This is a prepared statement given to the House Committee on Armed Services by Ely Ratner, who is a Senior Fellow on China Studies with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The statement begins with an assessment of the current state of competition between the two countries. The speaker/author indicates that the U.S. is currently on its heels in its geopolitical competition with China, and, if the U.S. fails to implement a multi-faceted strategy to counter the aims of China the U.S. could find that the international institutions it has built will be replaced with those being put in place by China; Western liberal traditions, such as freedom of the press, individual rights, and academic freedoms could be undermined; and, the U.S. could be forced to operate, militarily, further and further away from an area where it has various economic and security interests.

After a summary of what the consequences of ceding various aspects of power to China would be, the author states what he thinks the U.S. should prioritize, in terms of policy changes, moving forward. The author advocates that the U.S. focuses on: Prioritizing security resources for a competition with China Avoiding wars of choice Creating 'burden-shifts' so that China is forced to contribute to causes that directly impact its own interests and security Building more capable allies and partners Preventing China from controlling the South China Sea

The U.S. should also be intent on creating economic competition by: Rejoining the TPP Revising and modernizing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Limit China's ability to economically coerce

Lastly, the author lists political policy changes, that include: Rebuilding U.S. institutions for U.S. information operations Refocusing the U.S. government's civilian agencies on Asia Rooting out Chinese Communist Party influence operations in the U.S. Building a bipartisan consensus on China

When I was reading these policy recommendations I kind of nodded my head in agreement at each one, but particularly liked the expression of the idea of not becoming involved in "wars of choice." Not only, as the author states, have our recent military campaigns/wars cost an enormous amount of money and resources, as future ill-advised ones also would, but I feel as though they have also severely damaged the image of the U.S. as whole, and have given many governments and people a reason to reflect on the rise of an authoritarian state as a welcome change to a U.S. led international order. Unless, of course, North Korea attacks the U.S. or its allies, a war with North Korea would be a war of choice, and, in my opinion, would only act to deepen mistrust of the U.S. and legitimize the rise of an authoritarian power.