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.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Sec/Def Gates comes out of the closet-He's a neutralist
“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”
Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.
Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"
Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.
And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.