I'm probably not the best person to ask this question of, because I think the Indo-Pacific strategy was largely, on the part of the government, an opportunity to revise its policy on China. It was the first time the government called China an adversary, a strategic adversary. The rest of it was all very important, but I think that was the core of it all. It changed its view on China, which I think was highly desirable.
I think we have a great deal of flexibility in how we implement the Indo-Pacific strategy. You may disagree with me on this, but I think that despite the fact that we likely share the view that human rights are important, we have to have relations with some countries that violate human rights, because the only way we're going to change them is if we dialogue with them.
Any number of countries in that part of the world don't share our views on the rule of law and a whole bunch of other things, but I think that failing to deal with them through the Indo-Pacific strategy will only make it worse over time. We already have a problem in the world about the west restraining itself and a lot of countries tending towards China and Russia on a whole variety of fronts.
It's an imperfect answer to your question, but it's the best I can do. I don't know if the General can do better.