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.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
War on Terror: Drones Target 41 but Kill 1,147 Mostly Innocent men, Women, and Children-Neutralist asks, Does this make you safer?
The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.
Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.
Monday, November 24, 2014
The Neutralist, however, took the part that serves our purpose. To quote the Colonel,
The armed forces are being asked to assume larger and larger missions in the Middle East, Afghanistan and West Africa. At the same time the money needed to maintain DoD operations and perform such functions as Strategic Triad modernization has largely disappeared in the welter of sequestration and general reductions in budget. Understandably the generals and admirals are pushing back and the constitutional way for them to do that is through the civilian head of the Department of Defense.The back pressure was probably displayed last week in a loosening of ROE in Afghanistan.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
This most recent kerfluffle has been a sham. Mosey on over to read Jason Ditz at Antiwar blog. His story, Yazidis Weren’t Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions
State Dept Tries to Credit US With Solving Phony Problem, has stiffened my neutralist resolve.
Friday, August 01, 2014
As the Neutralist, we have only one opinion and it was originally stated in a post on January 8, 2009.
We repost it in its entirety here.
Gaza and the Neutralist
So it goes without saying, we believe it is not the business of the American State to be involved in this conflict. We should not be on either side, neither should we be trying to make peace. We have been pretty much a failure in this regard and it does not look like we will better our record in the future.
We have nothing to fear from the Palestinians militarily. They are not going to acquire a carrier fleet and amphibious landing craft and sail to invade Manhattan anytime soon. Granted, they have no love for us, not that I blame them. Certainly, considering that, we should be reticent with letting them immigrate here.
One supposes the Israelis could send their air force all the way, refueling in flight to bomb Wall Street. Of course, what would be the point. Our financial geniuses have more or less done that already.
No we have no business being there. The Neutralist Policy is not to be there.
That does not mean there won't be consequences. Economically, if every Palestinian left the Middle East, there probably would be little impact on the world.
If Israel were destroyed, it would be a disaster of vast import. In spite of lousy government, the Israelis have a brilliant record of invention and improvement. The loss to the world if, say Technion were gutted would be horrible.
There is a high school robotics competition every year in the US and Israel sends a number of teams. The Arab world sends none that I know of. Those young minds will grow to be engineers and their loss would be tragic.
So what does the Neutralist, as a Neutralist suggest Israel do without the support of its sponsor. Years ago, on a now defunct webzine, I wrote the following,
As to strategy that I would pursue if I were the Israeli PM: build that fence. There is an historical incentive for Ariel that he should not miss out on. If it is built well enough it will be spoken of as Sharon's Fence in the same way as is Hadrian's Wall. As Russell Crowe said, "What we do in this life, echoes in eternity." Yeah, there are problems with fencing, as there are with all strategies, but from my vantage point it appears to be the best of whatever there is, short of the Israeli government sending Jews and Arabs into a timeout.
If we were a neutralist country, we would not ally with Israel, but we would cooperate with any nation that was, as William Lind put it, a center of order.
There are other aspects of this. If the Palestinians want to be a state, who cares? A state that existed and had all the apparatus of such an entity would have every incentive to not bug the Israelis. As things are going now, the Hamas apparatus will suffer numerous deaths and then reconstitute itself as a more virulent organism once the current operation runs its course. The Neutralist is just guessing in most predictions. The only thing we are sure of is that our involvement is a sure loser.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
According to one website it is due to the South Stream Pipeline. According to Sylvia Todorova at WhoWhatWhy, The US has become the largest producer of Natural Gas and would like to sell it across the pond in liquefied form.
The Neutralist cannot say this is the real story. We do, however, agree that the idea we really care for justice may not be the complete truth.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
If the American governments reaction to Flight MH 17 doesn't make the case for Neutralism, you are never going to get it
It is hard not to escape the thought that all main stream media is propaganda. From hyper-left MSNBC to Neocon Fox the drumbeat is little different.
The desire to blame Russia, or the Eastern Ukrainians and therefore Russia has nothing to do with real guilt or innocence. The Neutralist does not claim to have the story behind the story as to why we absolutely have to run the table in Eastern Europe. It might be so the dopey VP's kid can keep his sinecure. If he's anything like the old man, he ain't cut out for real work. Maybe it is something to do with keeping the dollar the world currency. Of course, if we hadn't kept devaluing it over decades that might not be a problem.
Whatever the reason we're bugging Vlad, it is not worth mutually assured incineration if we go too far.
No one is asking the question, but why can't we just leave? What if enough people said, "ya know, both incarnations of the Bush-Obama administration have gone from failure to failure, maybe we should really try something different. Let's leave."
Of course, at that point, the neocons and other foreign policy hot shots would say, "But, but Putin could takeover Ukraine and maybe finlandize a lot of other territory."
Yeah, so what. If what we've seen of the Ukies these last several months, he can have them. The only real question is what can he do to us?
In real terms, we are doing it to ourselves, but the question is fair. There are some things he can do and probably is. There are allusions in the press that is he talking with the Brics about setting up a rival system for settling payments. Who can blame him?
As to hurting us, he can take measures on the periphery of taking the part of countries that we are bugging elsewhere. Again, why wouldn't he?
