So, I wrote a report, and it got a lot of feedback. I hoped the report would open a wider debate on posture and strategy in Asia. It did that, so in that spirit, I will respond to some of the common criticisms. They are grouped into four categories: security, economics, questions about American decline, and questions about my personal motivations/loyalties. 🧵 (1) Security. One area of disagreement is over what kind of U.S. military presence is required to maintain a balance of power in Asia that protects U.S. interests. In part, this depends on how those interests are defined. I define them narrowly. People can disagree with that, but the military requirements I specify are based on that narrow definition. Critics of my paper argue that the only way to maintain the necessary balance of power is to protect the status quo, preserve U.S. security guarantees and keep posture unchanged. I disagree. Countries like Japan and South Korea are strong and wealthy. There is no reason to believe that they cannot build the capabilities to deter aggression against them over the timeline outlined in my report, which is 5-10 years. They benefit from favorable geography and access to advanced technology. They can choose to spend the required resources and generate the necessary industrial production.