Wouldn't normally quote Jake Sullivan, but ...

The Biden administration didn't in any way distinguish itself on foreign & security matters (well, on anything really) but here's a great quotation from the outgoing National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. 

If I had told you three years ago that Joe Biden was going to announce a special military operation to take Ottawa in a week and three years later that he was in the wheat fields of Manitoba losing thousands of soldiers a month with inflation over 10% and interest rates in America over 20%, 600,000 Americans either dead or wounded, and we're inching out little Canadian town by little Canadian town, you wouldn't sit here saying, 'Wow, America's really winning this war in a big way, that’s great for America'. You would never say that. But somehow we're saying, 'oh the Russians there doing great'. They are not doing great:  They set out on a strategic objective … and they have failed in that.

It's from an interview here.  He wants to be careful not to give Trump any ideas ...

ND

Harold Wilson: rogues I have known (cont**)

Well, sat next to him several times.  He wasn't very communicative.  The crazy affair of Biden's Brain, plus a random news story brought him to mind this week.

For me as a lad reaching some kind of juvenile political awareness in the late 1960's, Harold Wilson was omnipresent in current affairs, a masterful politician in difficult circumstances, atop a restless and quarrelsome Labour Party.  By the time I was at the university he was PM (for the second time) and a veritable local legend for his 'congratulatory First' as an undergraduate, his adroit SCR politicking as a don, smart analytic capabilities as a wartime civil servant, and, above all, his astonishing memory[1].

Then, abruptly at the age of 60, in 1976 he stepped down as PM and almost directly into obscurity.  WTF?  There were all manner of conspiracy theories but the truth was, the previous year he realised he was fast losing his marbles; and full dementia set in shortly thereafter.  Without his memory he was nothing, and he knew it - not for him the pathetic Biden conceit.

Wilson off duty:  ciggies for him

A bit later I often found myself in the Victoria district, SW1, where Wilson had a flat overlooking Westminster Cathedral.  One could lunch handsomely at eye-poppingly low prices in a number of modest eateries outside Victoria Station - cheap, but totally respectable (in case you were thinking of Kings Cross in the same era), and heavily populated by office workers brandishing Luncheon Vouchers - remember them?[2].  Ultra-cheap + guaranteed high turnover was the formula.  Two of the favourites were known as the Old Maple, a tiny dive, 100% formica everywhere; and - no relation - the New Maple, on two floors, the upper of which even ran to some imitation wood panelling.[3]

Anyhow, if you weren't in so much of a hurry you could join Harold Wilson and his detective, who frequently lunched there too in the upstairs section.  You knew immediately something was very badly wrong: he wasn't any kind of physical wreck, but what in Heaven's name was a man who only a couple of years beforehand was PM, doing there silently nursing a plate of steak and kidney and his habitual ciggy?  (Occasionally a cigar - but the pipe was only ever for show.)

All very sad.  And it now turns out he quickly ran out of money as his care requirements escalated.  Thatcher's people arranged for the Bodleian to buy his personal papers, rather than have them go abroad, for a decent sum to keep him going.  He lasted until 1995.

ND

__________

** see also Jeff Skilling and Keith Best

[1] A really tremendous memory can cover for a range of what otherwise would be mediocrity in other intellectual attributes.  Whenever you meet someone highly regarded for intellectual attainment, it's worth considering whether memory is their actual superpower. 

[2] LVs, that is - though I could have meant office workers ...

[3] 'Known as' because IIRC those had been their historical names and that by the 1970s they were actually trading as something completely different.

Great times for the Great Man Theory of History

We should define our terms here, and personally I don't choose to go the whole hog with Carlyle, who claims that the whole of history can be written in terms of the stories of Great Men.  But that overlooks important 'materialistic' or 'economic' insights - such as those of Marx (someone else we won't be going the whole distance with, either ...).  I shall stick to something far more difficult to shoot down, and go with: at certain key points the course of human history is (sometimes) fundamentally determined by the purposeful actions of individuals.

In 2024, what more do we need to say?!  Whether Biden steps down is a decision he seems to have reserved to himself: I see no "economic" factors at work, just a painful case of very human personal vanity.  Whether Trump survived was a matter of chance (it seems), but a Trump presidency will - I think we might agree - set the USA and most probably the world** on a different course than any plausible Democrat victory this year.  (American isolationism has always been there, for more than 200 years, and its triumph over pragmatic internationalism has often been possible but never guaranteed.)  Neither is it a given that Russia would be in the hands of a dictatorial, brooding, fretful revanchist at this hour: nor that China would be in the hands of an all-powerful monomaniac nationalist. 

It seems to me that if one wants to argue against any of this, one has to have a thesis that requires stepping back to so distant a perspective (1,000 years?  5,000 years?) that all meaningful granularity is lost for any but anthropological, almost biological purposes.

