Alexis, a fine piece of research and writing, and if I wasn't scared before (actually, I was ...) I am now. Napoleon III would be delighted with what Trump has done with the Oval Office decor!
Yes, the 1870/71 war is known in English as the Franco-Prussian war. (And clearly also in French as per your mother.) I think that description is not correct, the name of Franco-German war would be more appropriate. Mainly as combatants were not just from Prussia but also from other German states, including I believe the king of Wuerttemberg?
And a personal note, you've cleared up something which I had wondered about, your surname. I had wondered whether you had German roots.
You’re probably right. Though Bismarck was a Prussian driven by a desire to impose Prussia’s will and power over the other smaller German states, including Austria. As a Prussian diplomat attending meetings of the German Confederation, he was puzzled by the fact that Prussia’s voice was not more prominent, befitting its military and related power. He set about to change that, and unified the smaller German states (but not Austria, as you know, which among other things was too Catholic) in a series of maneuvers and wars (including the so-called Franco-Prussian one) under Prussian leadership. More importantly, I hope my analogy falls apart in the years to come…😳
Another great read but I don't understand why you treat the core issue, an utter lack of any strategy on Trump's part, as being self-evident, even while he himself and other Trump observers continue to go on at length about the nature and supposed wisdom of Trump's grand strategy. Even though many of us DO see his strategic blunders as obvious, I would love to see your analysis of how and why Trump's destructive actions actually *are* incoherent and devoid of strategy etc.
Why do I say this? Well, I feel that simply dismissing his admin as being incoherent, or lacking any longer term strategy -- I would go so far to say ANY form of outright dismissal at all -- risks being another of the by now very numerous instances we've seen of the kinds of underestimation caused by the substitution of hand-wringing for the required detailed and concrete takedowns. By failing to do that painful work, we Americans have contributed greatly to Trump's gaining of power -- twice -- in the first place.
The result is that we are constantly surprised and bewildered at what unfolds. Meanwhile, Trump supporters apparently aren't surprised at all and insist that what's unfolding is precisely what they voted for. Why this huge divide?
Kind of brings us back to one of your earlier points about a lack of consensus about what's actually even really happening. That epistemological divide remains a key battleground and we can't take that on via our collective dismissals without risking looking and sounding increasingly purple in our prose.
Once again, you strike at the very heart of the argument, and point out an absence where there should be a presence--a solid presence that makes the clear case for self-evidence. I love your reactions for that reason. Ironically, I had included in an earlier draft a point by point analysis of precisely why I think this, but then decided to delete it as overkill, especially in the light of Kissinger's comments on Napoleon III, which read to me like they could be made nearly verbatim about Trump.
I may try to do that very thing in a future post, in isolation from anything else.
But in short it would go like this: The first step in strategic calculus is to analyze the context and define the core problem. If you don't understand the context or you misidentify or inaccurately define the problem, you get in big trouble. I'm not sure I've even seen a clearly articulated problem statement from this administration. (I've seen many contradictory ones). The next step is identifying the desired end state. To me, make American great again is a slogan, not an end state. I've never heard the described or defined in concrete terms. Have you? (A more admired or respected or loved or feared or rich or equal or... America?). After that, you build the ways and means to get from problem to end state. This is impossible to do if you don't what problem you're tying to solve or what you're trying to achieve. Even so, the ways and means I've seen are incoherent even beyond that. How exactly will tariffs on their own bring back heavy industry to the US? Again, even assuming that's a reasonable goal, which is debatable. You can't just assert something and expect it will happen, at least not in the real world. That's called magical thinking, not strategy, and our kayfabe president is a master practitioner of at least that. Finally, you have to consider the costs and risks of your approach. I don't see anything of the kind happening, particularly in relation with the rest of the world. We need to know and care about how others respond, not to be nice but because we fail to do so at our peril. Other countries exist, and have interests, and will be willing to pursue them. I have never known any person or country to act knowingly against their self-interest (unless there's a gun pointed at their head). Have you? In that context, does alienating our allies and eroding the power of our example make us more--or less--capable of facing off with the PRC? You tell me.
Anyway, that's my brief but unspectacular attempt to answer your excellent question. I will try to do a better job next time. You remind me of what Steven Pinker called the great enemy of clarity in expression: knowledge (I hesitate to use the word expertise in this connection). Because what is clear in my mind is not necessarily clear in the minds of others. You showed me that, and that's on me.
