China's Expanding Role in Africa

[Mark O'Neill]

Ignoring the Aussie frankness in your post as well as the grade school foreign policy lesson,

A few points, however:

1. The author, I believe, focuses on northeast Africa. Specifically, the role played by Islamists in Sudan and Somalia, as well as the various factions that have been established in that region since the early 90's. There is no mention of Zimbabwe.

2. Some might make the case that declaring, quite simply, that there is a single demonstrable Chinese foreign policy is about as rational as declaring a single European foreign policy. China's leadership is a motley crew of different interests and organizations, not all of whom are on the same page or working from the same play book. While I'm not yet convinced of its existence, it would be naive to believe that encouraging a proxy war in North Africa is wholly beyond the realm of intellectual possibility. The PLA and CMC, many argue, have entirely different goals than the NPC.

3. The author in question, John Poole, is a well-respected retired NCO whose books are often forwarded by this forum's very own "paragons," including Bill Lind and Bruce Gudmundsson. He is one of the men directly responsible for integrating maneuver warfare theory into Marine Corp doctrine, and his books, The Last 100 Yards and Tiger's Way are considered by many to be the best texts on small unit tactics published in quite some time. None of which makes him an expert on Africa, but it would be disrespectful to describe him as a man given to proffering "inaccurate drivel."

Sage,

In rebuttal, the 'grade school foreign policy lesson' was offered in response to the 'preschool' assertions offered about China in your original post (and, to my mind, continued in your reply). I believe that if you want to stimulate 'graduate level' discussion it is probably best if you start off at that level, so people who do not know you at least have a hint that is the level you wish to discuss things at. Of course, this requires far more factual rigour than the assertions in your post either supplied or implied.....

Secondly, I am unaware of any 'paragon' list at SWJ. I would be grateful if you could illuminate my ignorance and direct me to the appropriate link. I suggest that your sweeping generalisation about whom SWJ members are 'fond' of is wildly inaccurate. My time here has suggested that our membership views are wide and varied. By way of example, I hold no great / positive view about the wide spread application of the works of either the gentlemen you refer to.

Thirdly, the fact that the author you cite is a widely respected former SNCO is neither here nor there with regard to his ability to write with authority or accuracy on wider geo-political issues. What exactly is your point in making this claim? I know literally hundreds of excellent serving and former SNCO, their innate ability as a soldier has no causal relationship with any ability as an international relations analyst. If someone presumes to claim authoritative knowledge of a subject it is reasonable to ask and examine on what basis the claim is made. As a rule, being a respected SNCO does not cut the mustard in establishing expert credibility across any subject you may care to name. This, of course, does not preclude your author from being such an expert - it merely establishes that he is not one simply because of the fact that he was a 'respected SNCO'.

Finally, I find your comment about Aussie 'frankness' stereotypical and inappropriate. I believe that unwillingness to swallow inane assertion or ignorance is not something unique to me or my countrymen. I have found it to be to be a trait that is shared by many of friends from the USA, UK and Africa....

Mark