If we were not there, much of the incentive for the first goes away and just about all of the second evaporates.
He can not come after us with a carrier fleet and an invasion flotilla because he does not have one, nor will he acquire one anytime soon.
What do we get out of saying au revoir? We see an end to a sea of problems and expenses.
That's it folks. We don't have to be there, in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa anywhere. We don't have to be there.
Now there are some out there who will argue that we have to be over there to secure petroleum supplies. I remember the argument some local talk show nut used to use locally, "What is our oil doing under there soil?" Don't have a ready answer, but oil is fungible and usually available for purchase. Maybe we consult the Swiss on how a neutral gets hydrocarbons.
The point is we really don't have to be there. The moms and dads who have lost sons and daughters since 2001 have had them stolen, because, in real terms, they did not have to be there.
So if you, my one or two readers have a neutralist ethos, when someone you know spouts off about how we have to show Putin a thing or two, ask why and don't stop. When he proves to you that he has listened and absorbed all that the talking heads have spouted, don't try to prove him wrong, just keep asking why we should care.
And when he says, "Yeah, but he could be in Moldova in a week!" Ask him what part of the United States Moldova is in?
Monday, June 30, 2014
But the emotional legacies are different for different countries. For France the war, however bloody, was a necessary response to invasion. Preventing the German Army from reaching Paris in the first battle of the Marne spelled the difference between freedom and slavery.The words above were written by an elite journalist in the paper of record. Mr. Erlanger has punched all the tickets, Harvard, the Times, a shared Pulitzer. For a writer to conjure up the Gauls as all enchained by Les Boches is absurd. True, the Germans would not have been gentle, but like after the unpleasantness of the early 1870s, they would have left.
Oh well, Mr. Erlanger appears to be reliably neocon so not much else can be expected.
After all, when Charlie Thin put up money to help save the Grey Lady, it wasn't to get a quality product.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
If the Old World wants to be sans Rus, their taxpayers can pay for defense.
Anyway, in the words of Will Smith in Men in Black, "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'." The trouble has our fingerprints all over it. (see here, but I suspect my few readers already have).
Justin Raimondo has an account at antiwar.com of our new millennium stupidity. I am linking if anyone needs a history lesson. We've been over the territory here before.
It's time to bring back all the boys from "Over There." Cohan could write a catchy tune, but it was dumb then, it's dumber now.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
We suspend our fundraiser in favor of the most worthy antiwar.com in spite of Justin's refusal to use the word Neutralist
Monday, January 27, 2014
First, he has written a Neutralist Manifesto to rival the one on this site.
If the United States insists on its status as the dominant and unchallengeable military power, then we are on the road to conflict, certainly a new Cold War the beginning of which the “pivot” represents, and quite possibly we are on the road to WWIII. We in the United States are the ones who can control this and perhaps save the world from the very worst suffering and deadly conflict. The answer is to abandon Empire, dismantle our overseas bases, end our occupation of foreign nations, including South Korea, Japan and Germany, adopt a defensive strategy to protect our land and come home. Trade and talk, yes. Military intervention, no. We have a potential partner for peace in China. Let us give it a try. Establish trust and verify it. In short, Come Home America. A paradise awaits us here. Let us leave others in peace to construct their own.
Lovely stuff that.
Our second reason is he is a founding member of an organization called Come Home America that embodies what we believe. Now our investigation of the website has not been exhaustive so maybe we should be a little bit reticent to extend fulsome praise. It would not do to find out that they are for coming home because the Grand Goggflek of the Planet Nogemal has communicated with them. If that turns out to be true, we withdraw approval, at least until Goggflek signals us directly.
We are not overly worried and suggest a visit to http://comehomeamerica.wordpress.com/
It is a site that has attained neutralismo even if they don't know it.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Kristol does not mention Siegfried Sassoon. Sassoon was also a war poet and as brave a soldier as Owen. He was decorated with the Military Cross. After being wounded, he refused to go back to the war. The futility was too much and he turned against the whole project.
Kristol notes that the beginning of “The Great War” is the bicentennial of the War of 1812. He quotes the Star Spangled Banner Then Conquer we must verse. So a war we incompetently drifted into justifies all the silly deaths of 1914-1918?
One is tempted to ask if they taught logic at Harvard. That is irrelevant. Kristol surely understands a valid syllogism. What is going on is he is being cute. His conservatism is all pretense. A conservative foreign policy would emulate Switzerland's. We, as a people got nothing out of our intervention in the First World War. We are getting none out of our Middle-Eastern adventures.
Kristol and the Weekly Standard staff are going on a cruise to schmooze with the subscribers. Let us all applaud that sacrifice as our boys in Afghanistan hunker down in a meaningless conflict. I doubt Mr. Warrior will be too upset if there are casualty reports while he is at sea.
Kristol, would probably quote with approval the words of Herbert Croly when he was pushing for WWI, "The American nation needs the tonic of a serious moral adventure." Croly was one of the founders of The National Review and an uber-progressive and like Kristol a chickenhawk. I don't really believe Kristol is stupid enough to believe the stuff he spouts, but if he does, he's a lunatic.
Hat tip to Mediaite and Lew Rockwell blog.