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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
George Friedman and the Good War
I think the gist is, we are there, it's not going to get better, and we are going to be staying. He sums it up,
If the endgame in Iraq is murky, the endgame if Afghanistan is invisible.
Still, if we are going to keep AQ neutralized, we have to keep the Taliban off balance.
The neutralist disagrees. Our position is that we shall be forced out sooner or later and we compound the disaster by staying.
We have made it clear, the war was a mistake to begin with. Maybe, if we had bagged OBL and bugged out we could have claimed something, but we didn't. The most intelligent strategy I have ever heard was best explained in a letter to the Antiwar.com letters page years ago. It was posted by George D. of the UK, "the terrorists could have been hunted one-by-one by having a special task force that deals with it, like Israel did in hunting the Nazi war criminals, without going to war with the country that provided shelter for them." Of course such a policy would need focus over a long term and could not be a TV war and no party out of power would have been able to resist accusing the administration of doing nothing.
George ends on the following note,
Thus, while it may be a better war than Iraq in some sense, it is not a war that can be won or even ended. It just goes on.
See our previous discussion of Afghanistan