The Neutralist

The Neutralist is suspending its fundraiser in favor of antiwar.com

2012-02-15T05:50:00.000-08:00

We suspend our fundraiser

The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are again suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.

Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........

Defeat in Afghanistan-No matter how you slice it

2012-02-09T05:56:00.000-08:00

No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney. Al Smith.

Such were the words of an American politician. They have that ring like PK Dick's definition of reality. The question is almost ridiculous to ask. It is not so much have we lost, but why did we think there is anything to gain in the first place. Well, the Neutralist takes no pleasure in this. The young men and others who have died there were a waste. Some will do jail time because they gave in to frustrations they should never have been subject two.

We have two articles to link to. The first is by Lt.Col. Daniel L. Davis. In the Armed Forces Journal article, Truth, lies and Afghanistan, Col. Davis outlines the falsity of all that is going on in Afghanistan. His experience seems to shout that what we mere citizens are fed here is happy talk.

The other article is from Stratfor. In Afghanistan: Moving Toward a Distant Endgame, George Friedman writes,

Ultimately, the United States could remain in Afghanistan indefinitely and there is nothing the Taliban could do about it. But the United States cannot defeat the Taliban. The Taliban have nowhere to go and no desire to leave. The United States has other issues to attend to and no overriding strategic interest in Afghanistan. From the American point of view, its presence in Afghanistan does not reduce Islamist threats to the homeland but it does absorb military resources.

Mr. Friedman is intelligent, but I doubt we can remain indefinitely. Better to say, for sometime until we break. Better to leave long before that.

One has to give great credit to Col. Davis. To speak out so might not be considered career enhancing. Or, does the fact that it was published in AFJ mean something?

If everyone knows we are leaving, sooner or later without any real victory, then staying is a betrayal of the lives of the young men who serve. Especially in light of Col. Davis' outline of the quagmire.

Chris Hedges sues Obama over indefinite detention-Has nice words for Santorum

2012-01-18T19:15:00.000-08:00

Below is a video of Chris Hedges. It is an interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now
. I am not a man of the left, nor am I a small d democrat. As a constitutionalist, surely there are many things Amy, Chris and moi disagree on. There is, however, not much in this video I can gainsay. I do think a better choice of words would have been corporativist elite than corporate elites. It may be a quibble, but many big corporations do not have the standing that say Goldman or GE or Morgan do in influencing or controlling policy.

Yet in light of the fact that the security establishment did not want the indefinite detention aspects of the bill, his deduction that elite fear is the driver is not something to be dismissed. In truth it scares the Neutralist all the more. In the long run, it cannot succeed and points up how brittle the system is that it perceives this as necessary. For a time, it will cause much suffering. People this desperate have crossed a Rubicon.

Of course this might be a declaration that we have lost overseas. After all, were "we not fighting them over there so we did not have to fight them over there?" Maybe that should have been all along, "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight ourselves over here."

Other small observations: has Mitt Romney ever read the bill of rights? I thought Rick Santorum a mindless chickenhawk opportunist, but give the lad his due. He explained our rights under the constitution as well as Chris might have.

Jacob Sullum on Ron Paul the non-Isolationist

2012-01-06T10:16:00.000-08:00

At reason.com Jacob Sullum has a fine article on Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs. My only disagreement is that he does not use the n word. Neutralism is what a non-isolationist, non-interventionist ethos really means. Then again, maybe I'm just splitting hairs.

Mr. Sullum starts off with a bang,

Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul's foreign policy views as "isolationist" because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.

I can't say Mr. Sullum is channeling the Neutralist, but his words,

The inaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored.

are close enough to our words to the right, The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet.

Mr. Sullum then distills Paul's ideas,

As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense—in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.

Where the Neutralist might disagree is the second sentence. A military response of invading a landlocked country and chasing one's tales was the wrong response to 911.

Still, all in all a wonderful Neutralist column even without the word.

Over at the CFR they ask, Was the Iraq war worth it? To whom?

