China's Expanding Role in Africa

[Sage]

You are joking right? China encouraging Jihadists in Africa? What planet did this idea come from? ...I would strongly recommend that your paragon spends some time researching some facts before he writes more inaccurate drivel.

Ignoring the Aussie frankness in your post as well as the grade school foreign policy lesson, I actually tend to agree with you regarding China's role in Africa and, as I've communicated to the author, am not yet convinced that China is waging a war by proxy there or elsewhere. My main interest in the text is the author's focus on integrating law enforcement skills with traditional soldiering in such regions.

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."

In addition, the man's probably spent more time in the regions discussed than you and I combined, so, while dubious of his assessment of Chinese foreign policy, you'll forgive me if I'm not as comfortable dismissing his analysis so quickly. I'd prefer to read the book first.

Sage, welcome aboard.

Thanks for the welcome, Stan.