, bye, and we say, hello. And that is a major move, man, in our lifetime. And I think you go through these cycles of 100 years. You go through these 100 years cycles. The last one was the Crown in the UK, the Red Cotes, basically. They ran with it for about 100 years. And then there was World War II. And then, you know, America's road into Berlin. Two days late, but they rode in eventually. The Soviets went in first, right? The Soviets basically took Berlin. And then, essentially, they laid claim to winning the war. I'm not saying they won the war, but they laid claim to winning World War II because they went into Berlin. Two days later, Americans turned up in their jeeps and also claimed that that won World War II. Two days very day. So, notice I had the British iron involved in any of that discussion. It's all, you know, that the Soviets won, or did a miracle win. Which is not the narrative that that's it. Now, I've grown up with, you know, the UK won the war. That's the narrative that, you know, down in the Commonwealth. That's the story that you're fed from a wee puff. You've fed the story, all the war comics, and all the video and all the reflections and everything that you're learning through school. You know, we won the war, we, the United Kingdom. We won the war. And then you grow up, you'll find out it's all lies. In my humble opinion. Yeah, back to the story. Regional observers, they noted that Colby made no direct reference to China. Talk about anything, but don't mention the Seaward. Different Seaward. It goes train degrees. Don't mention the Seaward. Chinaward are growing pressure in the South China Sea, or tea. Don't mention the Teaward. Taiwan. Don't mention Taiwan. Oh my God, stay away. Which is basically, in my opinion, and a mission that many here, or at least some, interpret it as a very, very deliberate caution by Rich. He's being super-careful not to provoke these people because he might inadvertently turn up and push them into the arms of China. It sounds like they're walking into the arms of China, but he was in great jeopardy of giving them a shove. Yeah, holy crap. Two, two, three, four, big boards. I look like one, but they're a lot worse. Oh, boy, look at those two long boards. They're going to have a cracking good time, haven't they? Right, let's get back to the story. So the larger strategic problem that we have here, so Colby's very careful and diplomatic language. He's a, he is a wordsmith of note. He's very, very careful his, his language appears designed to keep open the possibility of engagement with Beijing while still signaling commitment to partners in the first island chain, the first island chain, so that's the countries that we're talking about here. Critics in the region, they argue that repeated American demands for things like pie, defense, bending, paired with economic pressure. They make the offer of partnership feel very conditional and very one-sided because it is. Inside Washington, Colby also used the trip to push back against what he called an elite commentariat that fails to understand the administration's Asia strategy. Yeah, he's getting a lot of crap back home. The result is a message that seeks to reassure both domestic political audiences and foreign partners at the same time. But in my view, team, this risks satisfying neither fully. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, you know, I mean, we got basically the modern version of Kissinger and if even a carefully crafted manicured pitch of flexible realism from the modern version of Kissinger, struggles to gain traction among these key South-East Asian partners, Colby partners, I don't think they're partners anymore to be fair. But the question is, we'll leave you with the question, team. Does this suggest that American leadership in the region rests on solid foundations or that the oldest assumptions of the unipolar era have lost their force, have lost their power and that the sun has set on that time? I mean, you know, this is a big moment. If you understand what I'm talking about, you'll appreciate. This is a pretty dramatic moment. I'm sure this will crack on for a few more years, so stick around with me. And yeah, let's keep talking about this. I think it's super important where you are, amazing good about. Oh, shit, well, I don't know how to crash, I'm the last one. I'll be your winner, but the funny and the sure thing is I run my mind.