ND

_____________________

** Some, though not I, hold that a Trump presidency will result in the US being withdrawn from global cooperation on actions related to climate change - with globally damaging consequences.  Interestingly, those folks are often highly materialistic lefty-greens.  If they couple their theoretical materialism with their fear of Trump, it must give them some uncomfortable ideological pangs.  (Of course, the whole of Reality ought to be fairly painful for them at frequent intervals ... ) 

Iran / Israel: George Bush Snr's 1991 doctrine needed

Prisoners of Geography (Tim Marshall) is a well known, oft-quoted book on geopolitics.  It's really an A-level text - first-year university stuff at best.  I don't have a copy to hand.  But the weekend's news from the middle east brings one of Marshall's often quite blunt assessments to mind, which from memory runs roughly thus: 

A lot of people in middle eastern nations harbour vicious and irreconcilable hatreds against each other.  It's a typical mistake made by western folks, not to believe middle easterners when they say they hate someone, and what they intend to do about it.

OK, so we believe it: this whole matter is filled with irreconcilable hatreds, and people hell-bent on killing their neighbours.  And that these hatreds can spill out all over the place, not least the www.  So let's try to keep this thread strategic.

1) Looks like Netanyahu, in furtherance of his political / personal goals, has played Biden ruthlessly, successfully - and transparently.  Plenty of commentators saw a canny, US-suckering escalation coming.  Forewarned isn't always forearmed.  Still, Biden should have been able to do better than this for the furtherance of his own goals - not least of which is retaining independence of agency.  That said ...

2)  "Can the USA be relied upon any more to protect its friends then, eh?"  And indeed, can coordinated onslaughts of massed, mix-&-match missiles be defended against - by anyone?  Russia thought it had proven the answers were "no", and "no".  Well, there's a bit more to ponder now, on the part of the many people in the RoW who have been wondering about that.  Including ...      

3)  Taiwan and, errr, China.   Ah yes, China.  We read that, once again, the Chinese are "very interested" in what's going on in the middle east.  But, once again, just as in the case of their some-time client Libya, China's role seems to be that of a rather academically interested spectator.  When are they going to become that global great power they keep billing themselves as?  And it's back to the drawing board for that invasion of his own Xi keeps toying with.  ("One Iron Dome system, please, for the oriental gentleman to the north of the Philippines.") 

So, back to Netanyahu.  In 1991, Saddam Hussein launched a wave of Scuds on Israel (and Saudi).  George Bush Snr told Israel to stay its hand - which was just as well, because the pointy end of the  Israeli airforce had taken off moments before the first missile landed (we could detect Scuds at launch even in those days) and was in a holding pattern, waiting for the order to nuke Baghdad etc.  (You might like to refer back to my 30th anniversary account of this episode.) 

We all need "Ironclad" Biden** to dust off his history and make that call, firmly and credibly.  Is he up to it?  

ND

_______

**Wasn't that subtle of him, eh?  See, he does have some advisers with their heads screwed on.  They just seem to go missing at vital moments.

USA: withdrawing from world affairs?

It may seem perverse to wonder whether the USA is withdrawing into an isolationist shell only a couple of days after it has orchestrated a rather modest coalition[1] into military action against the Houthis.  World Policeman, or what?  Yet I can't help feeling this may be the reflex action of a former bruiser who was in the process of retreating from the fray ("leave it babe, he ain't wurf it") when somebody rushed up to take another swipe at him anyway.

Well, maybe that will persuade him to get stuck right back in there again.  People inside and outside America have been urging its government since the first few years of the Monroe Doctrine to disengage from the ROTW and concentrate on self-sufficiency and domestic affairs.  That long-lived policy saw American governments intervening all over the place, to no obvious good effect, for many years.  There was always a "leave it babe" faction advocating the opposite[2].  But overseas intervention is a hard habit to break.

But what would getting stuck right back in there entail, in a world of truculent Russians, increasingly confident & capable Turks, Iranians and N.Koreans, an out-of-control Netanyahu, and, errr, China?

For one thing, it would require military spending on an implausible scale.  The USA of Bush / Clinton / Bush / early-Obama not only operated with no serious Russian threat and only the early signs of Chinese (and Iranian) upsurgence, but also with far and away the biggest & best-equipped armed forces on the planet.  Not any more.  The Peace Dividend[3] has been taken in no uncertain terms, and the USA could no more fight the fabled "two big wars and one small one, all at the same time" than fly over the moon.  (And it's not very good at flying over the moon any more, either.)

