The Arrogance of Neocons Is as Limitness as Unimpeachable

Dr. Shurkin authored in 2021 a report advocating for the French military sharing the burden of a US- led war in Eastern Europe. He has now published a video about The French Art of War. Let's boogie.

Michael Shurkin’s is the epitome of the US military-industrial complex and the national security blob “professional”. He ticks all the boxes. Keep in mind that the US military-industrial complex comprises the Pentagone, the US intelligence community, defense contractors, Big Tech, a whole bunch of ‘em think tanks and Ivy League universities. Dr. Shurkin has never seen combat nor an active war zone in his life, as per his bio on The Royal United Services Institute.

Dr Michael Shurkin is an analyst and researcher with a long career in national security, with a focus on West Africa, France, and Europe.

Currently the Director of Global Programs at 14 North Strategies, a Senegal-based risk advisory, Dr Shurkin is also a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He has served as a political analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency and spent 11 years as a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation.

He holds a Ph.D. in modern European history from Yale University (note of the transtor: the CIA’s favorite recruiting ground), and a BA in history from Stanford University. He also studied at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France (noe of the trnslator; according to infomation we have at hand, he spent one semester in Paris).

Please note that we in France have been stupid enough to award l’Ordre National du mérite to Dr. Shurkin, a CIA operative. We struggle to understand what he could have possibly done for France. L’Ordre national du mérite, when awarded to a foreign national, is a chocolate chip medal. L’Ordre du mérite, as La Légion d’honneur, is a “bortherhood” in which only French nationals can be inducted.

Dr. Shurkin’s just published the video below on his YouTube channel (dubbed - don’t laugh - Pax Americana, like his Substack), “The French Art of War”. Needless to say that its content denotes an arrongance only to be found in Washington.

He has co-authored in 2021 (with David A. Ochmanek a former Obama administration top political appointee at the Pentagone and Stéphanie Pezard, a French national) a report for the Rand corporation “A Strong Ally Stretched Thin, An Overview of France's Defense Capabilities from a Burdensharing Perspective”.

This report was shocking when it came out for two reasons:

1 - It depicted France and other European nations as essentially subordinate, proxies lacking true sovereignty.

2 - It sat forth the war in Ukraine, provoked by the USA, and implied that we would be bound to partake despite this war serving only American interests, not those of France or the rest of Europe.

At that time, I wrote the following article.

---

Can a RAND Corporation report on France be useful to France ?

France is an ally , not a "partner". Wars are not waged by law firms and business consultancies but by nations.
July, 01, 2021

I've always been flabbergasted by American think tanks, particularly those funded by government moneys. Not because their reports lack depth or interest, nor because their researchers are intellectually limited: they aren't.

My astonishment comes from how these government-funded think tanks are consistently exposing the intentions of the U.S. administration while still being viewed by the public as neutral and objective experts.

Let me be clear: no nationalist or knee-jerk reactions here. My concern is genuine. I fear I see where this is heading, and I'm speaking my mind openly.

What's the purpose of analyzing French military capabilities based on a highly unlikely scenario?

When I read in a publically available report titled "A Strong Ally Stretched Thin" that "France could support a U.S.-led war effort in Eastern Europe now or in the next ten years," I reckon this as the work of strategists from the Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit pushing an agenda. The authors include a former CIA Political Analyst (who spent one semester year at Paris' EHESS), a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development under the Obama administration, and, to round out the team, a French researcher previously with the Small Arms Survey in Geneva.

Believing that France as a nation would fall for this nudge would be either naive or excessively arrogant, except the French mainstream media, known for its low journalistic standards and masochistic tendencies, jumping straight into the trap with headlines like "An American Think Tank Severely Criticizes The French Military."

What the devil is "burden sharing"? No country goes to war to bear another's burden. A military coalition or alliance members primarily shares strategic interests, goals and intentions. It is not and will never be in France’s and Europ’s interests to enter into a collision course with Russia.

What's the likelihood of a prolonged, high-intensity, conventional U.S.-led war in Eastern Europe in the next decade? None.

It's far less likely than a civil war breaking out in France. The overwhelming majority of the French public would not support a war against Russia, and opposition would be stronger, more resolute, and more aggressive than for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. All's well: Russia neither has the intent nor the capabilities to invade Western Europe.

Why analyze French military capabilities through the lens of an improbable scenario? What's the point when France's military isn't primarily configured for this unlikely event?

The Biden administration has adopted the same stance as the Obama administration with regards to Russia, fueled by neocon delusion. What does this tell us about the Biden administration ? That it is striving to start a war with Russia, most likely through one or several proxies and the expense of all other NATO members and european economies.

The strategy is to pressure weak French politicians (and Emmanuel Macron is notably weak) into designing a military that complements the U.S for the sole purpose of serving U.S. interest.

