To wall, or not to wall, that is the question

China, whaddaya reckon?  Do we throw up a wall and do Cold War II (and maybe throw Vlad and the Mad Mullahs in behind it too), or, persist with the strategy of letting the "sliver" of Liberty that has crept into China do the dirty work for us?  Like the opium trade of old: get them hooked on a little Liberty, and democracy will surely follow? ...

"Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China’s people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China’s leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible — that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country." - George W Bush

https://www.ned.org/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary/

 

Well the answer is both and neither, IMHO!  Neither is always right or always wrong through the passage of time.  They are, to use the Taoist notion of Yinyang, two parts of the non-linear system that drives the flow: opposite, but steering a path, the usage of each being appropriate at the right moments along the way.  (Yes, I have converted to Taoism, more of that anon).

Consider the Yinyang of the two opposite military doctrines of: (1) Pincer movement, and, (2) Manoeuvre of the central position.

In a pincer movement you divide your forces into two parts and assault the enemy's flanks.  Hannibal Barca's nut-cracker victory against the Romans at the battle of Cannae being the definitive example that coined the phrase Double Cannae for such strategies of left and right envelopment.

On the other hand, in a manoeuvre of the central position you deliberately put your nuts in the opponent's cracker, so to speak, and invite the very Double Cannae from your enemy that a pincer movement defines!  Bonaparte's victory at the battle of Austerlitz being the definitive example of such a manoeuvre - over and out for the Austrians and Russians in 4 hours.

So both are right and wrong depending on the circumstances.  Bonaparte, and all great generals, used both as required along the way - and Bonaparte fell because his successful successive manoeuvres of the central position were trumped by the Brit-Prussian nut-cracker at Waterloo.

Likewise the Yinyang of Wall vs Liberty in undermining the CCP.  In Wall vs Liberty we are looking at another military Yinyang: Attack vs Defend.

Attack and Defend are opposites, and each equally valid in the right circumstances.  Fuelling the "sliver" of Liberty in China (not so much a sliver these days, 60% of China's economy is private sector, albeit grey private sector laced with state interference, but Liberty in China is hardly a "sliver" compared to Mao's days) is the attack.  Throwing up fortifications - the Wall - is clearly a defence.

Has our assault of the last 30 years that so nearly yielded victory in Tiananmen Square petered out and run its course?  Or should we continue with bayonets fixed?

My gut feel - and the way of the Tao is gut feel as much as it is analysis - is "Almost yes, the assault is over; time for some shovel work and R'n'R".  Why "almost"?  Because if we switch to a "manoeuvre of the central position" and away from "full frontal across the whole front-line" we can see that a continuation of the assault is possible.

Russia and China are too big for the US and "coalition of the willing" to take on in the assault today.  Assimilation of the enemy into our world will not take place as it did with Japan, Germany after WW2, and the Ost Bloc after Cold War I, by opening up free trade and borders.  Consolidating the enemy position cannot occur because with these two the attack has bounced.  We are faltering in no-mans-land, it is true.  Entrenchment may seem like a no-brainer: the Wall defence appears to trump the Liberty assault.  But, but, but - but me a Trump indeed! ...

With Russia on our side the Yinyang calculus changes, and the gut feeling must sit up and pay attention.  If the stalled full frontal assault flailing about in no-mans-land can be converted into a manoeuvre of the central position, the assault can proceed anew.

Now we see the straightforward reasoning behind the Don's embrace of Russia.  And though I spit through my teeth at Vlad's rotten regime, well, we held hands with the Rooskies for the second half of WW2 after Barbarossa blew the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact apart, so why not an encore with China, and the Rooskies playing the part of "your enemy's enemy is your friend" again?  We can come back and finish off Vlad after the CCP has fallen.

Biden and the Dem's cry of "Up and at 'em chaps!" full frontal across the whole front-line as we crawl around in the shell holes of no-mans-land smacks of lions led by donkeys.  We need to turn a flank on the enemy, and what better way than using the enemy to do it?

We need some tactics here if we are to rediscover our Tao.

SoD

Comments

[Bob]

Your ability to read Trump's mind should scare you silly. It's a superpower most likely bestowed by quaffing one too many plum brandies. If you think Russia has any plans for the US besides constantly trolling our political process and cyberspace you are mistaken, at least for as long as Vlad or his bunch are running the place. And since he's so fond of old KGB tactics like poisoning his rivals and controlling the Russian public by any means, that's not likely to change soon.

China has absorbed capitalism without allowing it the power of unrestricted mischief. Chinese history and culture can't be fought by military means, though they will probably play a role. On with the next global philosophical battle. Everything old is new again.

[JK]

"[O]ur political process"?

BwwaaHaHaHa Ha.

That "process" is gone with the dodo. Now it's all 'the men behind the curtain' pulling the levers. Circle back Bob.

[Loz]

Howdi Bob! Hope all's been well with you and yours.

