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.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Can someone please tell the Neutralist how having even one soldier in Afghanistan is keeping us free?

We have thousands of lads and lasses stationed in Afghanistan and no one thinks they are there to win the war or a war or something.  Is it a holding action?  No one quite knows, but they are there.

Now, according to the 
Voice of America on June 27th, we are sending 1,500 troops to Afghanistan to augment our forces in whatever the mission is.

The title of the VOA article says it all, US Sends Fresh Troops to Afghanistan as Policy Debate Continues. 

So, instead of getting the mission right first, we will send in fresh meat and have the interminable "conversation" about why.  To quote Jon Lovitz, "Yeah, that's the ticket."

Meanwhile, politicians and celebrity chicken hawks will tell us we need to support the troops because they are keeping us free.

Putting aside for the moment what the definition of "free" is, the Neutralist would love to have an answer as to how some American out in the Afghan boondocks is keeping us free?

If we really all supported the troops we wouldn't send them to the ends of the Earth to languish for no purpose.

On May 9, 2017 in 
Business Insider, Paul Szoldra, Marine veteran of the Afghan mess, had an article about the situation.  It is a good description of mess.  He has some pithy quotes starting off hot with,

What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan right now?

I ask this very important question because President Donald Trump's senior advisers are proposing sending thousands of additional US troops there so they can "start winning" again, according to one official who spoke with The Washington Post.

That would be great if the word "winning" could be defined.

Mr. Szoldra also says, "Reality check: We're not. And we probably never will be. The war in Afghanistan has been a lost cause for a long time."

There are other intelligent words in his article, but he wrecks it all with,

I don't want to "lose" in Afghanistan. There is a lot we can do to turn the situation around there. But the way forward is not to send in a few thousand more soldiers who would inevitably feed failure. 
The war requires a full, independent review of the situation — and, most importantly, realistic goals and a clear strategy for achieving them.

He does not want to "lose."  That contradicts all that he had said.  What there is to win, he already made it clear, nothing.

For Mr. Szoldra and all my countrymen, let me define what losing in Afghanistan is.  Losing is staying.



-->

-->

Thursday, April 20, 2017

And the Ton Kin Gulf hoax award goes to The Donald

After campaigning as the peace candidate, well less war candidate, Donald Trump decided to show himself a tough guy.

Actually, he showed himself weak as a kitten.

With no proof, or even evidence he launched a not very effective strike agains a Syrian air base.  The president defended his decision by saying, “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,”

Now, chemical weapons are not pleasant to contemplate and it is true, they are deadly as are bullets and depth charges and all the other instruments in the arsenals of most countries.  One should not want them spreading, but how is a small not so surgical strike serve our national interest?

In truth the whole justification is a lie and all in government who went along with should be ashamed of themselves.

If you disagree with the Neutralist, I urge you to visit Sic Semper Tyrannis and read some evidence of absence.


Monday, March 27, 2017

Martin van Creveld nails it and writes a neutralist article.

Military historian Martin van Creveld is always interesting and usually right.  Recently, he hit one out of the park.  On March 16, 2017 he addressed a post to our New President detailing the failures of the powers to order the world.  We quote:

"1944-1948. A few hundred active “terrorists” hound the British out of Palestine, leading to the establishment of the State of Israel.1946-1954. French troops are defeated in Indochina, leading to Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian independence.1948-1960. British troops fail to hold Malaya and end up by withdrawing from the country. Thanks to a masterpiece of propaganda, the Brits make most of the world believe that they had actually won the war. But this does not prevent Malaysia from becoming independent state. 1950-1953, Western forces, operating under UN auspices, wage against North Korea and China. The outcome, stalemate, is probably the best that could have been achieved. 1953-1960. British troops fail to defeat the Mau Mau Revolt in Kenya, ending up by withdrawing from the country, which gained its independence. 1954-1962. The War in Algeria, which had been a French colony for well over a century, ends with a humiliating defeat for France. 1955-1960. An insurgency forces the British to give up Cyprus, which becomes an independent country. 1963-1967. Another insurgency forces the British to surrender Aden. Ditto. 1965-1972. The Second Vietnam War, which was the largest of them by far, ends with the decisive defeat of the US and its allies and their final withdrawal. 1970-1975. As part of the Second Vietnam War, the US invaded Cambodia. In 1975 it had to throw in the towel. With the US cowed and decolonization all but complete, major Western attempts to intervene in the developing world came to a halt. 1982-1984. A small continent of US troops enters Lebanon, but quickly leaves again after terrorists start blowing them up. 1991-1992. The US and its allies, provoked by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, go to war. In almost seventy years, this is the only campaign that resulted in a clear victory. As a result, President George Bush declares that the US “has overcome the Vietnam Syndrome.”1993.   The US and its allies send troops into Somalia. To absolutely no avail, except for turning that country into an even worse hell than it already was.2002-present. To avenge 9-11, the US and its allies invade Afghanistan. The resulting mess is still waiting to be cleared up. 2003-present. The US and its allies invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein is overthrown and, ultimately, killed. However, once again the outcome is a mess that has still not been resolved. 2005-present. French and British forces, initially supported by US cruise missiles, assist local militias in overthrowing Dictator Muammar Gadhafi. The outcome is the same as in Iraq. 2011-present. Small NATO contingents take part in Syria’s murderous civil war, but achieve practically nothing. Thanks in part to Russian aid, the side whom the US and its allies oppose, i.e. President Assad, seems to be gaining the upper hand. Are you listening, President Trump?"

