The Neutralist

Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Being against immigration does not mean you hate the foreigner

NPR no longer makes even a pretense at balance.  It doesn't have to.  It is all about sympathy for the poor victims of "Islamophobia" or something.

So this is just to say, one does not need to hate the foreigner to not want them to be here.  That there may be some wonderful folks among the refugees does not mean admitting them is all good.  The undeniable fact is that if no immigrants had been allowed in France, there would have been no Paris bombing.

Of course, one does not need to hate another to not want to have them as neighbors.  I don't hate people who listen to loud music at 3:00 a.m., but I don't want to live in the same apartment.

We have people in the West spouting about how the refugees are salt of the Earth and the terrorists are perverting the faith.  One needs to look to history for what is reality.

When Thomas Jefferson asked the Ambassador of Tripoli in London, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right the Barbary states took our ships and enslaved sailors and demanded tribute the envoy replied,

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Now this would have been mainstream Muslim theology back in the day.  Why would it have changed?  A religion that changes doctrine with the wind is not much of a belief system.  The diplomat said it without trying to soften it.  It was certainly believed in Tripoli, Cairo, Constantinople and kabul as well.

There is no reason to believe it is not the theology to day.  There is no reason to belief your peacefull, professional neighbor, if honest would not say, "Well, yes, I do have a right to enslave you, but it is not in my interest at this point in time."  If he does not say it, if asked, he is being cute.

If the above is true, both for the short and long term, separation is the best and most humane policy.

The Neutralist is open to correction.  If someone can, without obfuscation, reasonably convince me that the Haji was wrong and an aberration back in the day, I am open to hear it.

I suspect I won't be putting a coexist bumper sticker on the car anytime soon.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

After Paris, what is to be done?

I write this full in the knowledge that anything I suggest has no chance of happening.  It appears that the present dispensation will continue with a few verses of The Marseillaise and some facebook status pictures of faces with a tricolor background.

So this is just an academic exercise.

Keep in mind, all of what is below is from a neutralist point of view.

First, close the door.  One cannot argue that if there were no Muslims in France that what occurred would have happened as it did.  They can't get in uless they are let in.

Second, all foreigners leave.  Oh gosh, that sounds so Trump, but unless one can prove that their presence improves the lives of the natives, then au revoir.

Third, Stop bugging people in other countries.  France has been bombing in the Middle East for years.  I understand ISIS, from a secular, western point of view is evil, but one should not be surprised when they strike back.  

Fourth, stop propping up Saudi Arabia.  Yeah, I like to drive my car and I know that petroleum is what goes into the tank.  That does not mean if the Saudi so-called Royal Family is removed that there will never be another drop of oil refined in this world.  We may have to spend a extra for it, but being rid of the Wahabis would be a net plus for the world.

Being in the Middle East makes no sense.  The people individually may be okay, but as nations they suck.  Nothing they have did they invent.  Even the numbers they write came from India.  Spreading democracy is a hopeless errand.

The only reasonable policy, and I am not endorsing it, is the Crudsades.  That is, making life safe for Christians and anyone who does not want to bug someone because of their religion.

The Neutralist does not claim to know the exact reasons the US and some EU countries are in the ME.  We don't know why they have let foreigners swamp them. when patrol craft could stop refugees from landing.  All we know is that it is stupid to let it continue.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Just sayin' Relatively speaking Assad's not a bad guy

911 -No involvement by B.Assad
Shoe bomber -No involvement by B.Assad
Tsarnaev bombing -No involvement by B.Assad
Charlie Hedbo -No involvement by B.Assad
Paris attacks -No involvement by B.Assad

This list is not conclusive.  Assad has no hand in any incident.  

The governments of the 'west are run by jerks.  One cannot be kind.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Trump still least goofy presidential candidate

I did not watch the debate but their are enough livebloggers that one can get a flavor of the debate.  This fellow does a good job and his comment

"10:38 While I was eating a snack, I heard Trump say that if Assad goes, the guy who replaces him might be worse. A wise statement."

solidified Trump as the best of the lot.  Still, that adds up to least goofy as only a neutralist FP is a long run winner.

