# The United States building a 21rst Century alliance system



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2006)

For those of us following what is really happening in WW IV and also factoring in subsidiary activities like the Tsunami response, who gets to visit George W in Crawford etc., it seems apparent the United States is forging a new system of alliances to supplement and eventually replace NATO, the UN and other organizations which no longer serve American interests at home and abroad. (Well, would you join or participate in an organization which worked AGAINST your interests?)

America has strong formal and informal links with the UK and Australia (the Anglosphere nations), "New Europe", Israel and Japan. America has scored a diplomatic triumph recently with India, so they now have a large, dynamic democratic capitalist nation which can assist in securing the southern portion of Asia through diplomatic, economic and (perhaps) military power added to that of the United States.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lowry/lowry200603030827.asp



> *A Diplomatic Triumph*
> Dubya in India.
> 
> President Bush has visited South Asia, and one would expect multilateralist hosannas to be showered on his head. In India, he worked to cement a burgeoning relationship with a dynamic country central to a region where — with China on the rise — geopolitics in the 21st century will be very "interesting," in the unsettling sense of the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
> ...



The question that faces Canada in the coming years is: will we be included in this new Grand Alliance of democratic nations, or be excluded through choice or inaction?


----------



## HDE (3 Mar 2006)

It strikes me that Canada has used the "best friends" concept towards the U.S. far past the expiry date.  Canada is more of a benign non-issue.  The only time the U.S. admin gives us much thought is when our leadership indulge in some gratuitous U.S. bashing.  There's a real need to foster closer ties to the U.S. as it looks more toward other, arguably, more important alliances such as India in the future.  In short we  need to make it a point of making sure we're seen as being onside


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 Mar 2006)

Some quick thoughts

The National Review Article has a basic inaccuracy – the US makes arrangements but never makes an Alliance forever. Check the US political dictionary – Forever isn’t a word.

Some comments on their vital interests from the article

Defeating Islamic radicalism – not soon

Checking proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – to non state actors

Pursuing energy security – its everyone’s pursuit

Funnelling the rise of Chinese power in a responsible direction and keeping the international economy healthy – they’ve been at this since Nixon’s trip in 72 (as has Canada and Trudeau`s trip) 

My take on the trip – Let India Get Rich quick – it has a broad based economy vs. one horse Sheikdoms with Oil – they’ll demand the suppliers perform in line with normalised behaviour vs. look sideways at Anti-west shenanigans. 

US Strategy in 25 words or less - if you think you’re in an Alliance with them think again. Their history since 1783 is that they will consider their needs first and yours if you put the shoulder to the wheel. 

The US has been forecasting trouble in the Mid East since the early 1980s. Conflict has moved out of Europe – to the Balkans – to Iraq Afghan and it’s forecasted to evolve into Sub Sahara Africa. Check the 305 Meg Briefing from Thomas Barnett as well as the Changed Way of Warfare link I found on the CIA Website. One of the articles is the word for word script of the briefing by Barnett. Can’t find it? Just PM me.

I recommend reading James Mann’s book "Rise of The Vulcan’s" 

It suggests US has written off all Alliances we commonly think of e.g.: NATO and the UN since the late 80s. see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670032999/102-5365710-9661739?v=glance&n=283155

Reviews here
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0670032999/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-5365710-9661739?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Another Book to read is Walter McDougall’s "Promised Land, Crusader State" 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395901324/102-5365710-9661739?v=glance&n=283155

Review http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/388

Crusader State says best to stay home - reviews their various foreign adventures since 1898. Published in 1997.

Rise of the Vulcan’s basic premise is that there is no future in any Alliance which says anyone in the world is an equal partner. Alliances have never been permanent – but they allow sluggish thinking to take hold as gospel. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powel, and Richard Armitage are shown in depth, where they come from and why they think the way they do. All said there was no need to accept any less position than number one after Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger tried to get along with the world after Vietnam. They think there are no limits to the future as long as US Military Power in unchallenged. As you may know from your studies of Mao Tse Tung he has a simple rule akin to the Mafia. Power comes out of the mouth of a gun.

Canada can be onside very easily - do our share in line with our GDP. Deployments to every hell hole in the world are maybe not in our best interest but they are in our overall interest. It keeps the regulars sharp and us involved.  The quicker we get to the breaking pint of the regulars the quicker they’ll get more capability. We ain`t there yet.