Sadly, It appears that the man who campaigned on getting along with Russia and trying to dial back the world cop is probably not.

Martin van Creveld may not be a neutralist, but he has written an excellent neutralist column


Saturday, March 04, 2017

Bill Maher and the cult of the veteran

Bill Maher had Milo Yiannopoulos on his show just before the lad's melt down.  Milo was performing his schtick as was the host.  Neither had the wit to realize they are getting old. Supposedly Milo's fifteen are done.  We shall see if he can do a reinvention.

There were a few other guests.  Former Republican congressman Jack Kingston was civil and inoffensive and appeared mildly amused.

Not very funny comic Larry Wilmore took offense at Milo being a jerk and truly showed why he no longer has a show.

The other panelist was Malcolm Nance. When Milo disparaged the other members of the panel and Nance, Maher gestured to Mr. Nance and said:

"This guy has done things that allowed you to #$%^%&! live."

This is ridiculous.  On his Wiki page, the man seems to have had a distinguisged career in intel and intel related functions.  The Neutralist likes that he came out emphatically against waterboarding.

But, to say he allowed Yiannopulos to "#$%^%&! live" or even to merely live is ridiculous.  Yet the trope that what is being done by a member of the intel community allows us to keep breathing insults one's intelligence and says little for Mr. Maher's.

This is not to say that Mr. Nance is not a true intel professional.  From that wiki page, we should assume he is.  Like most of his colleagues, his work is not keeping us safe, rather the opposite.

As we chase our tales in the Mid-East and foster trouble in  Eastern Europe we make ourselves poorer and hasten the day of our ruin.

Grow up Bill.  Of course, that will never happen.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Calling McCain a bozo is an unfair insult to the clowns! Good on Rand for calling him out

John McCain has it in for President Trump.  He has in public consistently proclaimed his disdain for the president.  It is hard not to ask, "what's his problem?"

By any objective measure, Big Media has ganged up on Trump.  So The Donald has asked Congress to write laws outlawing the press.  Due to this flagrant anti-constitutional initiative, the ever heroic Senator McCain has come to the defense of our civic order.
"They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," McCain said. "And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
The only problem is, Trump did not ask congress to suppress free press.  The sniveling MCCain was responding to Trump's tweet


  1. The FAKE NEWS media (failing , , , , ) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
  2. The Donald is stating an opinion and hardly smashing the presses.  The Arizona Senator was being cute.
Trump was not The Neutralist's candidate.  We preferred Rand Paul.  Actually, our heart will always be with his dad and Rand flipped the flop a bit before he exited the primary campaign.  One thing he has though, is John McCain's number.
 

Senator Paul said on a TV appearance we are “very lucky” that Trump is president and not McCain,
Heck, even though Obama turned out to be a drone warrior, we are lucky that McCain did not beat even him.
Rand says McCain has  a “personal dispute” with the president over foreign policy.
 “Everything that he says about the president is colored by his own personal dispute he’s got running with President Trump, and it should be taken with a grain of salt, because John McCain’s the guy who’s advocated for war everywhere,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“He would bankrupt the nation. We’re very lucky John McCain’s not in charge, because I think we’d be in perpetual war,” Paul added.
(Love ya, Rand, but if you haven't noticed, we are in perpetual war)
 “I would say John McCain’s been wrong on just about everything over the last four decades. He advocated for the Iraq War, which I think destabilized the Middle East,” Rand, also said.
“If you look at the map, there’s probably at least six different countries where John McCain has advocated for us having boots on the ground,”
Go Rand, you could step into your dad’s shoes someday if you keep this up.
There is more to the McCain problem, however.  On Boston Herald Radio last week, Massachusetts Congressman Bill Keating said,
John McCain certainly is one of the most knowledgeable foreign affairs people and particularly when it comes to Russia.  And he’s advancing this to what extent he’ll be able to do it I don’t know but he seems to me on the senate side a person that’s clearly putting partisan issues aside and dealing with the issue directly. 

Now Mr. Keating, like the rest of the Bay State delegation have not a non-partisan bone in their bodies.  We can translate what he said into English as , “I hate Trump and am willing to ally with someone I am not too keen on to do our dirty work.”

The Neutralist may be getting the nuances a little bit wrong, but it is close enough.

The real question is what drives McCain?

Is he just crazy?

Is he getting some instructions from Neocon Central?

What is going on in that head?

If you have an answer, Please let the Neutralist know.

To finish off, we have always wondered why people who were for the Iraq war are listened to by anyone.

That goes double for McCain.