Vlad would take a deal. There's a lot of sanctions that could be lifted, HS2, Syria, plus half of Ukraine to throw under a bus. All can be revisited later when the CCP falls.

And in exchange, what would our manoeuvre of the central position between China and Russia demand of Vlad for us? As follows ...

(1) Pronouncement of democracy as being the best thing since sliced bread and "concern" at the absence thereof in China.

(2) Release of revelations (real or fake, doesn't matter) concerning Chinese hacking and Cyber warfare against Russia and yet more "concern".

(3) Cessation of all hacking, Cyber warfare, poisonings etc. against Western targets.

(4) Like-for-like reduction of military assets on the European border, and the switching of them to the Chinese border by both parties: the Rooskies on land and the West by sea.

(5) Aggressive revisitation of the disputed lands between Russia and China, the agreements about which were conducted under duress.

China under the CCP would quite literally be the first ever "Billy-no-mates" of the entire world.

Once in place, the possibility of a "Wall" as an aggressive rather than defensive strategy against China - like the Normans used to do with their Motte-and-Bailey castles - becomes the West's end game option for the CCP.

See how Ping-a-Ling likes them apples.

SoD

[Bob]

Hey JK, glad you and Glesga are still around. American democracy is at a low, but there's no reason to be hopeless. We've been here before. For example in the Gilded Age. BTW, I just read somewhere that Little Rock has one of the highest crime rates in America, way higher than Chicago's. Maybe that's why you're so down. Cheer up. Things will improve as soon as the Democrats take everyone's guns away and get chips into all the vaccines.

SoD,

We've been OK considering. Hope you'ns have too. Good to exchange opinions with you again.

You might be right that Russia could be bullied into taking a harder stance against China than the West. However, the fact that they could be easily bullied also suggests how effective they would be. It's also doubtful Putin has total control over the hackers operating out of Russia or its friendly territories.

China under the CCP would quite literally continue to be the best mate of its dependent emerging nations and of capitalists looking for cheap labor. The idea they can be easily written off is a fantasy.

[Penseivat]

I doubt that there would be some sort of military conflict between Russia and China. It would not end well for either side, no matter who won. As mentioned above, it is felt that Putin does not have as much political influence as people think. He is a crime lord, currently at the head of a bandit state, being allowed to do what he does by lesser crime lords, as long as they are allowed to do what they do. Their aim is personal wealth and power, whereas the aim of the CCP is to control and influence the rest of the world. In a military conflict, if Russia loses, then Putin and the crime lords will lose their power and wealth. If they win, they would have to occupy Chinese territory, and China will do what they have always done, being so large a country, they would simply absorb the intruders into Chinese culture over a period of time.
As long as both countries are, individually, attempting to destabilise the west, and quietly removing any opposition to their respective methods of ruling, their is no incentive to overtly act against each other, though acting covertly is a different matter.

[Richard]

Hi Bob, JK Glesga and gang,

If there is going to be some sort of bust-up with China, I really can't see this 'scepter'd isle' playing any significant role in the proceedings. Right now, our armed forces are in exactly the same shit state as American democracy.

Read the following article and shudder.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/british-army-ran-out-of-ammo-in-eight-days-in-online-war-simulation/ar-AALSjqY

[Bob]

Hello Richard, and to everyone else.

"[Putin] is a crime lord, currently at the head of a bandit state, being allowed to do what he does by lesser crime lords, as long as they are allowed to do what they do."

That is a perfect description, Penseivat.

[JK]

Good to have all the old gang back assembled. I've sorta to a man missed y'all.

Not gonna argue Bob, not where 'the cities' are concerned anyway (though I know where certain sorts of crime-rate is concerned I, if I had to go to Little Rock for any thing, I'd go legally armed which unless Mayor Lightfoot's enacted something I'm unaware of, I don't think I could get by with in Chicongo).

Yes Loz, we could work with the Russians - matter of fact there's an extant example.

Syria.

[Bob]

Whaddaya mean sorta, JK?

You're right. No one gets away with carrying in Chicago. Except for anyone who wants to and isn't on the wrong side of the cops.

[JK]

Well I actually have Bob, missed you too.

After a fashion.

[Whitewall]

Damn! Re China Russia, I pretty much agree with all takes so far. No need to write anything. "Everything old is new again". Ain't it the truth.

What's the world coming to?

[James McGibbon]

Whitewall, can you please send me details of the criminal activities of George Floyd before he departed this world.

[James McGibbon]

Bob, breaking news in UK that Cubans are revolting and Uncle Joe Biden was unaware. The CIA had not informed him and the Cuban excile mafia in Florida were calling for democracy in the USA. Sorry Cuba.

[Whitewall]

James McGibbon, it would take a bigger blog. Suffice it to say, the American Left has its new 'Che".

[Bob]

JK and Whitewall,

Aw, shucks. I missed you too.