So what are the voices that will prevail, longer-term, in Washington?  There is certainly a bellicose "pivot to China" lobby, which thinks in terms of defending Taiwan and the South China Seas.  There's another modest coalition of nations behind this one, too (always us and the Aussies, eh?  Us with our two naked aircraft carriers and all.)  But drill down deeper, and the practical measures being advocated by all except the outright headbangers are a great deal less offensively-minded than in years gone by.  The talk is of porcupine defence, stand-off weapons, drone-swarms etc - not marine divisions storming up the beaches under 100% air-superiority.  Just as with the Roman Empire: when you trade in your stabbing sword for a long-sword, you're basically on the defensive, however widely you cast the perimeter. 

And that's the warlike lobby - many of whom would withdraw substantially from the Middle East, too - not to mention looking to Europe for the bulk of support for Ukraine.  The outright isolationists & Trumpists would cheerfully deal with China - perhaps in return for their taking N.Korea out of the equation.

And what will Starmer do then, poor thing?  Some, of course, think he'll rush to Rejoin.  There could conceivably be an intelligent offering from the EU on that score.  But, interestingly, his track record as DPP was of shameful, grovelling obeisance to Washington, which seems to be a deep instinct for him.  

He'd certainly keep the RAF busily bombing on whatever coordinates Biden dictates.  While old Joe is still slugging it out at the bar.

ND

_______________

[1] What were we doing there?  The answer is obvious: the traditional combination of (a) the general policy of sticking with our biggest & most important ally, come what may (not entirely without merit, though Wilson never saw fit to gratify Johnson in Vietnam); and (b) the age-old tradition of us in these islands:  show us a good fight, and we're in!  (a.k.a. oi'll foight any t'ree of yuz!) 

[2] It's been argued that the only thrust under the Monroe Doctrine, broadly conceived, with genuinely strategic justification was the annexation of Hawaii in 1898.  The others, all over Latin America and even beyond, were generally deeply controversial within the USA itself

[3] What peace? - Ed

Erdogan: the Transactional Turk

Erdogan has really excelled himself this time, the major obvious casualty of his machinations being Putin and his ever more flimsy stature & general political dignity.  Drones, Sweden, Azov, ... what is the full nature of the Turkish "trade package"?  Does he have it in writing (from Biden / Ukraine / NATO / EU)?  Or is he just positioning himself for a Cunning Plan he has in mind?

(1) Transactional politics has upsides - and downsides

As I've written before, in some political spheres - foreign policy generally being one of them - the 'lines of logistics' can be incredibly short: unlike most domestic policy-making, it can be stroke-of-a-pen stuff instead of months & years of hard, practical grind, with all the attendant implementational friction & risks of material long-term projects.  (Thus, to take one of a million examples, Lenin took Russia out of WW1 in a morning.)  Some politicians, indeed some human beings in general, heavily lean this way: there's no situation they won't try to deal their way out of (negative) or into (positive). 'Transactionality' is one facet of this type of approach: Sadiq Khan is perhaps the most prominent UK exponent right now.   

The upsides are clear.  A stroke of the pen requires far less blood-and-treasure to resolve a dispute than 'going to war' or its analogues, & gets quicker results, too.

The downsides are there, too.  Obviously, transactionalism appeals not least to politicians of the bone-idle tendency.  Ditto, the heavily-overlapping subset of politicians who have no principles or red lines whatever.

And what can be done at the stoke of a pen can be undone just as fast.  Sometimes, "with one bound he was free" clever-cleverness doesn't cut it: a fundamental solution is needed, the hard yards can't be dodged**.  To give a foreign-policy example:  what could be more convenient for NATO backsliders like Germany than a neat, stroke-of-a-pen "resolution" on Ukraine that would mean they didn't need to restore defence spending to prudent levels?  Very neat, yeah.

(2) Downside for Erdogan?  Oh yes there is

I'll give you at least one.  Turkey is essentially 100% dependent on Russia for gas (as well as a lot of oil).  It gets very cold there in winter.

Less obviously, since the economic recession Erdogan foisted on his country Turkey has been having the utmost difficulty in taking all the gas they've contractually committed to.  They owe Gazprom a bunch of money.  Thus far, it's been forgiven ... That's on top of a cold winter in Turkey.

Transactions, transactions.

ND

____________

** Also, the Clever Stroke often leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth:  in the Claudius novels, Graves writes of how on a particular campaign, Claudius engineered a lightning victory by having his men take the enemy camp at night by crawling up silently through the undergrowth, with total success.  The 'victorious' Roman troops hated it:  they wanted a proper conventional scrap in the morning.  Their triumph-by-subterfuge "smelled of the candle".  

More on the Putin Nuclear Pronouncement

Big boss: lots of phones ...

The debate over how to take Putin's nuclear sabre-rattling goes on - and why not, it's quite important - and I'm gratified to note my 'optimistic', albeit literal, interpretation of his exact words (see yesterday's post) is gaining traction - see these BTL exchanges on a US website, for example.  With Putin, as it happens, attention to his precise words is important, as far as it goes.  Russia is like that.  (Can't say the same for Biden, can we?)