The days are gone when our focus was Euro-Nato. It’s now global – but we struggle with a North American myopia. 

At the same time - we can - by showing our willingness to demand neighbourly performance from countries around the world - that they police their own neighbourhoods - that it’s in everyone’s best interest. The less they do – the more we end up doing. 

The worst thing we can do is say oh well, we are so far away. And do nothing. Why not recruit 5 more battalions – of short service soldiers and tell the US that the deal is you provide 5 of the 12 C17s for the next 20 years. This will Jack up the fighting power of the forces immensely. The 5 short service Bns would be the main deployment force – seeded with the full timers. In and out in 28 months for the short service soldiers. If they are any good after that let them go to a full time slot.

This leads to a changed Armed Forces. The non state actors out there don't have Fighter Jets and Blue Water Navies. They have sandal shod soldiers and AK74s. In two sentences that’s the rationalisation to get C-17s and the JSS to be able to rapidly deploy in support of the peace keeping and disaster stabilisation roles of the present. Yes – the present. 

My bias - DND and the government have been soft selling the dangerous world beyond Suez far too long and the Canadian Public has not yet woken up. Internal to DND I would write off our strategists – if it was a real need (ie a political need) we would have heard it long before the end of the Lieberals. All the DND policy papers with soldiers tramping through Afghanistan don't make a bit of difference until we see the PM saying I have ordered the following to happen. In the same manner as bottom up soutions don't work in the old Armed Forces - where everyone tries to shave more of the pie for their parochial service interests (Subs anyone?) - the orders must come from the top with a mandate. We have re-organised - now we need the kit. 

Canadians have been too happy to to sit back and sell autoparts south. When those auto plants go to Mexico or China, which they will - NDHQ moves to Calgary.

Frigates? I didn't say anything about them.

Cf18s? Coming soon to a Legion near you.

Can’t take your call – Rick is on the line!  

PS: Some strategic notes for you from Thomas Barnett`s Website and DNI 
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

Something to think about while the minions decide if there’s enough TD (TDY for US readers) money

From Chet Richards' PPT brief on Grand Strategy at 

http://www.d-n-i.net/richards/4GW_and_grand_strategy.pps


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 Mar 2006)

Why pay for it? I don't think I said for free - every one hates Freeloaders. 

I did say a deal though. What that might entail I don't know. Aim is get more troops and get them overseas faster. Rent the 5 planes? Buy 7 is my prediction. 

Sherman - as a fellow USA Canadian you are forgiven for forgetting Cdns never took Lend Lease and aren`t about to start. As for Spine - flip through your Red White and Blue History - get a strategy - then get the tools to carry it out. We've just gone through the 1986 GoldWater Nicholls re-org. We do not yet have the fully developed strategic thinking in place - above the DND level. 

But we do have a big landmass to cover which we cannot at present - hence the long reach required. 
When Vancouver takes a swim - we'll need the long reach. As well - where ever we go is a long trip. We should have enough C17s to get a fair sized contingent anywhere quickly and avoid sea moves to the theatre. 

They can come back by sea. 

PS For all: I hear the boys are eating at Cheney's in Kandahar. 

Anyone miss Camp Julien? 

I bet you do.


----------



## Recce41 (5 Mar 2006)

Well
 I think most Canadians don't trust the US since the late 50s. ie Arrow, BOBCAT,etc. now with softwood. I think we should have done what was to be in the 60s. Get out of NATO, and go independant. With no one to tell us what to do, or who to sell our stuff too. I had read a story about this in a magazine, yrs ago. I outlined a large force, economic resources, and a few other things that would help us. 
 My father said we just went from one big brother (Britain)to another(US) after Korea.  And always told what to do.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (5 Mar 2006)

Sherwood - my mistake on your name.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (5 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Well
> I think most Canadians don't trust the US since the late 50s. ie Arrow, BOBCAT,etc. now with softwood. I think we should have done what was to be in the 60s. Get out of NATO, and go independant. With no one to tell us what to do, or who to sell our stuff too. I had read a story about this in a magazine, yrs ago. I outlined a large force, economic resources, and a few other things that would help us.
> My father said we just went from one big brother (Britain)to another(US) after Korea.  And always told what to do.



But what do you think?

Buzz Hargrove will be the New Hon Col of NDHQ - a Regular Force Unit - as he`s doing everything he can to move it to Calgary as I note above. .


