The word "asset" doesn't appear in the article once, it seems to be your own editorial.

The article is about how America doesn't have legal obligation to defend Taiwan. There's not much to argue about there, law is law, but I think very few Americans would doubt the moral obligation to defend against Chinese invasion.

You're asking people to comment on the editorialised title you added, that Taiwan is an asset not an ally. I'd ask you to expand on that further so that people can actually provide comment like you've insisted they do. For example - if Taiwan's sole purpose is as an American asset, do you think Taiwan has an obligation to its citizenry? Does Taiwan provide pensions, jobless benefit, social security? Does the armed security that Taiwan provides to it's citizenry have any utility outside of the context of an American asset?