2012-01-04T10:47:00.000-08:00

The Council on Foreign Relations has taken their sweet time about it, but they have held a roundup to ask if the Iraq War was worth it. They've rounded up some experts to opine. We'll summarize:

Andrew Bacevich of Boston University lost a son in a war he was never excited about. Conceding that Saddam's demise makes a better world, he does not see much else positive. Quote, Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft. With all remaining prudential, normative, and constitutional barriers to the use of force having now been set aside, war has become a normal condition, something that the great majority of Americans accept without complaint. War is U.S. The Neutralist would argue that maybe a world with Saddam would be better than the eternal American war.

Next up to bat is chicken hawk, Max Boot. He bats for the home team as a sinecurista, being Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations. Max is hopeful. The lad's argument is that the Korean War led to a rich successful South Korea. Taking out troops now leaves him worried that the vast progress attained might falter. He would have us leave troops until they are not needed like in ..............South Korea. His comment is a great argument for we should never have gone there. Unfortunately, neither he nor the CFR will get that.

The third man is Michael Ignatieff, Professor, University of Toronto and failed Canadian Prime Ministerial candidate. Whatever his deficiencies as a politician, he hit the first pitch out of the park in his analysis, "The question to begin with is: worth it to whom?" He continues to score points, If we add the damage that mendacious claims about WMD did to U.S. credibility, the relative strengthening of Iran in the region and the continuing failure of Iraq to achieve democratic stability, it becomes ever more difficult to believe the war was worth it. He makes Boot look......let's be kind.

The final savant is Michael O'Hanlon who is Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution. Boy is that a surprise. I don't know if Mikey likes it as in the old commercial, but Mikey likes himself. As he self-congratulated, I made mistakes in my Iraq analysis over the years at times, but one thing I surely got right was to warn from 2001 onward that any war would be very difficult and challenging -- as in a 2001 Washington Post op-ed with Philip Gordon that provoked Ken Adelman's well-known "cakewalk" op-ed in reply [Washington Post link not available]. Gordon and I predicted no cakewalk. Gee, Mike can you remember any of the mistakes?

Mr. O'Hanlon concludes, So any interim assessment on my part at this stage would have to voice skepticism that the war was worth it. But again, as noted, I remain hopeful that over time, the benefits will be substantial and palpable enough to make the debate interesting. We are not there yet, however. No kidding.

It was a war on spec with no credible evidence to justify starting it. That O'Hanlon and Boot are employed anywhere other than as carney shills is true evidence of failing upward. It's not what you say, but who you say it for.

We have pondered the question here at the Neutralist Institute and have come up with our answer to the question, was the Iraq War worth it? If you are not an Iraqi killed in the violence or a dead or, injured Serviceman of any nationality, or an American taxpayer, it was all just hunky dory.

Do you see anything? Moi, nothing. David Pakman and Peter Ingemi do not confront the elephants in the room

2011-12-31T18:04:00.000-08:00

The last day of the year and I am driving on Route 9 here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts from Wormtown to the Holy City of Noho. This is truly a privilege as I get to listen to the radio and go from the loony right to the vapid left in one drive.

First up is Mr. Peter Ingemi, DaTechGuy on WCRN. He did not talk tech, but politics as is his wont. He sounds like what he is, a tea partier who was downsized and moved on. He does not like Ronnie Paul because he won't save us from the muzzies or something.

As Worcester receded, and I got closer to Happy Valley. Mr. David Pakman's voice got clearer on WHMP. He is a bit more focused in his weltanschaung. Ronnie had misgivings about evolution and ergo is not fit to be president. Your man has a point. Washington, Adams and Jefferson never heard of Darwin and they sucked as presidents and human beings.

Saturday is a talk radio ghetto. I may have been one of the pairs only listeners. Guys in working class Worcester are out doing something. The cool people out west are listening to Bob and Ray, I mean Tom and Ray and Car Talk from the Ministry of Information.

It has been a hard few years for our country. The average person's net worth is way down. Still, no matter how hard it is, there is no one in this country so poor that they cannot afford an elephant in their living room to ignore. The president has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. If you agree with Glenn Greenwald, this is about as big a deal as it gets constitutionally.

El Presidente signs it today and nada from either Mutt or Jeff. Now, I suspect the techie likes it because, gosh, we gotta be secure and he is always tired of hiding under the bed. The bad news is who signed it.

