Bernard Cole laments our employing “Mahanian grammar” as a prism through which to examine Chinese sea power. This, he says, is “neither clear nor helpful” and even “misguided.” This would be damning—except that Cole has misconstrued our argument by inverting it. To review, our approach originates with Carl von Clausewitz, who penetratingly analyzes the relationship between statecraft and war. In On War, Clausewitz proclaims that war proceeds under a unique “grammar” of violent political intercourse that distinguishes it from peacetime diplomacy. At sea, this grammar governs fleet operations. Contrary to Cole’s interpretation, however, we consider and explicitly discard the possibility that China draws meaningful guidance from Alfred Thayer Mahan’s writings on operational and tactical matters (see pp. 7–11, 77–78, 84). Given that Mahan exhorts tacticians to clear vital waters of the enemy’s flag, thereby seizing “command of the sea,” Beijing must look elsewhere for specifics. Nevertheless, time spent consulting Mahan is not time wasted. Clausewitz vouchsafes that the same higher-order “logic” of political purpose impels both peacetime endeavors and war. Our basic premise is that the Mahanian logic of commercial, political, and military access to important regions endures. However perishable Mahan’s commentary on operations and tactics proved, his logic of sea power remains at once universal and inescapable. The Clausewitzian structure of our analysis is neither arcane nor especially complex. In essence, we maintain that seafaring states can pursue timeless Mahanian ends through non-Mahanian ways and means. The logic and