Again, just a short comment: It's about 'Make America great again' - my instant reaction to wherever I see this slogan is to ask 'when?' 'When do you think America was great?'
I have yet see a coherent answer.
Trump made references to McKinley and the 'golden era', which I think is usually the time between 1890 and 1913 or thereabouts. (Please forgive any inaccuracies.) And that was 'great'? Aye, right! That was a time when more than half the adult population had no vote, when there was systematic discrimination and if we're talking economics, then we also need to mention rampant poverty. It was even before such 'revolutionary inventions' (/s!) such as the introduction of workplace safety rules and food safety standards.
Many of us wonder the same thing. Exactly what point of our history do we hope to be transported back to? When were we greater than we are now?
The fact is America has always been imperfect, even if not necessarily more imperfect now than at some unidentified point in our past. For one, we have always sought--or thought we were seeking--a "more perfect union". If the seeking is reflected in the achieving (even if the upward curve of progress is not straight or unbroken), then we are in fact more perfect now than we were, say, in 1789, 1898, or 2001 etc. I suppose that's a matter of debate.
I have often been impressed, particularly when returning to the United States from long stints serving abroad (at the end of my diplomatic career, that meant mostly South America) at the amazing absorptive capacities of this country. Particularly in our cities, there are people from literally everywhere in the world, and often quite a few of them. On the outskirts of Washington DC where I live, I sometimes go into a Costco (a wholesale retailer with massive stores) and wonder which country I'm in, and even which continent.
One way to interpret what's going on now is the challenge of absorption (are we choking on too big a chunk?) coupled with the increasing concentration of wealth in urban areas. Meanwhile rural areas are--and feel--left behind. The farther away from the cities you go, the more mono-racial it gets... and the higher the concentration of citizens who support the current president. That's no coincidence.
Anyway, by criticizing strategic incoherence, I don't mean to belittle the nature and scope of the challenge. I think the United States is not alone in this.
I'll get to the 'perfect union' bit now. The phrase reminds me of the 'ever closer union' of the preamble of the Treaty of Rome. It actually says 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe'.
It is often said that the 'engine' of the European movement is the friendship between Germany and France. Calling it 'friendship' is a very deliberate move away from the historic enmity, where the expectation was that once a generation there would be a war. Indeed, there's only a gap of 25 years between the start of WW1 and WW2.
When I go back home and visit the cemetery, I often stop and look at the plaques listing the war dead of the village. The last date on those plaques is 1945. The fact that there hasn't been a war since then is one of the reasons why I am a passionate European and EU supporter.
Coming back to the 'more perfect union' bit, the EU is a work in progress. On a steady basis there are people working on making the single market more 'single' and smoothing the lives of people who are taking advantage of borderless living. I see some similar movements forming in Canada, where the country is realising that they have considerable internal barriers to trade.
Looking at the USA, in the short term I am seeing more destructive tendencies than positive ones. But there are counter movements, those large protests are a good sign. The town halls including the empty chair town halls are good signs. As are the - albeit small - numbers of Republican politicians who seem to step up and speak up against some of the lunatic actions of this current government.
To continue with the strategic incoherence theme. The first step in strategic analysis is understanding the strategic context. On that note, our current president has repeatedly claimed that the EU was formed with the conscious intention of "screwing America." Anyone who's spent two seconds studying the issue knows that's exactly backwards. American leaders, including our presidents and Secretaries of State, did their best to coax European countries to come together into some kind of union, for their own and our sakes too. If you get such fundamental facts wrong, you doom everything that follows. And that's just a start. Whatever its internal problems, and whatever the challenges between the EU and the US, the EU is not the problem. The problem is something else.
I'll probably need to split my answer ..... let's start off with the 'strategic incoherence'. It's a good description for the hokey-cokey tariff nonsense!
Tariffs have got their place, but spokespeople for the US government have used all kinds of justifications - it's to encourage re-shoring industry, it's to raise revenue, it's to pressure other governments into more favourable trade deals. It can't be all of that!! (Imagine the last sentence in caps, yes, I am shouting.) It's just bollo.... ... let's be polite, it's horse manure, chicken excrement or bovine fertiliser!
That's no way to run a major, mature economy. And on top of that, he is annoying friendly countries, so that they're not only looking to find other 'friends', they might also not be available to be an ally in the American trade wars.
