Elbridge Colby has called for a shift in U.S. priorities on the world stage, including taking steps to deter communist China.
Elbridge Colby, President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as under-secretary of defense for policy, faced extensive questions about the United States’ role in various foreign conflicts and theaters on March 4, as senators took up his nomination.
Colby, who has served in a variety of foreign policy and national security advisory roles both in and out of government over the past two decades, has argued for better prioritization in the U.S. national security strategy, including shifting focus away from Europe and the Middle East and toward rising strategic competition with communist China.
Speaking with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 4, Colby assessed that the United States is no longer a militarily dominant force and the center of a unipolar world order the way it may have been after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War era.
Moreover, Colby assessed that the latest plan for U.S. national defense released in 2022 does not effectively position the United States to fight multiple wars at once.
“The 2022 national defense strategy is not a three-war military. … I think it’s a one and change” military, Colby said.
Colby’s assessments prompted questions from both sides of the political aisle, as senators wondered whether Trump’s nominee would see the United States part ways with allies and partners in order to bolster its posture against China.
Even before Tuesday’s hearings, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) had indicated he would test to see if Colby is truly aligned with Trump’s foreign policy priorities, especially on the Middle East, before backing him for the Pentagon role.
The Middle East
During the hearing, Cotton pressed Colby to explain how his strategy of prioritization would impact U.S. policies in the Middle East, and whether he would see the United States tolerate Iran gaining nuclear weapons.
Cotton said Colby once “approvingly cited the view that ’the only thing worse than the prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be consequences of using force to try to stop them.’”
Cotton rejected this view and insisted it was not aligned with Trump’s policy.
The Arkansas Republican asked Colby whether he would advise Trump on options for the United States to strike Iran, either by itself or in partnership with regional allies like Israel, to prevent a nuclear weapons breakout.
“I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the president on specific decisions, but I think those are the kinds of things that should be absolutely part of the discussion,” Colby replied.
Some Republicans may still need convincing before they agree to support Colby, and Cotton could prove influential in that regard.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Epoch Times he would consult with his fellow Republican from Arkansas as the Senate confirmation process moves ahead.
Colby sought to clarify his past remarks about Iran gaining nuclear weapons, saying he was warning at the time against “a casual, or in some cases even flippant attitude towards the employment of military force.”
Colby said he agreed that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to the United States and assessed that the Trump administration wants to stay militarily strong while still understanding the risks of military engagements going forward.
The European Theater
Colby’s recommendations for the United States to prioritize planning for a potential conflict with China also prompted questions about the United States’ strategy in Europe, particularly as the Russia–Ukraine war rages on.
In his opening remarks, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed dismay at Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his decision to halt U.S. aid for Ukraine.
Later on, during his time for questioning, Reed further asserted that Trump’s stance toward Ukraine has left other European allies and partners of the United States feeling abandoned.
Colby defended Trump’s recent efforts to negotiate a peace settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
He also shared support for Trump’s calls for members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to boost their defense spending and for European members of the alliance to take on greater responsibility for their shared security.
“I believe that the NATO alliance has been an exceptionally successful alliance, but I think if we’re going to sustain it, it needs to move in the direction that President Trump is leading it in,” Colby said.
Trump’s Pentagon nominee said the president’s calls for European NATO members to take on greater responsibility on their continent is more in line with the alliance’s original Cold War-era design, rather than the more recent model for the alliance “which is too heavily lopsided in American responsibility.”
During the hearing, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and several Democrat senators asked Colby to state unequivocally that the current Ukraine conflict is a result of Russian aggression and Moscow deciding to invade its neighbor.
Colby repeatedly said he wanted to avoid commenting on the issue so as not to disrupt Trump’s negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.
Reed asked Colby whether he stood by a November 2023 statement that the “invasion of Ukraine is an evil act by the Russians.”
“I think I stand by my record, but at this point, I think there’s a very delicate diplomatic process going on where the president is rightfully trying to resuscitate the peace process,” Colby replied.
Defending the Indo-Pacific
During his remarks on Tuesday, Reed argued that the outcome of the Ukraine conflict directly informs Beijing’s calculus as it weighs aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region.
Quoting former CIA director Bill Burns, Reed said: “One of the surest ways to rekindle Chinese perceptions of American fecklessness and stoke Chinese aggressiveness would be to abandon support for Ukraine.”
Colby said he does not contest that a Russian success in Ukraine could embolden China in the Indo-Pacific region, but insisted the United States still has to pick its battles.
“We have to have the military capabilities in Asia, or relevant to Asia, to be able to conduct a local defense of Taiwan at a cost and level of risk that the American people are prepared to tolerate,” he said.
Cotton, during his questioning period, noted Colby previously argued that the United States should provide Taiwan explicit guarantees, while more recently stating the de facto self-governing island “is a vital interest, but it’s not existential interest” to the United States.
“I’ve always said that Taiwan is very important to the United States. But as you said, it’s not an existential interest. It’s very important to core American interests in denying China regional hegemony,” Colby replied.
Trump’s Pentagon nominee insisted the U.S. government needs to incentivize Taiwan to boost its own military spending so it can justify an extensive U.S. military intervention on Taiwan’s behalf.
“I don’t think it’s fair to Americans to ask Americans and our service, men, and women, to suffer … if our allies are not pulling their weight,” Colby said.
Colby told Cotton that greater investment from Taipei would deter aggressive action from Beijing in the first place and buy the United States time to organize an effective response.
Increasing Capacity
Trump’s Pentagon nominee insisted he does not relish having to prioritize resources when considering U.S. strategic planning, but said it will take time for the military to expand its capacity so it doesn’t need to make as many difficult resourcing decisions.
“I feel there’s a kind of recognition in one part of the collective brain of the American system, that this is a reality, but the behavior hasn’t actually adapted yet,” Colby said.
“And what I fear is, if we don’t have a realistic plan, that the worst could happen, and we could find ourselves in the worst possible outcome, like losing a war.”
While Colby’s strategy may call for U.S. allies to shoulder a greater burden in the European theater, he said his longer-term priority would be to boost the U.S. military-industrial base to the point “where we can resource in multiple theaters at the level that we need.”
Colby also endorsed efforts like the Department of Government Efficiency and its supporters in Congress, who are seeking to streamline government and identify potential ways to save taxpayer funds.
“For the amount of money that we’re spending, we should be getting better results,” Colby said of current U.S. military spending.
If confirmed, Colby said one of his responsibilities would be to get better results out of the existing U.S. military-industrial base, though he said he would have to work with acquisition specialists throughout the Department of Defense to identify specific ways to improve the weapons procurement process.
Colby said he would commit to advising on the best ways forward on the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, which is meant to replace existing Minuteman III ICBMs but has seen cost overruns.
Likewise, he said he fully supports Trump’s executive order seeking to revamp the U.S. missile defense network.