Pakman, it is a little tougher. You had George Bush and all his wars and now you have the demi-god and the wars have not changed (other than some cosmetic withdrawls). An honest man would have to say Obama was a fraud. Well, an honest man would say that.

As we head into the 12th year of the Bush/Obama administration maybe Rodney King couldn't get us to all get along, but there is at least some consensus in the Ingemi/Pakman Axis.

I believe in evolution, but opposing the NDAA and not believing evo is okay with me. Being for NDAA and believing in NDAA is evidence of personal devolution.

David Pakman does his best to be the smarmiest guy on WHMP. The competition is fierce. Learn more about him here.

You can learn more about Mr. Ingemi here.

In truth, I may have not heard it because I was listening in the car. If I am mistaken and they took the issue on, they have my apology. If Mr. Pakman called Obama on it, I'll need a pacemaker.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012-finally and admission that fighting them over there was a sham

2011-12-22T05:26:00.000-08:00

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has passed and the president is to sign it. So we used to say we were fighting them over there so we would not have to fight them over here. Well the Neutralist never said it. We believe the whole posture of our so called War on Terror is a scam. When semi chicken hawk (is a legal guy in the army, medal for paper cuts maybe), Lindsay Graham said the bill would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" he admitted as much. If we are at this point, the terrorists have won.
Gene Healy's column, If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights at the Washington Times is worth reading.

Has any congress member, aside from those who voted no, ever read the Constitution?

He has truly won!

2011-12-18T18:05:00.000-08:00

Somewhere, maybe Drudge, it was noted, the biggest story of 2011 is the death of OBL. There was a victory dance or ten caught on media. The heartbreaking aspect of it all is that dead or alive, he won. If we won, the new defense authorization act could be slimmer and indefinite detention would not be on it.

Radley Balko had a post in May outlining our defeat. If you don't sigh after reading, you don't get it.

Droning on and on

2011-12-14T17:30:00.000-08:00

So, we've been using drones for years and they are pretty spiffy. It's been such a success that a drone was used to recapture some errant cows. The Neutralist is not a psychometrician, but we feel we have proof that proof that Iranians are smarter than cows. They seem to have captured a drone used by, we guess, the Air Force. So the relative IQ scale is Iranians, drones, cows. I won't go on with this, because as an American, I find it embarrassing.

So we are using drones and have covert ops going on in Iran. Yet we are in high dudgeon over a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that looks pretty shaky. So it's right and just for us to bug the Persians because we're the good guys, but not right for them to do something here that might or might not be a set-up.

The Iranians have been telling us to go fry ice for a number of years now. I just hope they don't have a viable plan to close the Strait of Hormuz as the Neutralist does not like an interesting life.

America's greatest chickenhawk is dissing the pres who has to be saying, "what have I gotta do. I killed Osama and gave you another war and am deploying troops to more countries."

Well BHO, I have a suggestion. Insert Cheney to retake the drone.

Pearl Harbor - Isn't that an elephant here in the room with us-Nah!

2011-12-09T17:53:00.000-08:00

Pearl Harbor Day was Wednesday and was remembered less then when I was young. All my relatives who were in The Second World War are no longer with us.

No matter, the great epic is still with us. A film or documentary can be counted on every so often. The main thing for the great and good is to keep up the front that this was a holy war led by holy men. With great effort this can be done with Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin is a problem. You might find a few of his defenders on the north bank of the Charles River, but even there, they are sparse.

The Diane Rehm show commemorated the day with guest host Tom Gjelton and two authors.; Ian Toll and Steven Gillon. According to the bio notes, Mr. Stoll is a former Wall Street analyst, Federal Reserve financial analyst, political aide and speechwriter; he the author of a previous book on naval history, "Six Frigates." Steven Gillon is a history professor and author of numerous books, including "The Kennedy Assassination - 24 Hours"; resident historian for The History Channel. The two men discussed the events leading up to the attack. It was informative, but what it does not address in detail is Herbert Hoover’s book, Freedom Betrayed. Talk about large elephants in the room and everyone pretending to “normalcy.” Whatever one might think about Herb and the Depression, is there anyone who thinks he was a nut or a liar? To not mention the book or address Hoover's points about an FDR campaign to inveigle the Japanese into war when such a book has been out since November 7 is cute or maybe the lads didn't know about the tome?