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2006)

Moving back on topic; since India is an emerging power, with a free market economy and a liberal democratic system of government, it is a natural fit as a military, political and economic partner for Canada (certainly more so than another Asian nation with a vast population I could name). Most of the reasons the United States is moving to establish closer relations with India (as well as the Anglosphere, New Europe and Japan) apply to us in full measure as well.

We need to look at the alliances and groups we belong to, assess if they promote *our* interests, if *we* have any impact in them and if they are an *efficient use of our resources*. If they are lacking, then we need to cut our losses and say "goodby/a dieu".


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2006)

> We need to look at the alliances and groups we belong to, assess if they promote our interests, if we have any impact in them and if they are an efficient use of our resources. If they are lacking, then we need to cut our losses and say "goodby/a dieu".



Agree entirely.  I would add however that Canada is in a unique position with respect to resources.  In addition to minimal military forces, and a strong cash position,  a combination that ultimately allowed Britain to achieve Pax Britannica, it has a massive base of natural resources which I would argue is under-exploited.  If Canada ever fully exploited its available natural resource base, similar to the manner in which Alberta exploits its resources then Canada could become as rich as Alberta.  (Unfortunately that would make a bunch of others feel about Canada the way the a lot of Canadians feel about Alberta and then, rather than flying under the international radar we might actually have to consider ourselves a target and act accordingly).

In the meantime, Canada's resource base is such that it can afford not to be efficient in their use and use them to experiment with new policies and alliances.  Experimentation is inefficient but it opens the door to progress.

Canada needs to try more and worry less.  It can afford to make mistakes.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill, although you are right in one sense (we could be an immensely wealthy nation if we exploited our natural resources to the fullest), the key resource in this (and any) age is manpower. Do we have enough trained hands to do all the work, trained thinkers to do the inventing, producing, managing, negotiating and creative work, and of course, enough fit and willing men and women to stand on guard and protect the rest?

Canada has a very small population base (in relative and absolute terms) and is suffering from a very low productivity due to the unfortunate policies of our late and unlamented Liberal government. The new government can make incremental changes to increase productivity in this term in office, but the manpower issue will haunt us for many years to come. Full blown immigration is no help if the new arrivals do not assimilate and follow Canadian values, and of course the policies of allowing unskilled and dependent immigrants simply makes them a net drain on our other resources so long as they are allowed to remain dependent.

India gives us some unique opportunities, since their *middle class is about 2/3 the entire population of the United States*. This is a vast market, and certainly a willing consumer of our resources, and we can literally "outsource" India for some of our foreign policy goals since their interests and ours are aligned (in a very broad sense). You can picture, for example, a Canadian battlegroup doing "Roto 0" in trouble spots, and having a large Indian Brigade following up to secure and stabilize the AOR. We supply the high tech forces to provide the asymmetrical western advantages, and they provide large numbers of professional troops to hold the area. Similar ideas can be floated in the fields of diplomacy, economics and so on.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Mar 2006)

Made me chuckle over that post a_majoor. Like it or not Canada and the US are joined at the hip economically and militarily. Any other relationship for Canada is pure fantasy. Would India protect Canada from a Russian invasion ? I think not. The US would because it is in our national interest. India is a regional power and thats all she will ever be. As a result her interests are primarily tied to defending itself from its neighbors.

Alliances are created for a purpose and when that purpose is no longer relevant it is discarded. NATO is the last vestige of the cold war. There is no longer the threat of Russian invasion and as a result the alliance should be dissolved. As DS showed we can create temporary alliances to acheive specific aims. By dissolving NATO the US can free up manpower sitting in various NATO headquarters for better use. 

Right now the war on terror is front and center. One day islamic radicals will no longer be the threat and may be replaced by some other threat or perhaps the world will see a long stretch of peace.

Right now the US requires allies with large ground force's that can compliment the US military should war fighting be required. If the US cannot accomplish this then the US Army and Marines will have to be maintained at current levels.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (6 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You can picture, for example, a Canadian battlegroup doing "Roto 0" in trouble spots, and having a large Indian Brigade following up to secure and stabilize the AOR. We supply the high tech forces to provide the asymmetrical western advantages, and they provide large numbers of professional troops to hold the area. Similar ideas can be floated in the fields of diplomacy, economics and so on.



Why yes I can imagine! A great observation. But if where you got this idea is where I think you did - remember we have to be willing to seed our support forces not just our combat elements with CAPABILITY.

Still you are leading the tinkers on the board in a good direction!