The most sensible comment on that blog was this by Maj:

"And why does every candidate (except Trump and Paul) need to compete for who will be the most eager to start WWIII with Russia? People the Evil Empire ended 25 years ago. Our interests are no longer diametrically opposed due to clashing political ideologies. If anything we should be thinking about allying with Russia for our mutual benefit and against Islamic jihadists."

This is in line with our past posts on centers of order.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

What makes sense in Syria-Somebody knows and it ain't the USG

Thanks to Isegoria, I know some of what the War Nerd writes, or at least some good stuff.  The War Nerd is behind the Pando Paywall, and the Neutralist, having never had a successful fundraising campaign, must work on the cheap.

As the Neutralist has noted before, the American media is all propaganda all the time.  As regards Syria, it publishes or broadcasts the mantra of Assad must go while tacitly supporting the entity they consider the enemy in Iraq.  That it is in no sense sane was up until a few short weeks ago irrelevant.

Then something happened that changed everything.  The Russians arrived and acted like they had a viable plan.  Immediately, the media sniped at the Commie Russian intervention.

the War Nerd writes for Pando.  I never warmed to the site.  Maybe it's because there is just too much out there on the web.  More it's attitudinal.  Pando writers are not without a holier than though outlook.  Everyone else is racist and stupid or something.

The War Nerd is a pseudonym, but the persona is of a loser cubicle slave who has a war jones.  A little more endearing than the "we're cool guys and your not" vibe of the rest of the columns.

Anyway, The Neutralist agrees with the words of the War nerd as posted to Isegoria;

Russia is using its air force to try to blast out a viable territory for an Alawite/Shia state along the Syrian coastal hills. Assad’s people are longtime Russian clients and allies, and the Russian air force is helping them maintain their key turf against a much more numerous enemy. It may fail, but at least that’s a reasonable plan.
At the moment, Russia’s planes are focusing on a triangle of Sunni-held territory north of Homs, trying to blast a path for Assad’s weak infantry. If you look at these verygood graphics put together (it pains me to admit) by the New York Times, you can see what a sensible, traditional military move that is. Scroll down to the two maps captioned “Many of the Initial Airstrikes Were Near the Boundaries Between Government and Rebel Zones” and go to the second map. You’ll see a T-shaped yellow zone marking Sunni-held territory due north of Homs, along the key road to Hama and Aleppo.
That’s where the Russian strikes have been hitting hardest lately, in Sunni-held crossroads towns like Ter Maela, right on the M5 highway that runs north to Hama and Aleppo, south to Damascus. That highway is the key to Syria, a kind of spinal cord like the big vein down a shrimp’s back. If the Russians can obliterate Ter Maela’s defenders thoroughly enough to let Assad’s weak infantry (or maybe his much better Hezbollah or Iranian ringers) take and hold these villages, then the Alawites have the makings of a viable state.

At this point Isegoria Interjected; "The US air campaign, on the other hand, does not make much sense:"

If you were to sum it up, it’d go something like this: “Hit Sunni targets east of the coastal hills, but ignore everything to the west; help the Kurds in the north, but grudgingly, as little as possible, for fear you’ll offend Turkey; and while you’re attacking Assad’s enemies, keep reassuring the Israelis that you’re just as anti-Assad as you are anti-Islamic State.”
Sound stupid? It is. It’s a ridiculous compromise adopted to please the Israelis and Saudis, based on the dumb-ass notion that Sunni fighters in eastern Syria are evil sectarian bastards, but the Sunni fighters facing off against the SAA in the west are “moderates.”
It’s true that Islamic State is uncommonly vile, but let’s not lie; the only faction in Syria that even tries to rise above sectarian hatred are the young Kurdish commies of YPG/J. Every other group is sectarian, and militias that start out sectarian only get meaner as they go, by the iron logic of primitive war, where massacre is the norm. And this sectarian taint isn’t new. Syria’s Sunni were chanting “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the graveyard” long before the fighting started.
Again Isegoria; "Air strikes look clean from air, messy from the ground:"

As a rule, you can tell when the media approve of air strikes by the angle. If it’s all nice clean pilot’s-view of distant explosions, it’s a good strike. If they show you funerals, weeping relatives, blasted apartments, it’s a bad strike. So you can tell, just from the headline — “This Is What the Russian Air Strikes in Syria Look Like from the Ground” — that it’s a bad strike.