It's also interesting to look at the body language, the delivery and the props etc.  

Firstly, though he's still clearly very nervous indeed, Putin didn't look as ill as he did earlier in the year - though our own dear Queen died only two days after looking quite perky with Boris and Truss, so that doesn't betoken much.

Secondly, the way he emphasised, very earnestly and very quickly, that his new mobilisation is only 'partial', is a huge sign of weakness; as of course is "this is not a bluff" - akin to when you hear a parent shouting "stop that - and I mean it!" to a kid.

Thirdly, I laughed out loud when I saw his bank of phones, carefully in camera-shot to prove how important he is.  That's truly Russian, too.  You realise he'll have a full-size office-grade photocopier by his desk, too?  See this old story of mine from my Moscow days ...

All very scary.  We try, but we still don't really understand these people.

ND

The War of Putin's Arse

As was suggested BTL on Friday, the Chinese piece we linked to last time certainly conveys (inter alia) a worldview fairly palatable to western readers, i.e. that China - a nation that has thrived mightily in the recent world order - has at least something to lose by finding itself on the wrong side of history.  Whether that means the piece is a come-on to embolden the west into doing something stupid is another matter.  I suppose it might be.

It's not just the Chinese, of course, who'll be priming the www with self-serving inputs.  Here's a briefing on behalf of Biden, making out he's a wise and consistent judge of Putin, with a realistic - i.e. very worried - view of the dangers.  Hmm.  Maybe.

Various western commentators say that our interests are best served by giving Putin a clear cut face-saver because the alternative is rapid escalation towards an existential threat to ourselves; against which outcome Ukraine as an integral, independent political entity may need to be sacrificed.  I'm not sure it's as easy as that.

Right now it looks to most of the world as though the stout Ukrainian defenders (with a little help from their sponsors) have already handed Putin his arse.  Sure enough, he may deploy heavy artillery plus an army of mercenary orcs to flatten and then occupy half the country.  Maybe that even includes a puppet regime in Kyiv.  But that's not even "Hitler Captures Most Of France in a Lightning Strike, Parades in Glory at the Arc de Triomphe, and Sponsors a Compliant Vichy Government", is it?  Nobody's the slightest impressed - most specifically, not Xi, as I keep saying. 

So: assuming the chances of Putin swiftly repeating his Ukrainian, errr, triumph on Estonia are vanishingly small, what scenario can possibly give him that face-saver, expunge his global humiliation?  

Here's what I think.  He gets and holds whatever slice of UKR he can, maybe even just Donbas (who's to stop him?), but there's non-stop sniping resistance from whatever's left (there are enough wealthy bear-baiters to finance that).  And the west carries on with serious sanctions: not remotely sufficient to guarantee an early anti-Putin putsch, but more than enough to make a mark, and have him permanently angry (and demeaningly in thrall to China).  Whatever the finer details - even if China feels strong enough, and the inclination, to tell him to wind his neck in - surely in all cases we are likely to be in for a protracted 'War of Putin's Arse': his retribution by way of non-stop Kremlin-sponsored sub-military mayhem (sabotage, assassination, cyber attack, support for Bad Guys, encouragement of organised crime, sponsorship of illegal migration ...) against western interests by land, sea, air, space and cyber, never quite crossing anybody's red line into actual combat.  The west's lines of logistics are really quite extended and exposed ...

Whose nerve cracks first?  Germany, seriously incommoded by inability to rely on Russian energy supplies?  USA, with isolationist opposition to bearing the costs of strife in faraway places, and elections every two years?  Brussels, always keen to deal and never noted for its spine?  The entirety of western public opinion, ground down by shortages, price increases, limitations on safe travel, random unexplained power cuts and www outages, big defence bills  etc etc etc ad nauseam?  Or ... Putin's praetorian guard?

I really can't guess.  

ND

Midweek Reading: Ukraine; Legislating the Internet

Being somewhat too busy for writing, here are a couple of excellent reads for you.

Ukraine:  First, a caveat, I have absolutely no idea whether "Consortium News" is a website of good repute (as regards conspiracy theory etc etc - everyone has to rely on their own judgement, and virus protection etc).  Also, the article I'm linking to here - What War With Russia Would Look Like by seemingly ultra-well qualified former US marine Scott Ritter - definitely serves Putin's purposes, whether or not the author has any leanings that way himself or, as I hope we can assume, not.

That said, it's a really good analysis of the realpolitik in play just now - or kiddy-politik in the case of Joe Biden.  Sobering stuff.  It contains an observation you might have read here at C@W before: 

Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign - Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I - and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.