----------



## 54/102 CEF (6 Mar 2006)

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

All should read as it helps you understand the concepts behind the headlines


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2006)

Tomahawk, while I recognize that the United States is our primary partner in all arenas, there is no reason that Canada cannot and should not (as a sovereign nation) work to secure our own national interests. Since we are a small nation, it only makes sense we should join and work with like minded nations wherever and whenever there is a convergence of interests.

This works to the advantage of the United States as the senior partner as well. Since Canada's interests are closely aligned with those of the United States and her allies, then advancing our interests works to advance the interests of all. India is a good fit for Canada, I think, since many of her interests, such as creating a stable political and economic environment in the region, developing her internal economy and opening up the region for Indian economic growth mesh nicely with ours (and yours); if Canada and India are doing the heavy lifting in south Asia, then the United States is free to devote more attention and resources to other areas (depending on which theory you subscribe to, this could be Huntington's "Civilizational fault lines" or Barnett's "Non Integrating Gap" or some other construct).

54/102, thanks for the vote of confidence. I will certainly continue to "_tinker_" with ideas onn the board ( ), in the hope that some of them may catch fire and our leaders will indeed provide resources to develop the capabilities to make these visions a reality. Of course, we could also end up following up large, professional Indian Brigades when they complete the Roto 0 mission so we can secure and stabilize the AOR....


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2006)

What would that national interest entail majoor ?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What would that national interest entail majoor ?



From DFAIT:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/menu-en.asp



> At the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we develop and implement strategies to promote the Government of Canada's agenda abroad: *global peace and security, prosperity and employment for Canadians*. We also work to better worldwide understanding of Canada, our values, our culture and our capabilities.



In my opinion, these ends can be best served by teaming up with other free market and liberal democratic nations throughout the world (the Anglosphere nations, New Europe, Israel, India, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are the biggest names which come to mind right now) which seems to be the model the United States is following anyway.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2006)

Seem's pretty general. World peace. Security. Business opportunities for Canadian companies. What does India produce that Canadians want ? More call centers ? India could use Canadian oil, but ME oil is closer and shipping cost is lower. The PRC would love Canadian oil and would garrison troops in Canada to protect their energy source. 

The bottom line is that Canada lacks the military power to be an attractive alternative to the US as a military partner for India or anyone else. Second, a nation needs the political will to use military power to acheive national goals. This I think is the major weakness of your argument. The next Liberal or NDP PM would use Canada's military for very limited goals and certainly would not fund the CF to be able to pursue an independent military policy.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2006)

Tomahawk, I see I was a bit unclear.

1. The initial agument is the United States is creating new systems of alliances and partnerships to reflect the changing environment. Canada certainly could and "should" be part of that system, since we share so many common values (*including* "World peace. Security. Business opportunities"). Your point about will was understood, our political class hasn't been playing the US card very well so we risk being shut out of many of the attractive opportunities the new American order might have to offer.

2. As a sovereign nation in our own right, we need to take steps to cultivate relationships with other nations which share our values, regardless of the actions of the United States. This will take the form of finding different means to achieve similar goals. For example, one of the great fears during the Free Trade debates was the United States would create a series of unique bilateral free trade agreements, acting as the "hub" of the system, while our solution was a multilateral NAFTA, which prevented us from being bumped out of other markets. (How well this worked is open for debate [in another thread]). It is true that we are not a military power, but we are an economic one, and also one of the great gateways to the American market, which makes us a potentially attractive partner to the other nations of the world. The big question is what does Canada produce that everyone else wants?

3. Although there is no short term prospect of an Indo-Canadian multi national brigade racing out to the hotspots of the world, it was included as a thought exercise as to what *other* benefits we might accrue through joining forces with other nations having similar values. Even in a situation such as posted earlier, this should be considered in the sense that we would (finally) be pulling our weight as a member of the larger multi-lateral "Western" (or American, if you prefer) system, not as an alternative or in opposition to it.

Certainly Afghanistan could become one place this gets put into action. Canada is destined to commit troops and resources for ten or twenty years to rebuild the nation to protect our national interests. India has a market capitalist economy and democratic traditions they wish to safeguard, and are much closer to Afghanistan, so at some point, I believe they will be coming into Afghanistan to protect their own interests. At that point, since we will be on the ground doing similar things for similar reasons, a certain level of formal and informal collaberation will begin. This will be a lot easier to achieve if the two nations are already bound by bilateral or multilateral political and economic agreements.


