TPP had become a 2016 election issue, and was not advanced after Trump's win.
Jacobin, here, discusses military dimensions including recent budget language. Also, Pompeo's position while in Trump's Cabinet is examined.
Will TPP be resurrected, or will things cool down? How big a threat is China to the "American Way of Life," whatever that may mean to you, me, or policy makers?
What effect does next year's military spending have on international relations and international law? On China's place in international understandings, and world order, (new or otherwise)?
With French reactions to the U.S. - Australia - U.K. nuclear submarine deal as recent news, where does all that fit with anti-China rhetoric and spending?
No arrogance here in proposing answers. Instead asking questions which can get lost in the yin-yang of Trump election claims and Manchin-Sinema drama? Lost in the fodder of MSM information and misinformation?
With Pompeo looking as if he intends a Presidential run, is this a Biden attempt to disarm an issue? Bottom line question - should encircling China be pursued as a good or bad policy direction in itself, or should it be viewed as a fluid diplomatic position in an attempt to redefine economic issues between the two massive economies, via sabre rattling?
Then, if the latter, will it work? What might the more powerful economic interests in our nation want to gain from China out of all this, be it TPP or military spending?
What are our nation's goals and hopes? And are they cognizant and supportive of the best interests of our ordinary people, or indifferent to that, with satisfying special interests being only what the game is about? Who gains? Who loses?
UPDATE: Strap on a sabre each side of Eurasia? Because we can! Because you would not want to change horses midstream? Why else? To sound firm? To bolster argument aimed at justification of the recently approved glutenous military budget?