Whoever is running American Foeign Policy is not doing much of a job.  This has been so since Bush I.*  Leadership fails sooner or later and even if we got a intelligent administration, it would be but an interregnum until a correlation of forces returned and dumb came back in vogue.

Thus, as Johnny one note we again state, that a neutralist ethos needs to inform our body politic permanently.  The alternative is disaster as is happening now.

So whatever we may think of the rest of Pando, el Nerdos articles are interesting and here is a link if you are inclined to subscribe.  The War Nerd is worth the rest of the site, which is like other progressive sites such as Vox except with a paywall.

*I know everyone loves to hate Reagan, but I suggest you read Suzanne Massie's book on Reagan and Russia, you might think differently about the man.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

AJ Schmeltzer and the bogeyman of Syria

Bashar Assad has got to go.  It's almost a mantra of people like John Kerry.  Assad is a big meanie and if he had left at the beginning of the uprising in Syria, the country would be heaven on earth.

Why, Kerry even compared him to Hitler.  Of course, if you have not compared someone to Dolf, you probably have not been in a senior policy position, but we digress.

The media speaks as one on the Syrian president's evil.  It is all ad hominem.  They do give us little of substance, and I'm waiting.

In Massachusetts back in the 80s, a man was convicted of horrible crimes against little children.  The malefactions took place in a secret room on the property.  The secret room was never found, but the hysteria led to conviction and the press was in no way glorious.

I am surprised that Assad doesn't have a secret room.  Well, maybe his police do in that bad neighborhood.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in this country, all news is propaganda.

The most blatantly stupid piece was Diane Sawyer and the women snipers of Syria.

So what's the point of all this?

Over at the indispensable Sic Semper Tyrannis website of Col. Lang, there is a post by AJ Schmeltzer  that goes into some depth as to Assad and his situation.  Yes he is the strongman of a country in MENA.  Someone has to do the job or you get Libya Iraq as they are now.

Two sections of the post are instructive:

2: In the original protests, Assad initially attempted negotiations, but, partly due to ingrained behavior and partly due to the quite considerably regime casulties even in the "peacefull" phase, supporters of a "forcefull" approach within Syrian security won out, and attempted to solve the issue by force.
3: Temporarly, this put Assad himself between all chairs. The opposition viewed him as a traitor (due to the security organization being very violent despite orders to the contrary) and the security state himself viewed him as a weakling due to his non-violent orders.
The American assistance that "Assad must go", as a precondition of entering any negotiations was, under that background, seen as sheer bad faith by the Russians. Assad could be utilized as a tool to rein in the Syrian Mukhabarat, and he was/is certainly more controllable/civilized then the people actually running the various Mukhabarats, removing him would achieve nothing, other then the Mukhabarat fighting completely gloves off for its own survival.
We see that Assad is not the devil and our press and government are jerks.
As neutralists, we feel a country with such a juvenile outlook as ours should not even have a foreign policy.

Monday, October 19, 2015

World War II will never end!

Went as a guest to a concert put on by the Air Force Concert Band.  It was a good show.  Sort of like the Boston Pops in uniform.

The show celebrated the end of World War II.  It was well done, but when are we going to start having events that feature our glorious post-Big One military adventures.  How come, instead of "In the Mood" and Andrews Sisters songs don't we have cultural celebrations of Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf wars, Afghanistan et al.

Can the Neutralist get support for a mini series, Grenada, that will sort of be like The Pacific or Band of Brothers?

Thought not.

There is not much to celebrate.

At the beginning, there were introductions.  One of them was for the recruiter in case anyone might be interested during intermission or after the show.  Noticing all the white hair and dearth of youth in the audience, her job yesterday was a forlorn quest.