----------



## Old Guy (7 Mar 2006)

I think Tomahawk6 has identified the major issue both for Canada and the US.  The US possesses the necessary military power and currently has an administration willing to use that power to achieve national goals.  But there's no guarantee that future administrations will continue in that effort.  Unlike the situation that existed throughout much of the Cold War, the opposition party has degenerated into mindless fury and obstructionism instead of functioning as a 'loyal opposition'.  This situation is bad for both major parties and for the country in general.

Canada, at present, has a professional military too easily dismissed by other countries because of its small size and inability to project intself in meaningful numbers to trouble spots around the globe.  The current administration seems willing to move toward increasing military capabilities, but will that effort survive the next election?  Or the next?

So both countries are faced with the possibility that efforts will go forward in an atmosphere rife with short-term political opportunism and unreal expectations.  In fact, unless exterior forces act to change our current direction, I fear we're in for a period of indecisive muddling.

For the US, a continued trickle of casualties from A-stan and Iraq will gradually drive the electorate to seek alternatives, especially if the administration doesn't do a better job of explaining things.  Another obvious situation that might push voters away from another Republican president would be an intervention in Iran without unmistakeable provocation by the mullahs.  

What if Canada begins to experience a low-level, but seemingly endless, stream of casualties?  Are Canadians as a whole prepared to accept that?  

A future of mundane activity against the Islamofascists is possible.  Such a future would make it difficult for either of our countries to persist effectively in the war on terror.  America's goals in seeking closer ties to India, New Europe and others could easily come undone in an atmosphere of political backbiting and fantasy.  In the face of casualties and lacking a clear sense of danger, Canada may not seize the opportunity to rebuild its military until things get a lot worse.

If America backs away from its responsibilites and if Canada continues to muddle along, what sort of future will we bequeath to our children?  Radical Islam would flood over the Middle East, Africa and probably Europe.  Not all at once -- not in a manner calculated to alarm those among us who shrink from conflict and who have no understanding of the fundamental humanity inherent in modern Western civilization -- but inexorably, a black wave would engulf much of humankind.  What cost in blood and treasure to eliminate that horror twenty years from now?

But, change seems to proceed in a couple major ways.  Either all at once, such as when Pearl Harbor was attacked, or in virtually invisible ways, recognizable only with hindsight.  Seldom does a perceived pattern continue unaltered for any length of time -- at least not recently.  I'm pretty sure we aren't living in one of those stable periods.

What will happen to jolt us into new paths?  If the terror masters were smart and if they really had the level of control over all terror groups that we sometimes believe, they'd simply run a campaign of attrition against us -- and wait.  But I don't see that happening.

Again, what might shove Canada into a more realistic view of the Islamofascist threat?  What might push the average American into supporting the forced ouster of the Iranian and Syrian governments?  What could cause both peoples to understand how poisonous radical Islam really is?

I don't think the present situation will continue.  Bush will attempt to strengthen and broaden his 21st century alliances and he will keep pressure on the terrorists.  Canada has begun the process of stepping back into reality.  I have a general understanding, I think, of how those processes might fail -- but how might they succeed?  

Jim


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2006)

This article exerpt outlines the issue in economic terms which, when you think about it, is what really counts in the end. After all, the Roman Empire essentially bankrupted itself through destructive taxation and wealth redistribution schemes, the British Empire became economically exhausted by fighting two global wars back to back, and many other past Empires and civilizations reached some sort of economic crisis (usually due to brittle and centralized organizations) which either precipitated an exterior crisis (either they attempt to go to war in an effort to distract the population from the economic crisis, or predatory outsiders come to steal whatever is of value) or prevented them from responding to the crisis in an effective manner. The role of the military should be to protect the citizens and their wealth from predatory outsiders.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/darda200603080849.asp



> *Dynamism vs. Demagoguery*
> Politicians represent the greatest threat to this ongoing economic expansion.
> 
> By Michael T. Darda
> ...



India is not mentioned (their trade figures with the United States are not anywhere near the $200 billion mark), but many of the same observations apply to India, New Europe and other American partners as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2006)

Sorry Sherwood, but the Brits started investing in the US in 1607 and have been doing so ever since.  Even when they were fighting you.  They still constitute one of your largest investors, if not the largest.

When does an investor become an owner become a problem?

