Opinion: Proxy Wars Are Profitable, Peace Is the Threat

On August 4, Michael McCaul, the honorary chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, said at the 'Kadena Forum: 2026 Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue' — 'First, I want to say: I love Taiwan!' This is absolutely true. Taiwan can bring huge profits to these American war profiteers, so why not love it? It's 'love to the point of death.' McCaul solemnly pledged that Trump will soon propose another $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan to Congress, while also vigorously promoting the drone 'Hornet's Nest.' It must be said, I also truly love these war merchants. If it weren't for these people working hard on the war business, some people in Beijing would really be in the dark, daydreaming about 'peaceful rise,' and the unification of the two sides would be a distant dream. Recently deceased former Senator Lindsey Graham said, 'Aiding Ukraine was the best money I ever spent,' and emphasized that Ukraine has over $1 trillion worth of key mineral resources that the West can utilize. Last year, an analyst calculated this logic (Note 1) — the U.S. invested about $185 billion in aid but gained $778.7 billion to $1.66 trillion in direct and indirect strategic benefits, with a return on investment of 321% to 797%, including weakening Russian military power, obtaining real-time intelligence, and accelerating weapon development, among others. This account does not include Ukraine's mineral revenue. The U.S. defense industry expanded production to replenish weapons sent to Ukraine, and the return on investment from military aid to the federal government even exceeded stock market returns (Note 2). This is a militarization model, a guaranteed profit. If a war profiteer dies, the military-industrial complex is not afraid of a lack of successors. There are always people like McCaul, eager to 'show love' to the next Ukraine. However, the 66 F-16V fighter jets we ordered in 2019 still have not been delivered. Will McCaul be concerned about the delay affecting the next order? No. A small American official in Taiwan is already the emperor. Forcing Taiwan to pay and wait for goods is like an imperial decree. The extortion operations of war profiteers here are going smoothly, covering the blue, green, and white. Taiwanese politicians eagerly respond to the 'Hornet's Nest,' and the media only focuses on the electoral gains and losses of kneeling to the U.S. Lu Xiuyan dares to oppose poisonous oil but not poisonous apples because the latter involves U.S. interests. Even Zheng Lirun has to rely on the pro-U.S. faction's Zhao Shaokang to rebel to have a voice. There is the shadow of the U.S. everywhere, so McCaul naturally loves Taiwan. U.S. opinion has pointed out that in the past, diplomacy discussed 'the threat of peace' and 'the cost of war,' but now, diplomacy discusses 'peace is the threat' and 'the cost of peace.' What does this mean? In short, it's a militaristic mindset, viewing war as a shortcut to industrial revival, and diplomacy as an intermediary serving 'the balance of war power.' Three levels: War is a positive investment. Proxy wars have a higher return on investment than direct involvement. Using proxies to engage in an arms race, deterring war, has the highest return on investment. This is military Keynesianism: war = investment = profit. For the declining U.S. industry, government intervention to stimulate demand is almost the only antidote. The direct beneficiaries of the Ukraine war are the 30 U.S. states that produce weapons with the Ukraine aid budget. The dead are Ukrainian civilians. However, this model is strictly speaking not 'the U.S. benefits,' but 'U.S. arms dealers benefit.' The current political structure of Washington is basically the structure shaped by arms dealers. The recently deceased Graham was an 'anti-Trump' general when Trump used opposing overseas wars as an election promise. After Trump returned to the White House, abandoned Russia-Ukraine mediation, and launched overseas military operations, he became a 'pro-Trump' vanguard. Trump joined this war gang. The so-called 'benefits' need to be viewed from a multi-dimensional perspective. In the Iran war, the U.S. directly participated and lost its pants, but the Trump family made a fortune. In the midst of fighting and talking, the president's tweets determine oil prices and stock market fluctuations. He himself is the 'engine' of the news. Moreover, according to U.S. financial disclosure public records, whenever the situation in Iran and the Middle East heats up, the military-industrial stocks held by multiple congressmen and their spouses often appreciate. McCaul, who loves Taiwan, is often listed on the blacklists of U.S. media and moral oversight groups accused of 