Yes indeed it has - being deeply impressed, nay shaken, by how successful was NATO AirLand Battle doctrine on its first roll-out in earnest.  Russia had a ringside seat, and was watching intently.  Here's another good soundbite: 

Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy.

Yes, that's Angela Merkel's enduring legacy.   A Russophile all her life, she did nothing to fix Germany's dependence on Russian gas.

*   *   *   *   *

Internet:  Hey, we're a blog, and we don't much like the idea of our freedom of speech being curtailed.  That said, we are still bound by (e.g.) the laws of copyright and libel ... so obviously internet freedoms are on a spectrum.  Here's a great piece by my favourite practising American philosopher (and qualified lawyer), Brian Leiter: The Epistemology of the Internet and the Regulation of Speech in America.  (You can download the full paper from that abstract.)

No need to buy into all his conclusions to agree that (a) there's something very wrong with some of what gets pumped out on the www; and (b) the concept of "epistemic authority" is very powerful.

I'm guessing Dominic C agrees with the latter.

ND

Evergrande: What Happens Now?

For all their clever CCP-directed, "with-Chinese-characteristics" tweaks to classic western capitalism, somehow they couldn't avoid, errrr, a property bubble.  How demeaning for a communist country!  How ironic.

And how we'd all laugh, were it not for the plethora of predictions that the demise of Evergrande will send out shockwaves across the globe, at a time when we're all a bit fragile.

Really?  Well, perhaps.  I'm no authority on this kind of thing: and in my own sphere I already told you in February that gas prices in the far east were the start of serious energy-price inflation.  But my gut feeling is that if the west could ride the banking crisis of 2007-09, the CCP can engineer a soft landing for Evergrande.  The underlying issue, to my mind, is the impact it has on Chinese politics, both inward- and outward-looking.

On internal politics, I presume a serious property bubble - with the attendant political shame this represents for communists, as alluded to above - strengthens the hands of the socio-economic puritans of the CCP, led by this chap, Wang Huning, (whom I only became aware of recently).  2021 has already seen a striking social-media purge of individualistic content (and social media stars!) that follows hard on the humbling of tall poppies Jack Ma & co.  All this goes by the benign-sounding slogan of "Common Prosperity", but extends to a "clamp-down" on private tutoring (FFS), which must have a major impact down the road.  Does the middle-class man in the street care about Jack Ma?  Not really, I guess.  But his kid's education & perceived life-chances ..?

Then there's the long-awaited Chinese digital currency.  I have absolutely no idea how Evergrande impacts that project - does anyone here? - but it probably does.  Given that it's designed to strip the USD of its strategic role in world finance, it's kinda important for the long run.

It's the "physical" externals, though, that should surely trouble us most directly.  Last year we debated the possibility of "Peak China" having already passed.  The decades of extraordinary Chinese softly-softly patience and (rather successful) attempts to build a kind of soft power to rival that of the USA seem to have come to an end with Xi's assaults, physical and otherwise, on HK, India, the South China Sea etc etc etc.  These suggest that either (a) he doesn't care anymore about staying with the soft stuff; or (b) things weren't moving as fast as he wants.

And what's that?  Taiwan, of course - and in his time in the top slot.  By hook or by full-scale attack.

Old Man in a Hurry can be a comical phenomenon; but it can also be dangerous.  Very dangerous.  We have our own in the shape of Biden.  There's an awful lot that can go wrong here.  I've long suggested that Soviet caution in not invading western Europe when it was at its peak state of military advantage, speaks well for Politburo political maturity at that time.  But equally, they weren't in any kind of hurry - hey, they were real Marxist-Leninists; they thought it was going to fall in their laps eventually anyhow. 

But Xi, like Mao before him, is (mainly) a nationalist.  Evergrande?  Pff - a sideshow.  IMHO.

Thoughts?

ND

AUKUS - welcome news indeed

Back in June I wrote here [OK, Cold War It Is]:

Joe, you and your new posse gotta rescue already-suborned New Zealand, and make Australia feel a lot more comfortable with its situation.  Fast.  Otherwise it'll be clear that your reach is only to those lazy countries that are a comfortable distance away from the coming action in the Far East.   And even they will still be defending their precious Sino-exports and graduate-student fee income, hoping nobody will notice or mind too much.

He was listening!  And now we have AUKUS, replete with new nuclear subs for Oz.  (Gotta love the choice of name: not sure AUSUK would have worked at all ...  At least someone was giving half a thought to the matter.)

A bit of context.  What has recently become common parlance as "the Five-Eyes (intelligence) community" is officially AUSCANUKUS, with the 'Aus' being Australasia.  (You will sometimes find people, e.g. Wiki, inserting an 'NZ' but that's technically spurious.)  Sadly, NZ has been so thoroughly suborned by China, they've effectively self-selected themselves out of the inner circle; and we have to guess Canada had no particular reason to be in on this latest one.  Pity, but there it is.