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2006)

I expect one of the motivations behind the new partnerships like the Anglosphere, New Europe, Japan and India (among others) is to bind them in an ever increasing integration with the American economy. If this is the case, then outsourcing jobs and technology to India becomes a slightly larger version of moving jobs and factories from Michigan to the Sunbelt states.

After all, while you may decry the corporate quest for "comparative advantage", where else will those countries sell their products besides the United States and members of its free market zone? (On the other hand, overt actions like currency manipulation and subsidization should be discouraged by all members of this market zone).


----------



## 54/102 CEF (8 Mar 2006)

Capital goes where its welcomed with laws that say you`ll get paid for work done, low labour costs and doesn`t where this doesn`t happen

I don`t think there is any mystery to the economics


----------



## 54/102 CEF (9 Mar 2006)

One word that kills foreign competition

Innovation

As in Innovative and P38 = end of Yamamoto

Imagine 

Innovation on the same scale as the Manhattan Project vs the fuel hog engine = declining influence of offshore mobility integrators = car companies.

I think the bigger market is internal - somehow get off the natural gas kick.

Go get 'em team!


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2006)

Cheers Maj. Baker.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2006)

Remember, you read it here first!:

http://anglosphere.com/weblog/archives/000291.html



> _Rather that stress the exclusive nature of the Indo-U.S. partnership--which frightens as well as flatters--he might want to point out that other friends of India are also linking themselves more closely to the U.S. in the post-Cold War world. John Howard's Australia is one. Tony Blair's Britain another. Following the recent election in Canada, Stephen Harper's new government is likely to move closer, though cautiously, to the U.S.
> 
> Most of these countries are also connected to each other, to India and to the U.S. by other links: the large and growing Indian diasporas throughout the English-speaking world; the practical esperanto of the English language; the common institutions, legal traditions and liberal ideas inherited from the British; the very modern economic links through the information industry in which India is a world leader; the gradual development of an English-speaking world culture, both high and popular; and a communications revolution which makes cultural similarity a more potent source of international cooperation than geographical proximity.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2006)

Although the main body of the article is about the decline of the EU, the last part suggests a role for the United States (and by extention its new alliance system) to come to the rescue. The factors which are paralyzing Europe are also at work in Canada, and we certainly need to keep the pressure on the new government to act on its five priorities and embark on some economic liberalization as well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200604210606.asp



> *Nothing Sprouts from Brussels*
> A paralyzed Europe.
> 
> Wherever you look today in Western Europe today, the political diagnosis is the same: paralysis.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2006)

Still hard at work on the project, but the Liberalverse is set on trying to derail this. The formation of a powerful and effective global Anglosphere is difficult for them to digest, since it is polar opposite of a world run by the UN:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI5YWM0NDg1ZGRlYWE5ZDRkMGRiOTkzODFjNjkwNWU=



> *Realities & Necessities*
> It’s time to approve the India nuclear deal.
> 
> By William R. Hawkins
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2006)

India has been working long and hard to gain it's new position in the Anglosphere West:

http://www.populardoctrine.com/2006/07/19/take-notice-of-india/



> *Take notice of India*
> 
> It was a year ago today that US President George W. Bush signed a nuclear pact with Indian Prime Minister Singh, a deal which has Raja Mohan in this summer’s Foreign Affairs issue arguing that India will soon hold the balance of power. And he couldn’t be more correct. Our fascination of late has been with the growing economic strength of China, often termed a rising power. *This may very well be the case, but whereas China has taken it upon itself to challenge the US, India has been positioning itself as a key ally.* India is a growing power itself; witnessing unprecedented economic growth, a healthy service industry, and strategic foreign policy purposely designed to increase its international standing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2006)

Sherwood you're part of that solution.  Strategic  DVD consumption.

Henry Ford made cars that his workers could afford to buy so that they would buy the car they made giving themselves employment and making him rich in the process.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2006)

More on the idea of the Anglosphere as the alliance of the 21rst century:

http://mesowest.blogspot.com/2006/11/nato-replacement-anglosphere.html



> *NATO Replacement? The Anglosphere *
> 
> There's increasing talk that NATO is at a crossroads. In its first real test -- Afghanistan -- it has largely failed. Most members either won't send troops or, like Germany, won't deploy them to where they're needed. An example of the thinking in Washington, London and Ottawa can be found in this article in the Washington Times.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2006)

It seems the French may be inclined to assist in the development of the Anglosphere project......if they keep this up.  Not necessarily the best of news for Canada.




> Ségolène urges Britain to choose between Europe and America
> By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent
> Last Updated: 1:57am GMT 22/11/2006
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/20/wsego20.xml



> Somewhat limited visions
> 
> 
> Be they socialist or "right" wing, there is one thing all French politicians have in common – they are French. And being French, they all think the same way, which puts not a Gauloise fag paper between Mme Ségolène Royal and the man she hopes to replace, Jacques l'escroc Chirac.
> ...



http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2006)

An interesting view; and a good reason for co opting India into the Anglosphere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061126/wl_asia_afp/australiachinaindiaeconomygrowth&printer=1



> *West must prepare for Chinese, Indian dominance: Wolfensohn*
> 
> Sat Nov 25, 10:16 PM ET
> 
> ...



My personal prediction is that India, having adopted many of the cultural strengths of the West (free markets, rule of law), will surpass China and potentially become the leading light in the Anglosphere.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

The idea of the Anglosphere continues to grow in the Blogosphere at least. We wait for the day when it becomes a policy foundation for the various nations involved. 

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2006/12/powerful-argument-for-anglosphere.html
http://www.theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/Mandel/20061123MandelAllies.html



> Daniel Mandel in today's The CaliforniaRepublic asks *"Which elements best ensure durable alliances among sovereign nations?" * His answer: "Common interests, coupled with shared historic political institutions and a willingness to integrate military power - with a common language a major bonus." He then goes on to make a clear, point-by-point case:
> 
> Australia, Britain and the United States have much in common. Each has stood apart politically in its region. Each is based on traditions of political liberty anchored in representative, secular government and free trade. Each has fought steadfastly alongside the other two during the past century. And all three share strong naval traditions and modern naval forces. Common language and advanced levels of technology would make naval integration, if not easy, at least achievable. . .
> An Anglosphere alliance would also have a striking geographic advantage in its global naval coverage of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea.



Canada would shore up the northern flank and Arctic Ocean if we were to become major partners in the Anglosphere (and as a wealthy, modern nation based on Western political philosophy why should we _not_ be involved?), and India could start by securing the northern part of the Indian Ocean basin, eventually encompassing an arc reaching from East Africa, SW Asia, SE Asia and the Indonesian archepelago. In time, India will also become the economic powerhouse of the Anglosphere, and tied into what is already the most powerful economic and military network on Earth.

And an echo of Victor Davis Hanson's arguments about the primacy of Western culture:

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2006/12/tony-abbotts-two-cents-worth.html



> *Tony Abbott's two cents' worth*
> 
> Tony Abbott, the Australian federal Health Minister, last week gave a speech to a conference on The Journalist and Islam, organised by Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at NSW Parliament House last week where he explained his opinion as to what made the Anglosphere (his words) great:
> 
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Dec 2006)

I see that Mr Mandel left Canada out.  :'(  I'll get over it.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2006)

More on the Anglosphere project. This also ties into another thread on Army.ca: " About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54277/post-498692.html#msg498692:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-indian-nuclear-agreement.html



> *US-Indian Nuclear Agreement *
> 
> Congress approved a deal between the United States and India on December 9th for greater cooperation between the two nations on nuclear technology. This is a win-win situation for both countries. India is the largest democracy in the world, the largest English speaking country in the world, the second largest in terms of population, and will prove to be a key ally in the war on terror in future years as well as an economic giant.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Dec 2006)

The US has to be prepared to go it alone if necessary. If our allies want to participate wonderful,but we cannot be hamstrung by the need for a coalition before we act. The US as a result must increase the size of its ground forces to be able to act unilaterally. The administration seems to finally realize that the Army and Marines lack the necessary ground forces and will seek to expand both the Army and Marines.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2008)

The fruits of the alliance building project are visible at last (even if discussed in a rather backhanded way). This also ties in with the 9url=http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/64040.0.html]Grand Strategy for the United State[/url] thread

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011522.html



> *GEORGE W. BUSH, MASTER OF DIPLOMACY*
> Holy Haroon Siddiqui! The Toronto Star's leading anti-imperialist, anti-Afghan war, anti-American and pro-Islamist columnist chalks one up for Bush the Younger:
> 
> The increasing irrelevance of the G8 was illustrated yesterday when the summit's most significant event was not even on the agenda – in fact, couldn't have been, given that it involved a non-member, India.
> ...


----------