Not a way to run a whelk stall! The actual tragedy is that there are so few people around to stand up to the president and tell him to 'gonnae no talk pish' (he is half-Scottish), instead his whims are amplified by his 'trade munchkin' (TM Phil Moorhouse) ... and now I am venting. Apologies.
It feels as if your country has caught a fever. It is currently raging, but I am hoping that this phase will be over soon - after all Europe managed to leave its various versions of autocracy behind. We paid an awful price for it, but we seem to have learned from it.
Thank you. I am very pleased with your compliment - after all I am just a civilian.
Re commentary - can I introduce you to my favourite political commentator? It's Phil Moorhouse and he publishes videos on a Youtube channel called 'a different bias'. He's a very astute observer. With a cracking turn of phrase, yesterday it was 'Captain Climbdown'.
One additional point: I for one have difficulty seeing good faith in any of the president's projects, which probably blinds me to the need to point out the apparently obvious to those who see him as a savior. That challenge might be a bridge too far though.
Whatever one thinks of Kissinger the statesman (and he himself underscores the marked difference between the statesman and the analyst in terms of responsibility and blame, among other things), you simply can't take anything away from his authentic brilliance as an analyst. I'm blown away by the sheer mass of historical knowledge he wields, the gift for identifying trends in layered and confusing contexts, and the penetrating clarity of his expression. I highly recommend his book Diplomacy. Others, too, for that matter.
I wouldn't read anything he had to say on any topic after 1992. This from the 9/23/92 Baltimore Sun: Under steady questioning, Mr. Kissinger said: “My present gut feeling is that no prisoners were left behind in Vietnam, but that probably some prisoners were left behind in Laos; but I’m not dogmatic about this.” To say some prisoners were probably left behind in Laos and do nothing about it is pure evil. In 1975 3 USMC were also left behind in Cambodia while he was Sec. of State. It's an indelible stain on this nation how they treated Vietnam Servicemen with such callous disregard.
Kissinger shouldn't be lionized or regarded as a statesman, those servicemen in Vietnam deserved so much better and they were forgotten.
Alexis, a fine piece of research and writing, and if I wasn't scared before (actually, I was ...) I am now. Napoleon III would be delighted with what Trump has done with the Oval Office decor!
Your comment about the decor is quite prescient:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/opinion/trump-oval-office-rococo.html
PS Please read the BTL comments, not just the article.
I read this earlier today. I felt my teeth start to buzz as though I had poured a big ladle of sugar into my mouth and let it settle. 😳
Just two small comments for now:
Yes, the 1870/71 war is known in English as the Franco-Prussian war. (And clearly also in French as per your mother.) I think that description is not correct, the name of Franco-German war would be more appropriate. Mainly as combatants were not just from Prussia but also from other German states, including I believe the king of Wuerttemberg?
And a personal note, you've cleared up something which I had wondered about, your surname. I had wondered whether you had German roots.
You’re probably right. Though Bismarck was a Prussian driven by a desire to impose Prussia’s will and power over the other smaller German states, including Austria. As a Prussian diplomat attending meetings of the German Confederation, he was puzzled by the fact that Prussia’s voice was not more prominent, befitting its military and related power. He set about to change that, and unified the smaller German states (but not Austria, as you know, which among other things was too Catholic) in a series of maneuvers and wars (including the so-called Franco-Prussian one) under Prussian leadership. More importantly, I hope my analogy falls apart in the years to come…😳
Another great read but I don't understand why you treat the core issue, an utter lack of any strategy on Trump's part, as being self-evident, even while he himself and other Trump observers continue to go on at length about the nature and supposed wisdom of Trump's grand strategy. Even though many of us DO see his strategic blunders as obvious, I would love to see your analysis of how and why Trump's destructive actions actually *are* incoherent and devoid of strategy etc.
Why do I say this? Well, I feel that simply dismissing his admin as being incoherent, or lacking any longer term strategy -- I would go so far to say ANY form of outright dismissal at all -- risks being another of the by now very numerous instances we've seen of the kinds of underestimation caused by the substitution of hand-wringing for the required detailed and concrete takedowns. By failing to do that painful work, we Americans have contributed greatly to Trump's gaining of power -- twice -- in the first place.
The result is that we are constantly surprised and bewildered at what unfolds. Meanwhile, Trump supporters apparently aren't surprised at all and insist that what's unfolding is precisely what they voted for. Why this huge divide?
Kind of brings us back to one of your earlier points about a lack of consensus about what's actually even really happening. That epistemological divide remains a key battleground and we can't take that on via our collective dismissals without risking looking and sounding increasingly purple in our prose.