Now to the reactions.  China very hostile, natch: say no more.  France, hahah!  Crocodile tears all around.  They were screwing up their own Oz-deal, and had it coming.  What are they going to say to us - if you don't back-track, we'll let all those refugees sail across the Channel?  (Oh, wait a minute ...)   In fact, what we'll be saying to them is: pipe down, Johnny Frog, or we'll leave those troops of yours in Central Africa with no helicopter support or aerial reconnaissance.

And everyone else on the world stage?  Well, by Heaven, after the Afghan debacle, something had to be done, or else the Taiwanese and many others besides would have been starting to make their accommodations.  Let's hope there are several other good ideas where this one came from rolling out over the weeks and months - most especially including something significant and soon for New Zealand, please.  As often noted here before: the lines of logistics in politics - particularly in foreign policy - can be very short.  Imagination is everything.

Which brings us to the Labour Party - which rushed to applaud the whole thing!  With a speed that must leave plenty of domestic lefties just reeling.  Even the Graun is more or less onside, even if leaving themselves a bit of equivocal wriggle-room.  (Gad, these people are so easily blindsided!)  We can expect some pushback to this amusingly tame position, I expect, in the run-up to Party Conference.  (Perhaps Starmer's Lotto crowd plans to make it yet another dividing line for advancing their really quite ruthless purge.)

Anyhow: credit where it's due - hats off to Biden this time.  

(I reserve the right to call him senile again if he drops the ball next time, though.)

ND

Afghanistan: why history is really important

 

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come out to cut up what remains

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains ...

 

When we last briefly looked at this, Don Cox BTL offered a link to a piece that suggested the Afghans would surprise us all in combatting the Taliban effectively  (Taliban on the Way to Kabul? Not so Fast…)  Hmmm.  Looks more like a re-run of Vietnam on fast-forward; quicker even than the major ISIS surge in Iraq before external parties intervened.

There's an excellent book, Afghantsy, on the Russian's decade of direct intervention in that benighted land 1979-89 by Rodric Braithwaite, a former UK ambassador to Moscow who (though not a military expert) seriously knows his stuff.   Even the Russians - a bordering nation, prepared to commit a large number of boots on the ground and be quite brutal themselves - couldn't achieve anything, as Braithwaite recounts.   Obviously, we couldn't either - in the 19th century or the 21st.

The book's early chapters cover two centuries of relevant history very well: history that anyone proposing to get involved should have acquainted themselves with before making any decisions at all.  The uncompromising facts about this brutal land and its endlessly turbulent, factional and belligerent people make one wonder if anyone thus historically equipped, Russian or in turn American, would ever have committed their infantry to the place.  Blair?  Just tagging along, as ever.  Which brings us back to the Americans ...

Biden's irresponsible closing contribution on this has been extraordinary - the TV clip being shown yesterday surely confirms him as utterly senile.  He seems capable of dropping any ball and the world once again depends desperately upon the 'checks and balances' of the American system - much under strain during the Trump regime, and to be sorely tested now, it seems.  With its more-or-less unilateral command of US foreign policy (where political 'lines of logistics' are shortest), I ask again: what other half-baked nonsense will the White House perpetrate?

ND

Afghanistan and an important political principle

A principle in public affairs offered here several times before is that lines of logistics in politics can be very short  (Drew's Fourth Law of Politics).  Deals of enormous importance can be struck in a trice and sometimes delivered almost as quickly: think the Tory-DUP pact after May's disastrous GE 2017.  This is especially true of foreign affairs.  Unlike many domestic spheres when delivery on a policy can take years, a treaty can be signed and often executed in a flash: think Treaty of Paris 1763, which re-drew the map of the world.

So when the Americans and *ahem* their allies slunk away from Afghanistan last week, what did anybody expect?  That people would sit back and watch the Taliban slowly roll up the map, like the North Vietnamese in 1975?  The Afghans are - of course - in discussions with a range of possible "new friends" and something quite radical is likely to happen in that geography very soon.  Stroke of a pen.  Overnight.  Only limitation is the imagination of those concerned.

The USA, though often more inclined to rely upon overall might than ingenious diplomacy, was nonetheless once quite adept at this stuff in its own way.  What a senile prat Biden is.  How much more of the world is he going to allow to be carved up over the dinner table - by other people?

ND

OK: Cold War It Is - weekend essay

It's been said by various commentators recently that Joe Biden is in town looking for recruits for a new Cold War - against China this time, natch.  I have reluctantly concluded that he's exactly right.