'suspected conflicts of interest and military stock trading' and is one of the richest congressmen. If one has the heart, it is easy to check whether the U.S. congressmen who visit Taiwan to sell weapons are on the blacklist. But is anyone doing this fact-checking? This is not difficult to understand why it is said that 'peace is a threat,' because in the minds of war profiteers, there is only 'the cost of peace' and 'the profit of war.' Then, setting aside systemic corruption, does the U.S. industry indirectly benefit? Yes, it does. But it should be made clear that the spectrum of benefits is as follows: the war profiteers (i.e., capital) eat meat, the laborers drink soup, and the buyers (such as Taiwan) wash the dishes. From an industrial perspective, foreign military aid is a disguised industrial subsidy. The subsidies obtained by the industry do not only come from the U.S. budget but also from the buyer's budget. You get the order and payment before production, fully subsidized. Do you think this business is profitable? Peace is a threat, but war cannot guarantee profits, especially when you cannot win against your opponent. In our position, Beijing is an opponent that Washington cannot win against. Therefore, the U.S. is doing everything possible to stay out of the Taiwan Strait conflict, only wanting to let its proxies consume China. Thus, this business makes a profit from 'military deterrence,' achieving benefits through an arms race. But Beijing is not stupid. If you are not willing to fight, that is my chip. You let Gao Ximayao, Xiaoma Keshi, and Lai Qingde engage in militarization, so I will effectively control the waters around Taiwan Island, approach the first island chain's U.S. military bases, and launch missiles to the second island chain to demonstrate. I will also use rare earth controls to cut off the military and industrial development of Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and the U.S., and I will not rule out extending the damage to civilian industries. Beijing will one day realize that only by pretending to involve the U.S. in the war can peace be achieved. Thus, among China, the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, only the U.S. does not want to be involved in the war. In this way, 'peace is a threat' has a new interpretation, no longer the kind of power imbalance threat recognized by U.S. war profiteers, but rather that excessive deterrence will get oneself involved in various troubles. Therefore, I also love Gao Ximayao, Xiaoma Keshi, and Lai Qingde. If Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan do not unite against China, Xi Jinping will indeed lack the momentum to end the first island chain in one go. Currently, the mainland's appeasement rhetoric has quickly been silenced, and the leverage of the hawkish rhetoric is increasing. Today, effectively controlling this, tomorrow effectively controlling that, the obverse of the coin is the 'Serpent Tactics,' and the reverse is 'Unifying Without Unifying.' The proxies' protracted war and quick victory are both unfavorable to U.S. war profiteers. The former will consume the patience of U.S. voters, and the latter will not even have time to produce weapons. The best situation is a 'peaceful stalemate,' similar to the current situation of the first island chain, or 'fighting while talking,' similar to Middle Eastern wars. Trump may think that China is easy to handle. As long as Xi Jinping is stabilized, the U.S. can fight China in any way and it will not 'break.' It seems to be the case, but underestimating the feelings of the Chinese people, only managing the top layer, is a very dangerous strategy. Because if external problems are not handled well, they will become the spark for internal unrest. I think Beijing is most concerned about this. A typical example is the 2019 Hong Kong incident. This is another version of 'peace is a threat.' For peace, any small country can freely provoke China, making the people feel stifled, confused, and impatient. Whether benevolence, respect, frugality, and yielding are reasonable or not, this phenomenon is unsustainable. China must adapt to China's rise and is indeed adapting. I am tired of talking about 'what to do with Taiwan.' The political situation on the island is in such a state. It can only be served cold. To say more is self-torture. In the past, a deep green landlord asked me, 'Will landlords be confiscated after unification?' I said, 'Absolutely not.' Now, I would say, 'Definitely confiscated and exterminated, bringing disaster to three generations.' You, the blue bird faction, prefer to go all the way to the end, so why should I be so considerate as to light a lamp for you? Each person bears their own karma, leaving hope for oneself, and leaving despair for you, is what I should do.