The goal is to push France away from its strategic doctrine of long-range, in-depth yet relatively small external operations, which are supported by Europe's most powerful navy, air force, and amphibious capabilities.

The objective is to gain strategic control for the U.S. Navy over France's maritime domain, the second largest in the world.

There's also an intent to dismantle parts of France's defense industry, a major U.S. competitor, with Germany's help.

In a "stage blocking session" for my podcast series on the French-American fight against communism after WWII, I reiterate how FDR's intent to place France under U.S. military administration was one of history's most foolish ideas. Now, it seems we have another one courtesy of the Biden administration.

What lies between France and Eastern Europe? Germany. The country whose close half of all defense expenditures are de facto covered by U.S. taxpayers, and which was hesitant to engage its troops in actual combat in Afghanistan (1-800-VeeNeedCAS).

If you talk to any American officer or serviceman who has recently fought alongside French troops, here's what you'll hear :

• The French military is the only European military capable of operating independently anywhere without needing to be transported, resupplied, and babysat by the U.S.

• The French military is the most combat-experienced in Europe on all terrains.

• France is the only major European NATO member meeting its defense spending commitments. Most problems listed in the RAND report are steming from political incompetence.

• France is the only EU member with serious and effective ISR capabilities.

If "burden sharing" is the idea, isn't it foolish to encourage your oldest ally, who has Europe's most capable military, to become less capable?

My concern is that the Biden administration, like all US administration since the end of WWII (at the exception may be of the 2 Nixon administrations), prefers lapdogs over allies.

Is this what's meant by "multilateralism"? Secretary Blinken's public interference in France's and the UK's consular affairs was a sign of this, and this RAND report, led by a former Obama appointee, amplifies it.

Forgive my French, but when the shit hits the fan, who needs a lapdog?

---

Looks that my analysis back in July 2021 was spot on, bullseye. Washington has again caused hundreds of thousands of dead out of sheer hubris and strategic inadequacy, and will have Europe to pay for it.

Dr. Shurkin has participated to generating the catastrophy that the war in Ukraine turned to be, like any other U.S. military endeavor for the past 80 years (except the invasion of Grenada and Panama, two fierce and powerfull enemies at par with the U.S. military)

We French and Europeans are sick and tired of Americans neocons patronizing us, as they have a very shallow and limited understanding of the world.

Here are my comments on the content of Dr. Shurkin’s video, keeping in mind that he is CIA (once in, never out).

Do you speak fluent French? Clearly not, given your difficulty pronouncing "Couteau-Bégarie," which would be as straightforward for any fluent French speaker than pronouncing Micheal Shurkin for any fluent English speaker. How can you claim to understand French military doctrine when your French is subpar?

The book by Couteau-Bégarie you reference, while excellent, serves as an introductory course on strategy in general and does not delve specifically into the French approach to warfare. It does not provide any doctrinal element that is not publically availabale.

Regarding your sources, Yakovleff has been featured in mainstream media since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict as describing the Russian military as poorly led, ill-equipped, and composed of drunken soldiers—views that reflect more on his grasp of reality than on the actual situation. He is not recognized as a military thinker but rather as a lackey, a role he began in Bosnia. Similarly, Michel Goya has written some insightful books from historical and tactical perspectives, but he is neither a strategist nor a military thinker, nor a particularly sharp analyst, as evidenced by his misleading commentary on the Ukraine war over the last three years. Neither Yakovleff nor Goya has significantly influenced French military doctrine or thinking.

You've overlooked three key post-WWII French strategists: Ailleret, Beaufre, and Poirier. You also fail to mention contemporary strategic thinkers like Admiral Jacques Dufourcq, who would not engage with you in the manner that the officers and bureaucrats in bespoke uniforms, whom you claim as your sources, did. Those actively contributing to the French military would offer nothing more than polite, superficial conversation to a former CIA analyst now at RAND.

You've also missed discussing influential figures like Hogard, Trinquier, and Galula, whose work has deeply impacted French military thought, particularly in de-emphasizing firepower and shaping approaches to Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC), crucial for French overseas operations (OPEX).

Your video appears uninformed, mundane, biased, and stereotypically "American" in the most negative sense—reflecting a neocon perspective from someone who has spent too much time at DC cocktail parties.

You are essentially rehashing the RAND Corporation report you co-authored in 2021 (see: eclaireur.substack.com/p/a-rand-corporation-report-about-france).

You do not possess a better understanding of French military doctrine than French officers because you are not part of its ongoing development process. The comment yoi claimed a French General made was likely a polite and ironic way of telling you to mind your own business.

I suggest you redo this video. If Yale condones this kind of ideologically biased work, then its tuition fees are not justified.

It is time for us French and Western Europeans to re-evaluate our relationship with the US and tell the Yankees to go home, while helping Donald Trump draining his swamp and draining ours.