在布希總統提到將「使用一切辦法」協助臺灣防衛之後，各方專家開始辯論美國政府如何預防臺海危機，是否放棄其長期以來所遵行的「戰略模糊」政策？在布希總統的說話之前，美國智庫針對美國如何預防中國在臺灣海峽使用武力，曾提出不同的建議。 第一種觀點，建議美國政府採取「戰略模糊」的立場。美國智庫認為在沒有特定的臺海危機情境之下，指出美國在何種情況會介入或不會介入臺海危機，將不必要地使一方更挑釁或激怒另外一方。第二種觀點，主張在臺海危機發生之前，美國應該使中國儘早了解美國一定會採取軍事干預的立場，使中國不致升高緊張。 本文檢閱「戰略明確」與「戰略模糊」的異同，以及它們所代表的決策者與智庫。近年來，布希政府傾向以「雙重明確」取代「戰略明確」的立場。這意味在臺灣未挑釁之下遭攻擊時，美國將協助臺灣防衛，但同時也向北京作出美國不支持臺獨的政治再保證。

Shortly after President George W. Bush stated in interviews that the U.S. would do “whatever it took” to help Taiwan defend itself, pundits began to debate whether the U .S. government was indeed trying to abandon its long-held “strategic ambiguity” positioning of preventing a Taiwan Strait crisis. Even prior to Bush's “strategic clarity” remarks, U.S. think tanks have already recommended differing positions as to which policies the U.S. should adopt to respond against the PRC's military options in the Taiwan Strait. The first position suggested that the U.S. government should maintain “strategic ambiguity” as far as U.S. actions is concerned. It argued that in the absence of a specific crisis, detailing the circumstances under which the U.S. would intervene in the Taiwan Straits “could needlessly embolden or antagonize one side or the other.” The second position stated that the U.S. will help Taiwan defend itself in the event of a Chinese attack, arguing that its intentions must be clearly made known before the event of an actual Taiwan Strait crisis for the Chinese to refrain from deepening tensions or provoking escalations. This article examines the arguments behind the two schools of thoughts and identifies the U.S. policy makers and think tanks in each camp. In recent years, some have argued that the Bush administration is giving up “strategic clarity” in favor of “double clarity.” This article also examines whether the U.S. defense commitment to Taiwan in an unprovoked attack is compatible with Washington's continuing political reassurance to Beijing on the grounds that it is not supportive of Taiwanese independence.