>> False equivalency; no one is arguing that. >Really? Can someone clarify what my earlier quoted passage was referencing then? I wasn't trying to straw-man the

>> False equivalency; no one is arguing that. >Really? Can someone clarify what my earlier quoted passage was referencing then? I wasn't trying to straw-man the OP. IIUC, OP's quote just means that a lot of existing books do try to make that argument, i.e., that the only outcome of the US losing its position is for China to take it, as opposed to a multi-polar world (and thus, it would be in the reader's best interest to support US hegemony).