Once again, you strike at the very heart of the argument, and point out an absence where there should be a presence--a solid presence that makes the clear case for self-evidence. I love your reactions for that reason. Ironically, I had included in an earlier draft a point by point analysis of precisely why I think this, but then decided to delete it as overkill, especially in the light of Kissinger's comments on Napoleon III, which read to me like they could be made nearly verbatim about Trump.
I may try to do that very thing in a future post, in isolation from anything else.
But in short it would go like this: The first step in strategic calculus is to analyze the context and define the core problem. If you don't understand the context or you misidentify or inaccurately define the problem, you get in big trouble. I'm not sure I've even seen a clearly articulated problem statement from this administration. (I've seen many contradictory ones). The next step is identifying the desired end state. To me, make American great again is a slogan, not an end state. I've never heard the described or defined in concrete terms. Have you? (A more admired or respected or loved or feared or rich or equal or... America?). After that, you build the ways and means to get from problem to end state. This is impossible to do if you don't what problem you're tying to solve or what you're trying to achieve. Even so, the ways and means I've seen are incoherent even beyond that. How exactly will tariffs on their own bring back heavy industry to the US? Again, even assuming that's a reasonable goal, which is debatable. You can't just assert something and expect it will happen, at least not in the real world. That's called magical thinking, not strategy, and our kayfabe president is a master practitioner of at least that. Finally, you have to consider the costs and risks of your approach. I don't see anything of the kind happening, particularly in relation with the rest of the world. We need to know and care about how others respond, not to be nice but because we fail to do so at our peril. Other countries exist, and have interests, and will be willing to pursue them. I have never known any person or country to act knowingly against their self-interest (unless there's a gun pointed at their head). Have you? In that context, does alienating our allies and eroding the power of our example make us more--or less--capable of facing off with the PRC? You tell me.
Anyway, that's my brief but unspectacular attempt to answer your excellent question. I will try to do a better job next time. You remind me of what Steven Pinker called the great enemy of clarity in expression: knowledge (I hesitate to use the word expertise in this connection). Because what is clear in my mind is not necessarily clear in the minds of others. You showed me that, and that's on me.
Thanks as always for reading and reacting.
Again, just a short comment: It's about 'Make America great again' - my instant reaction to wherever I see this slogan is to ask 'when?' 'When do you think America was great?'
I have yet see a coherent answer.
Trump made references to McKinley and the 'golden era', which I think is usually the time between 1890 and 1913 or thereabouts. (Please forgive any inaccuracies.) And that was 'great'? Aye, right! That was a time when more than half the adult population had no vote, when there was systematic discrimination and if we're talking economics, then we also need to mention rampant poverty. It was even before such 'revolutionary inventions' (/s!) such as the introduction of workplace safety rules and food safety standards.
Many of us wonder the same thing. Exactly what point of our history do we hope to be transported back to? When were we greater than we are now?
The fact is America has always been imperfect, even if not necessarily more imperfect now than at some unidentified point in our past. For one, we have always sought--or thought we were seeking--a "more perfect union". If the seeking is reflected in the achieving (even if the upward curve of progress is not straight or unbroken), then we are in fact more perfect now than we were, say, in 1789, 1898, or 2001 etc. I suppose that's a matter of debate.
I have often been impressed, particularly when returning to the United States from long stints serving abroad (at the end of my diplomatic career, that meant mostly South America) at the amazing absorptive capacities of this country. Particularly in our cities, there are people from literally everywhere in the world, and often quite a few of them. On the outskirts of Washington DC where I live, I sometimes go into a Costco (a wholesale retailer with massive stores) and wonder which country I'm in, and even which continent.
One way to interpret what's going on now is the challenge of absorption (are we choking on too big a chunk?) coupled with the increasing concentration of wealth in urban areas. Meanwhile rural areas are--and feel--left behind. The farther away from the cities you go, the more mono-racial it gets... and the higher the concentration of citizens who support the current president. That's no coincidence.
Anyway, by criticizing strategic incoherence, I don't mean to belittle the nature and scope of the challenge. I think the United States is not alone in this.
I'll get to the 'perfect union' bit now. The phrase reminds me of the 'ever closer union' of the preamble of the Treaty of Rome. It actually says 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe'.
It is often said that the 'engine' of the European movement is the friendship between Germany and France. Calling it 'friendship' is a very deliberate move away from the historic enmity, where the expectation was that once a generation there would be a war. Indeed, there's only a gap of 25 years between the start of WW1 and WW2.