*   *   *   *   *

Way back in the 1980s I wrote an article for a long-forgotten magazine (no, not the St Custard's School Review) lauding the upside of the then-prevailing Cold War with the Soviet Union.  We in the West benefitted from the basic background discipline of potential life-and-death conflict.  It kept us sharp, broadly united, unlikely to be at each others' throats over trivia; justified a capable military, resilience and general preparedness; provided a salutary reminder to our own lefties that they were essentially leaning the wrong way towards a world of patent nastiness and economic failure that we confidently rejected.  FWIIW I also suggested that, were this state of affairs to end, we would lapse into a flabby state of complacency and corruption.

At the time of writing this stuff, I had no inkling it was all coming to an end quite as soon as it did.  But what happened next?  Not quite the End of History, of course, nor indeed the end of communism, of which more later.  But, over the years, a trend that had already started in the '80s, towards economic liberalism and the dynamic globalisation of open markets, really took off in a big way.  I don't think we can be quite sure whether it would have been so dramatically successful had the Sovs managed to hang on: aside from eastern Europe, their writ never ran in most of the places where markets opened; though I suppose you could argue that Cold War disciplines also suppressed animal spirits in the commercial sphere.  But boy, market opening really worked.

And so, far from sitting around worrying about complacency, corruption and loss of discipline, I blasted around the world doing free-market energy business (that being my line) from Houston to Hong Kong, Stockholm to Senegal.  I was never remotely motivated ideologically by "neo-liberalism" - just Better Business: you could always undercut a bloated former monopoly!  Of course, there was a bit of free-market proseltysing, often tongue-in-cheek to annoy the incumbents: in France - "monsieur, vous ne comprenez pas le service publique"; in Germany - "vee don't do sings like zat here: now get back to ze airport or vee vill buy your leedle company!"; and of course the Tennessee Valley Authority - "we're Number One, and that's how it's goan stay: giddouda here, boy!"  They were all wrong, and we were right.  I really had a great time in that period; it was constructive, productive, win-win, profitable - and it felt right, by a range of not-particularly-ideological** criteria.

Well, none of that logic has changed (and, FWIIW, it's still rolling out into places where open markets have somehow passed by, or been resisted: the Chinese electricity sector is next.  Politicians everywhere have spotted that it really works by the standards that matter: absolute efficiency and, if done right, greater resilience.)  And it's not just energy, of course.  But.  It's hard not to agree with some on the left that Open Markets are not the last word in what makes society economically healthy for the long term.  Complacency, corruption and loss of discipline are just the start.  Ignore the benefits of free trade at your peril; but the more fanciful dreams of the wilder advocates of total laissez-faire are pretty juvenile.  And they look even sillier when operating in the same global commercial space as the Chinese state-capitalist juggernaut, the new and very dark cloud on the horizon we haven't alluded to yet, and which wasn't really foreseen by Mr End-of-History Fukuyama.  It's been clear for a while now that the challenge is not just "they produce everything much cheaper than we can" - I hardly need to go any further on the multi-dimensional threat they pose.

And such is the confidence of the CPC, they evidently ain't planning on doing anything other than doubling down in all of those dimensions, having been rewarded mightily so far and seeing no reason to anything other than put a slightly softer gloss on their official PR.  Where they're at right now can barely be tolerated - although Heaven knows, unprincipled western politicians everywhere, thinking only of the $$$, will try to find reasons to do just that.  And all of that doubled-down?  Unless the Chinese make the most extraordinary and tangible offer to the entire world at COP-26, I can't see the status quo lasting much beyond a frosty Winter Olympics next year: something is going to break.

And it needs to.  So Joe: looks like it falls to you and your supposed diplomatic skills, to circle the wagons and (switching idioms) put down some lines in the sand.  That's the sand of Taiwan and many other Pacific Islands for starters, and a host of metaphoric beaches across the planet.  Then settle down for the long haul.  We have a precedent, 1945-1990.  It wasn't entirely a happy state of affairs.  It took confidence and realism and stamina.  And leadership: without that, everyone starts looking at their shoes and shuffling off to make private accommodations with the new Power In The Land.

None of this is because I enjoyed being a 1970s-80s cold-war warrior in the Army (though, to be fair, I did).  I really bought off on that peace dividend - I really believed we were making a go of it, and for 30 years have been enjoying that, too.  Lots of us have.  Remember also: the point of waging a cold war is to minimise the chances of a hot one which, in a world of bio and cyber threats, is as pressing an imperative as when it was basically only nukes that really troubled us.

Let's finish with some practical points.  Joe, you and your new posse gotta rescue already-subborned New Zealand, and make Australia feel a lot more comfortable with its situation.  Fast.  Otherwise it'll be clear that your reach is only to those lazy countries that are a comfortable distance away from the coming action in the Far East.  And even they will still be defending their precious Sino-exports and graduate-student fee income, hoping nobody will notice or mind too much.

