zenpundit.com

BIBLIOMANIA

I’m currently reading the very impressive Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt and yesterday felt compelled to purchase Simon Sebag Montefiore’s monumental Stalin: In The Court Of The Red Tsar and On The Origins Of War by Donald Kagan.

The less time I have to read, the more books I buy.

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND CHINA’S PEACEFUL RISE THEORY

This article in American Diplomacy by Avery Goldman is not going to raise any eyebrows among regular China watchers ( I also suggest you skip over the tedious introduction) but it does summarize the current strategic situation fairly well. It is also noteworthy in that AD reflects general thinking at State, they seem to be buying in to Dr. Barnett’s call in Blueprint for Action for America to ” lock in tomorrow’s China at today’s prices”. An excerpt from the Avery piece:

” The key to sensible policy in dealing with China is to recognize that we are in the midst of what the Chinese sometimes refer to as a “period of strategic opportunity.” For at least the next couple of decades, the areas of conflict between the U.S. and China (especially difficult economic problems and even the potentially dangerous disagreement about Taiwan) are in fact manageable, not intractable, problems. And both China and the U.S. have important common interests (fighting terrorism, dealing with proliferation, coping with environmental degradation, and addressing public health crises in a globalized setting) that provide strong incen-tives for both Beijing and Washington to work hard to manage and contain bilateral conflicts. Because conflicting interests do not yet swamp common interests in U.S.-China relations, there is time, most likely a couple of decades, to learn whether a longer-term modus vivendi is possible. Each side will be drawing con-clusions along the way. Time will provide the Chinese with the opportunity to learn whether the U.S. is willing to accept a larger international role for a more powerful China. Time will also provide the U.S. with the opportunity to learn whether China is in fact emerging as a responsible great power with which the U.S. can coexist without sacrificing American vital interests. A sensible policy is not only one under which the U.S. seizes this “period of strategic opportunity” to monitor what China does, but also one which encourages China’s responsible behavior whenever possible.”

RECOMMENDED READING

A war and espionage mix today !

Eddie at Live From the FDNF has a pre-deployment post with more details on the Navy’s plans for close-quarter combat capabilities and littoral/riparine assault units.

Chris Albritton on the Jaysh al-Mohammed ( hat tip John Robb)

Bill Petti at Duck of Minerva on the newly issued National Intelligence Strategy.

Callimachus on war as an engine of social change

The Counterterrorism Blog reports that Hezbollah remains a terrorist organization of acute concern to the United States

That’s it !

REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH EVOLUTION: A CONSERVATIVE LOOK AT FRANCE [ Updated]

Collounsbury was irked by several slams directed at France in a piece I linked and quoted from by Bruce Kesler and Col responded with some exasperation:

“First, with respect to the blog item, I am pained that you quote more of the simple minded anti-French tripe. Childish and rather outdated (as well as inaccurate with respect to the supposed connexions)”

Col it must be said, resides semi-permanently in a Francophone friendly region of the world and is, if I recall correctly ( and I may not), quite at home with the French language and culture. He is also correct that Franco-American relations have warmed up considerably since their nadir before the invasion of Iraq though this is neither well known outside of Washington nor covered much in the MSM over here. Bush and Chirac have made a concerted effort to retreat from the use of charged rhetoric and improve cooperation in the War on Terror; while the rise of Interior MinisterNicolas Sarkozy as Chirac’s possible successor, whose views on economics, terrorism and Israel are congenial to the USG, damps down any urge on the Bush administration’s part to do anything that could incite French voters and improve the chances of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin .

So why do conservatives and even moderate or apolitical commentators continue to take gratuitous rhetorical swipes at France ? Some of it has to do with news lag – the change in tone in relations really isn’t reported much, fireworks merit frontpage treatment not quiet diplomacy. Mostly however it is a combination of recent events and a long historical legacy.

In the family of democratic nations, the United States and France have the longest and most bitter case of ongoing case of love-hate sibling rivalry. Friction did not begin with Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush, it started with John Adams and Talleyrand.

France is the country that helped midwife the American Revolution, sent us Lafayette, Alexis de Tocqueville and the Statue of Liberty. The United States in turn sent the French Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine,Thomas Jefferson, General Pershing and soldiers unnumbered who fell at Belleau Wood and Omaha Beach. America moved forward after WWII with the Marshall Plan and when America and the Soviet Union stood on the brink of nuclear war Charles DeGaulle backed the United States without even a single reservation. Even if the Russians moved on Berlin, the French President said ” “France will act in accord with you.”