When I go back home and visit the cemetery, I often stop and look at the plaques listing the war dead of the village. The last date on those plaques is 1945. The fact that there hasn't been a war since then is one of the reasons why I am a passionate European and EU supporter.
Coming back to the 'more perfect union' bit, the EU is a work in progress. On a steady basis there are people working on making the single market more 'single' and smoothing the lives of people who are taking advantage of borderless living. I see some similar movements forming in Canada, where the country is realising that they have considerable internal barriers to trade.
Looking at the USA, in the short term I am seeing more destructive tendencies than positive ones. But there are counter movements, those large protests are a good sign. The town halls including the empty chair town halls are good signs. As are the - albeit small - numbers of Republican politicians who seem to step up and speak up against some of the lunatic actions of this current government.
We will see what the future brings.
To continue with the strategic incoherence theme. The first step in strategic analysis is understanding the strategic context. On that note, our current president has repeatedly claimed that the EU was formed with the conscious intention of "screwing America." Anyone who's spent two seconds studying the issue knows that's exactly backwards. American leaders, including our presidents and Secretaries of State, did their best to coax European countries to come together into some kind of union, for their own and our sakes too. If you get such fundamental facts wrong, you doom everything that follows. And that's just a start. Whatever its internal problems, and whatever the challenges between the EU and the US, the EU is not the problem. The problem is something else.
I'll probably need to split my answer ..... let's start off with the 'strategic incoherence'. It's a good description for the hokey-cokey tariff nonsense!
Tariffs have got their place, but spokespeople for the US government have used all kinds of justifications - it's to encourage re-shoring industry, it's to raise revenue, it's to pressure other governments into more favourable trade deals. It can't be all of that!! (Imagine the last sentence in caps, yes, I am shouting.) It's just bollo.... ... let's be polite, it's horse manure, chicken excrement or bovine fertiliser!
That's no way to run a major, mature economy. And on top of that, he is annoying friendly countries, so that they're not only looking to find other 'friends', they might also not be available to be an ally in the American trade wars.
Not a way to run a whelk stall! The actual tragedy is that there are so few people around to stand up to the president and tell him to 'gonnae no talk pish' (he is half-Scottish), instead his whims are amplified by his 'trade munchkin' (TM Phil Moorhouse) ... and now I am venting. Apologies.
It feels as if your country has caught a fever. It is currently raging, but I am hoping that this phase will be over soon - after all Europe managed to leave its various versions of autocracy behind. We paid an awful price for it, but we seem to have learned from it.
Always interested in your views from outside. It's one of the things I most miss about being a diplomat.
Thank you. I am very pleased with your compliment - after all I am just a civilian.
Re commentary - can I introduce you to my favourite political commentator? It's Phil Moorhouse and he publishes videos on a Youtube channel called 'a different bias'. He's a very astute observer. With a cracking turn of phrase, yesterday it was 'Captain Climbdown'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSxW7Qksi8
One additional point: I for one have difficulty seeing good faith in any of the president's projects, which probably blinds me to the need to point out the apparently obvious to those who see him as a savior. That challenge might be a bridge too far though.
Kissinger is the last person anyone should be listening to, go review his testimony from 1992 on MIA's from the Vietnam War, it's shameful.
Whatever one thinks of Kissinger the statesman (and he himself underscores the marked difference between the statesman and the analyst in terms of responsibility and blame, among other things), you simply can't take anything away from his authentic brilliance as an analyst. I'm blown away by the sheer mass of historical knowledge he wields, the gift for identifying trends in layered and confusing contexts, and the penetrating clarity of his expression. I highly recommend his book Diplomacy. Others, too, for that matter.
I wouldn't read anything he had to say on any topic after 1992. This from the 9/23/92 Baltimore Sun: Under steady questioning, Mr. Kissinger said: “My present gut feeling is that no prisoners were left behind in Vietnam, but that probably some prisoners were left behind in Laos; but I’m not dogmatic about this.” To say some prisoners were probably left behind in Laos and do nothing about it is pure evil. In 1975 3 USMC were also left behind in Cambodia while he was Sec. of State. It's an indelible stain on this nation how they treated Vietnam Servicemen with such callous disregard.
Kissinger shouldn't be lionized or regarded as a statesman, those servicemen in Vietnam deserved so much better and they were forgotten.