James McGibbon,

I'm sure Biden didn't know about events in Cuba until he did. It's not out of line to suggest all UK news outlets are not objective. All American ones certainly aren't. The current narrative that Biden is simultaneously Sleepy Joe and catering to the far left seems a bit contradictory, but maybe that's just me. Even given that, the reliably right wing NY Post had nice things to say about Biden's reaction:

"President Biden on Monday expressed the US’ support for the people of Cuba and Haiti, as anti-government protests erupted in the Communist country over the weekend and Haiti is mired in chaos amid a leadership dispute after last week’s assassination of President Jovenel Moise. ...

“The Cuban people are demanding their freedom from an authoritarian regime. I don’t think we’ve seen anything like these protests in a long, long time if, quite frankly, ever,” Biden told reporters at the White House before a meeting with officials on America’s surging crime and gun violence.

“The US stands firmly with the people of Cuba as they assert their universal rights. And we call on the government of Cuba to refrain from violence in their attempt to silence the voices of the people of Cuba ..."

https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/biden-voices-us-support-for-people-in-cuba-haiti/

[Loz]

Bob,

It's good to see YASF - Yet Another Socialist Failure - bombing in front of our eyes in Cuba.

Sleepy Joe could take the opportunity to put some space between himself and the hard left with his own "Tear down this wall moment".

Doesn't seem like he's minded to do it.

God he's boring as well, isn't he? I thought Sleepy Joe was a reference to him, but it seems more like a pass at what he's doing to us ...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/newspaper-declares-biden-boring-washington-has-never-felt-duller

SoD

[Bob]

SoD,

Wrinkles and senility aside, Joe's probably just what America needed after the "exciting" Trump administration. The Fox narrative that Joe is leading the treacherous media elite, destroying freedom and really boring is goofy. Republicans are just throwing whatever they can think of at the wall, hoping something will stick.

Socialism per se isn't what the Cuban people are protesting so much as food shortages and skyrocketing prices. In general, they've been tired of authoritarianism for a long time.

[Loz]

"Socialism per se isn't what the Cuban people are protesting so much as food shortages and skyrocketing prices. In general, they've been tired of authoritarianism for a long time."

Hehehe! That's what they all say Bob! Since October 1917 to be precise!

As each stab at state ownership of the means of production and distribution, be it race socialism, class socialism or even carbon socialism, all that happens is incompetence at best, through criminal negligence, corruption and abuse, to murder at worst.

Even the WSJ acknowledges the worst, but swaps out "socialism" to "communism", a label switch to try and pretend that socialism is still something different that hasn't happened yet ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

Yet Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin all predicted this is exactly what would happen! They themselves said that the first phase of future history - that of socialism - would be a total failure. "The state will whither away" after the calamity of socialism they said, and the next phase would see a return to non-state operation of the means of production and distribution and a return to control by the people. In other words, exactly what Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill would recognise as Classical Liberalism, aka Libertarianism, on the supply side, with redistribution to low income people to participate in the market like everyone else for their needs on the demand side. The state as "router" not "server".

And yet each time you fail and destroy another cadre of humanity you press the reset button and try again with the state as "server".

Unbearable.

SoD

[Bob]

SoD, have you ever read a book on politics less than 150 years old? I thought not. Socialism equals communism equals Stalinism, indeed. How you do go on.

Reaganomics/Thatcherism is probably the closest we've gotten to libertarianism or neo-liberalism, and you'll have to admit it's run its course, crashed, and burned. You are left with blue socialists everywhere, and many of us have disappeared down various red rabbit holes. Holy rightist polemics aside, most people aren't ideologues and don't enjoy the rich getting richer while they get poorer, crappy health care, unaffordable housing, their jobs being sent to China or Mexico or India, or much else about Saint Ronnie or Saint Maggie's religions.

And your religion has never been summarized better:

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is "Libertarian." People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable and, to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it's just one more bullshit political philosophy." - George Carlin

[Glesga]

Bob, looks like you Yanks can look forward to holidays in Cuba, restoration of mafia property and reopening of the old brothels for your satisfaction.

[Bob]

I like your optimism, Glesga!

[JK]

Curb your enthusiasm Bob, Nancy P. I hear is services-staff in the Havana branch of the brothels network.

And Maxine W. the other option.

Then again Bob, ol' Maxine I think would look good on you.

(Nah, don't send me any pictures, I'm already gonna have to bleach my memory.)

[Loz]

"SoD, have you ever read a book on politics less than 150 years old?"

Milton Friedman: Free to Choose
Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom, Law Legislation and Liberty
Karl Popper: The Open Society and its enemies
John Lucas: Freedom of the Will
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia

Now you've set me off on one Bob. Next visit to the Gaffer I'm going to collect all of these off his shelves, skim back through them one by one, and do a precis of each one for the blog.

Maybe.

SoD