ND

________________

** I realise, of course, that this can be disputed ...

Joe Biden's Trillions - just look where they're going!

For 18 months now I have been banging on about how "net zero carbon" has gone 100% mainstream in business and banking, it having been declared that "adaptation" and "resilience" count as Green, plus - from the lefties - that the whole thing must include a "Just Transition", a.k.a Jobs Before Anything Else.  Heck, that includes new roads, new dams, new irrigation systems, new sea-walls ... even the most traditional steel-'n'-concrete merchants get to play!  And the Unions!

So now, let's take a look at Joe Biden's trillions. 

The proposal would: put $621 billion into transportation infrastructure such as bridges, roads, public transit, ports, airports and electric vehicle development;  direct $400 billion to care for elderly and disabled Americans; inject more than $300 billion into improving drinking-water infrastructure, expanding broadband access and upgrading electric grids; put more than $300 billion into building and retrofitting affordable housing, along with constructing and upgrading schools;  invest $580 billion in American manufacturing, research and development and job training efforts 

Yup: steel-'n'-concrete.  There's a constant, plaintive strand of "but ... most of this post-covid growth-package stuff isn't properly Green ..." to be heard from various quarters: but it's rather drowned out by the sound of thundering hooves, both capitalist and workerist.  Ain't that the way of the world?

Have a great Easter!

ND

Biden & those multiple Trump sanctions: what now?

The wokerati seem to have invested a lot in Biden, and maybe with good reason as regards domestic policy; but is he going to turn out to be a Hillary-style hawk abroad?

Of particular interest to me is whatever is going to be the successor to Trump's fairly determined policy on blocking Nord Stream 2, the substantial Russian / Gazprom gas pipeline project designed strategically to outflank comprehensively their own former Ukrainian export route.  Germany of course is the intended landfall, and Germany has long stuck doggedly to its own wholly self-interested Russia policy, in the face of widespread unease and often downright condemnation elsewhere.  And yet Germany is exceptionally keen to cozy up to Biden, hoping he'll be both friendly and not overly concerned to make them step up to the plate as regards NATO contributions.

Then there's China ... and Iran ... was there a single global hotspot at which Trump wasn't throwing America's considerable sanction-clout around?  However much bravado the three target-countries muster, they do all suffer under sanctions to a greater (Iran) or lesser (China) extent.  If you've ever done any business where a sanctions-related issue arises, you'll know how paranoid mainstream western companies are about "transgressing" unilateral US diktats.  And of course most other western nations have broadly similar top-level policy goals as the USA in these matters anyway, even if no intention (or ability) to pursue them with as much (or any) vigour.

What will be the successor-policies under the new US regime?  Hillary Clinton's reputation in many quarters is that of an outright warmonger, so being a Democrat isn't per se much of an indication.  And then there are the Biden family's, ahem, *wider interests* ...

ND

Biden - How long has he got?

I am interested in knowing how long Biden has got in the Presidency. He will likely be a good President for America, an welcome antidote to the crazy narcissism of Trump.

However, at 78, he is the oldest ever US President. Way older than Reagan who was 69 when he was elected, Trump was 70. As we know from history, Reagan was accused of having Alzheimer's disease whilst President in the 1980's - of course much research has been done to show he was not ill during his Presidency. 

Trump too has faced constant attacks on his mental well-being, with the Left saying regularly he should be removed from office to do his poor mental health. Again, whenever he saw a doctor his health came back fine. 

In truth, the US Presidency is a tough, 24/7 job. If you were really ill these days I don't think it could be hidden all that well nor managed. When Roosevelt was ill in the 1940's there was a big difference in the amount of media exposure and reliance on radio for messaging, with easily staged photographs too. 

So back to Biden. Already throughout the campaign he has been accused of not really knowing what day it is. In his set pieces of the last few days, you can easily see someone who is very together and is delivering his lines well - of course a lot of it will have been scripted for him, if only Trump had taken the same route maybe he would still be President next year. 

I do though have it on good authority, from Feb 2018, that Harris was the chosen candidate for the Dems in the US. The fear was she would as a black woman not have a fun or successful campaign against Trump - just as Hillary had not. As such, my source (a senior Democrat figure and fundraiser) said they would look to the primaries to see how she did, and it not well enough then they would go with Biden as the candidate and her as VP.

The entire point of this was to make her President. Of course one thing we do know, with Biden being 78 is that he is going to be a one-term President come what may. They key will be that the Dems will want Harris installed so that she does not have to fight another primary and also so she gets the Presidential kudos of defending the Whitehouse. With that in mind, perhaps that plan will be to giver her a year or maybe more to get the feel of being President. 

So it seems unlikely Biden will see out his whole term, but he could do yet. From here, it also seems very likely that Harris will be the next President, of course, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip.