Here’s a quick quiz: What happened on June 21st, 1966?

It’s a bit esoteric, and I suspect it isn’t even taught anywhere any more, but it was an important date, for it was the date that French President Charles de Gaulle sent a brief note to President Johnson that contains this simple line:

France is determined to regain on her whole territory the full exercise of her sovereignty.

And with that, de Gaulle, French War hero and president, withdrew France from the military side of NATO. France would remain a member of NATO, but would not participate militarily with the other members of the alliance; France alone would command French forces, to include her nuclear forces.

In short, France was putting France first. As de Gaulle noted, “Countries don’t have friends, they have interests.”

This used to be the first and last lesson in both strategic thinking and foreign affairs: no matter what else happens, you always need to look out for yourself as no one else will. No one else will because they are looking out for themselves. The corollary is that no matter what you may think, no one will look out for your interests when doing so starts to hurt theirs.

Said differently, de Gaulle (and France) was simply stating the obvious, French interests were more important to the French than anyone else’s interests.

This doesn’t however seem to mesh perfectly with foreign affairs as they’re viewed by many, particularly those who now either wish to influence the Biden team’s foreign policy agenda, or perhaps wish an active role in a Biden administration. Recently, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis went so far as to call for Biden to: “take America First out of the national security policy.”

What does he want? America Second?

Mr. Mattis goes on to call for the US to strengthen various alliances that he suggests have been weakened over the past 4 years, and asserts that American cannot go it alone. To be sure, alliances are important. As Churchill once noted, the only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting one without allies.

Mr. Mattis discusses working with allies, but in doing so suggests that Mr. Trump has not. Yet, Mr Trump has, indeed worked with allies; consider the remarkable agreements engineered between Israel and a number of Middle East nations, agreements that weren’t even on the horizon before Mr. Trump took office, agreements that, even singly, would have warranted a Nobel Peace Prize for a democratic president. Or the work done with India that promises to reshape the strategic landscape in South and South East Asia. Or the work done to contain North Korea. Or the work done with Eastern European nations.

But, there’s something not quite right with the world seen through the lens of the America Second crowd.

Should we maintain alliances that cost the US more than they benefit the US? Shouldn’t every administration ask that question? If a nation won’t act in it’s own self-interest, should the US insist on acting for it? If certain members of NATO, for example, refuse to spend even 1% of their GDP on national security, should the US simply take up the burden?

Almost 20 years ago I recall a discussion about one Asian ally and the suggestion from a member of Congress that they increase the amount they paid to support US presence. One policy maven responded that: “They already contribute 3 or 4 billion to the US to support our presence.” The answer was that yes, indeed they do. But we should never forget that: “for $3 billion per year, they get the benefit of a $300 billion military.” And it might have been added, the benefit of several tens of billions spent on intelligence.

In short, never forget that our allies are looking after their national interests first and foremost. Why does this concept seem lost on so many who’ve spent time inside the Washington DC echo chamber?

Or is the issue that the Trump administration didn’t work with the correct allies? After all, moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem was, according to the foreign policy echo chamber, sure to destroy any chance for any Middle East settlement. We need to work with the Palestinians. And the Iranians. And the Chinese. And to hell with the British, the Polish, Israel, and especially the Republic of China.

It seems the Echo Chamber wishes to undo what has been done and replace it with more concessions to Beijing, more trade with Iran, and the continuation of the forever war in Afghanistan. The Echo Chamber wants a more “cooperative” posture in foreign affairs, “less confrontation,” more work with allies, more “holding the course for the long haul,” more “long term planning,” more “strategic thought.”

Yet, these are the same people who gave us the same answers for three decades, in China, in the Middle East, and in Africa. And missed every strategic shift since the Germans invaded Poland. Instead of clear thinking, and recognition that some problems simply are not going to be solved, we’re told we need to recognize that problems such as Afghanistan require a “non-linear” effort, and that we must “build capacity.”

In case you’re one of the great unwashed, incapable of understanding the “subtle, nuanced” lexicon of the E-Ring of the Pentagon or the 7th Floor of the State Department, this means to leave these problems to the cognoscenti and however many decades it takes, well, be quiet, pay your taxes and keep sending special operators and Marines to Third World ratholes for the indefinite future.

So, I’d end with this simple question, for all us simple Americans who live outside the Beltway: if a country doesn’t place its own interests first, exactly whose interests are placed first? And who decides? Perhaps, these foreign policy experts might clarify that so the Marines know which country they are fighting for.

Copyright 20202 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com