Yet relations were seldom warm between the two countries in over two hundred years. Even in Washington’s time, relations soured with the antics of “Cititzen Genet” and French privateering. The diplomacy of France struck most of the Founding Fathers ( Franklin and Jefferson being notable exceptions) in particular John Adams as exactly the corrupt decadence of the Old World that America must stand as a moral example against. The French in turn loathed the rigid Protestant moralism of Woodrow Wilson and the parochial obstinacy of Truman and most of all, the outsized and loud ” Texan” presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush. Reagan too, was initially demonized as a “cowboy” but he and Mitterand bonded over a shared anti-Soviet outlook and over time, the Gipper managed to acquire something bordering on a cordial acceptance from the French, not unlike that given to an eccentric but respected elderly uncle who visits once or twice a year.

The French have habitually made snide remarks about American provincialism for two centuries and at times on matters of geopolitics their complaints were warranted. The failure of America to support the League of Nations in the 1920’s or the efforts of Prime Minister Leon Blum in the mid-1930’s to rally countries against Nazi Germany left feelings of great bitterness and, in some sectors of French opinion, justified Daladier’s later resort to appeasement. The collaboration of large portions of French society with the Nazis during Vichy, the robotic loyalty of Maurice Thorez’s Communists to Stalin and French military ineptitude in Vietnam, Egypt and Algeria did little to inspire confidence in Washington. Most Americans though, generally retained a benign attitude toward France in the postwar years and despite periodic squabbles, Paris always remained a prime draw for Americans headed for Europe.

There has been a sea change in attitudes over here since the invasion of Iraq which I don’t think is either well-understood or appreciated in Paris. Nor is it likely to change soon. For the first time in my life I sense real hatred directed at France, not annoyance at an ally but a hardening sentiment at the grassroots level that France is no ally at all. It is not a universal opinion but while it is centered on the political Right attributing this Francophobia to a delusion of the Freepers would be a huge error. It exists across much of the political spectrum now, only among hard-core Democratic, Bush-haters and the far-Left is Chirac’s performance admired.

It was not so much Chirac’s opposition to American policies -if anything Gerhard Schroedrer’s position was even more inflexible and unreasonable but he caught little popular disdain here – but the form that Chirac’s opposition took, the visceral feel that carried through the media shocked many Americans who were not particularly conservative and not a few who were critical of President Bush. ” Freedom Fries” was a particularly idiotic reaction but it was also a sign that the average joe who didn’t care a whit for world politics was engaged and very angry. Chirac’s message misfired here about as poorly as George W. Bush’s did among European Social Democrats.

These feelings and the frequency of these anti-French remarks will die down if France and the United States have occasion to work together in a common cause in a mutually supportive and very public way. Failing some kind of important symbolic gesture by Paris, one directed at the American people rather than at official Washington, the cooling off period may take years.

UPDATE:

Bruce Kesler asked that I post the following comment as the excerpt above had been directed at his post.( Note: The link in this excerpt is mine though the quote is Mr. Kesler’s):

“Which part of the UN report released today documenting Frances’s politicians and companies as the most active corrupters in Saddam’s oil-for-bribes scam does Collounsbury consider “simple-minded anti-French tripe”? His comment is simple-minded French tripe, a childish denial of the broken vase at his feet, rather outdated from a supposedly grown person. –Make all the excuses imagined, and the facts still remain that France has been usually more trouble, and antagonist, or useless, than ally.”

5GW REVOLUTIONS REBUTTAL

Jeff Medcalf, the esteemed proprietor of Caerdroia, offers a counterpoint to my gloomy assessment of 4GW wars morphing into 5GW decimation:

“The military is little more than the delegation of the power of self-defense against foreign foes to the State – the militia power, if you will. The police forces are nothing more than the citizens’ delegation of authority to the State to enforce the law (which all citizens are duty-bound to do). And so forth.

The practical result of this is that, at least in the US, the State can fail utterly at some task without leading to dissolution — even at the task of defense against enemies, foreign or domestic. Let us say, for example, that the police make a total mess of fighting against a domestic 4GW threat. While it’s possible the government could turn to death squads, it is unlikely (again, at least in the US). What is far more likely is that the armed citizens would organize themselves into a group and go solve the problem. There is a name for this: a Committee of Vigilance. Perhaps better known as vigilantes. While not the best solution — such groups tend to get out of hand — it is certainly better than giving up to death or at least chaos.”

Jeff is following in the footsteps of William Lind on this issue. Private militias or Vigilantees are a potential ” popular” response to 4GW. Jeff is analytically on target ( a good response to 4GW – that is open to debate – probably context matters here).