And by "a lot to unpack", I don't mean that I think your post is bad. I just have a lot of comments and questions about it.
Your first premise is pretty harmless. if we export more to China, we will expand our employment (all else being equal). However, why do we need to expand our employment? Our unemployment is historically low. 3.7% unemployment is great. No need for a trade war to improve that number.
The bigger question I have, though, is connecting the dots between what the administration is trying to get done with IP, and how that would result in exporting more to China.
1. What is the goal of the war in terms of specific results (what IP laws would change? What non-IP oriented changes have been demanded?)
2. How do those changes create jobs. I think you hint at this a bit - Take a Huawei phone. They sell a ton of them. Let's assume that they contain a lot of technology obtained through China's unfair tech transfer laws. I think you are saying that if China stops that kind of technology confiscation, the Huawei phone will be inferior (because it doesn't have our tech), and we'll sell more Apple phones. Is that right? It seems logical to me. The problem is that Apple phones are made in China, for the most part. Indeed, and Ned can correct this, we only have confiscation of our technology because our companies want to build things in China. So, by winning the war, we make more money, but do not necessarily create that many jobs.