Schiff: US power to confront hard targets like China ‘has really atrophied’

Rep. Adam Schiff: After decades of a focus on the counterterrorism mission, which was very largely successful in terms of thwarting additional attacks against the United States, and against our homeland, our ability to confront hard targets like China has really atrophied. We don’t have the personnel, the language skills, the expertise and the prioritization of resources that we really should have to deal with a threat that is so cross-cutting against every field and domain: military, air, cyber, technology, diplomacy, foreign investment. And so we have a lot of work to do.

Well, I think we should do everything possible to make sure that this doesn’t become another Cold War. But, of course, China has a big say in what kind of relationship they want to have. At present, it appears that China has determined to be increasingly aggressive and bellicose in the region. China is projecting its power around the world and seeks to change international institutions, moving them away from a law-based, rules-based order to one where “might makes right.” So we have very different world views, very different agendas. I think we ought to try to avoid conflict, but we can’t be blind to the challenge that is presented both to freedom-loving people around the world, but to our defense, as well as our economy.

We absolutely need linguists. And you’re right, that’s going to require resources. And we don’t want to rely on the resources that we don’t trust. So we need to make sure that we get out, and that we recruit the very best personnel and that we train them and we make use of their incredible talent. That’s going to mean making choices— because the resources are not unlimited. And so we need to figure out where we deploy our resources. Now, to what degree are we in the intelligence world still fighting the last war? And that may be the last war on terror. And how do we redeploy and reallocate to these emerging priorities, these hard-target nation-state actors that never went away but have changed in their complexity and the danger they present?

The president’s policy is essentially a “pro-Donald Trump policy,” which means that it’s idiosyncratic and divorced from America’s national interests. So at times, it’s praising President Xi [Jingping]. At times it’s attacking President Xi. At times, it is making ZTE [a Chinese telecom firm] a national security issue. At other times, it’s just another trade issue. This kind of schizophrenic approach to our relations with China, of course, doesn’t improve the United States’ position that the trade policies have been an utter failure. Our economic situation has not improved. Our position in the world has declined. What we need is a consistent and thoughtful approach to meeting China’s rise in every domain. That means we need to be more competitive in terms of our engagement around the world with development assistance, to meet their Belt and Road Initiative. It means we need to think about investments to protect our satellites and to meet the challenges posed by China in space. It means that we need to look at the cyber issues and China’s very aggressive cyberespionage and cybertheft of intellectual property. It means that we need to develop coalitions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Those are — or should be — bipartisan priorities. The difference is in how those priorities are effectuated. And this administration has done a terrible job because its policy is really motivated by the whims of the president, not any coherent view of China or the United States or anything else.

China understands the political dynamic and what took place during the debate, although I have to say I think for all of us watching the debate last night, watching our president’s performance was just a national embarrassment.