Pat Buchannan, as expected, has been all over it. With a review of the Hoover book, he details the efforts of the Roosevelt administration to get a war against the wishes of much of the nation. He details Hoover's account of Japan's efforts to avoid war and Team Roosevelt's work to avoid avoiding war. His piece is all over the web including TownHall which all too often appears to be Neocon heaven.

It has been the practice in this country mainly to ignore challenges to the orthodox doctrine. On occasion, the challenge is taken up to dismiss efforts.

So how does the Neutralist see this. In 1954, the great military historian and theoretician, Basil Liddell Hart wrote:

In reply President Roosevelt demanded , on the 24th July 1941, the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Indo-China ----and to enforce his demands he issued orders on the 26th for freezing all Japanese assets in the U.S.A. and placing an embargo on oil supply. Mr. Churchill took simultaneous action and two days later the refugee Dutch Government in London was induced to follow suit----which meant, as Mr. Churchill has remarked, that ‘Japan was deprived at a stroke of her vital oil supplies.’

In early discussions it had always been recognized that such a paralyzing stroke would force Japan to fight, as the only alternative to collapse or the abandonment of her policy. It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four months, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo. The United States Government refused to lift it, unless Japan withdrew not only from Indo-China but also from China. No government, least of all the Japanese could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions.*

There is much controversy in the life of Liddell Hart. Suffice it to say, he had no political ax to grind, and it was no way controversial to say Roosevelt wanted to get into World War II at the time LH wrote. Point to Hoover.

The Neutralist position is that war cannot always be avoided, and the Neutralist never wants to see us ever lose, but greatness exists in avoiding committing your countrymen to death and destruction, while insuring that the interests of the nation are accomplished.

All else, even with victory, is failure.

Strategy,by B.H. Liddill Hart, 1954, 1967 by Faber & Faber Ltd., London, England, Page 254.

Marco Rubio and the sanity test

2011-12-06T07:21:00.000-08:00

I know my countrymen do not care and maybe the world does not either, but one wonders why an alliance of ~~near~~ broke nations would want to commit to defending a geographically isolated country known mostly for spawning maybe history's greatest tyrant. It would be bad enough to suggest this if the country we would go to war with for our ally was weak as a kitten. Granted the Bear ain't what he used to be but as the cliche goes, one nuke can ruin your whole day.

Proposing such an alliance would constitute the flunking of a sanity test. Jack Hunter over at the Daily Caller is on the case.

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

Gosh, ya gotta love that Paul family. See, when Marco was flunking, Rand was passing his sanity test with flying colors.

Of course, the Neutralist could be wrong. We humbly beg anyone out there who believes an alliance with the Georgians is a good idea to please set us straight. Good luck.

When insanity becomes too obvious to deny, continue to deny-The Pakistani bombing

2011-11-28T05:07:00.000-08:00

Okay, Drudge has all the links you need. The Neutralist has no interest in posting them. It was bound to happen I guess. Twenty-four Pak soldiers killed. Even if they had done something to draw fire, which no one so far avers, the nation of Pakistan should be saying, "why to we even pretend to be the allies of the US."

The grand folly of our nation is that we are fighting a war in a landlocked country and we depend on a nation that has no real reason to be our ally. They control the supply lines. We are like an asthmatic breathing through a long straw. If this is not the disaster that makes us rethink policy, I hate to think what that would be.

Mercy and Justice Reign in the New Libya-NOT

2011-11-24T06:32:00.000-08:00

Any but the most naive knew this would happen. Drudge links with this headline, MILITIA GROUPS RUN WILD IN LIBYA. Now who'd a thunk it?

Not Patrick Coburn. In the Brit Independent he has an article with a headline, This was always a civil war, and the victors are not merciful. the headline says it all, but read for some inspiring details.

Our point at the Neutralist. Well we don't know the whole story, but if Mama Hilary et al went in to bring truth, justice and the American way, they were stupidly naive. If it was for hydrocarbons, hey lumpen America, lets hope you see that at the pump.

I doubt lumpen Libya is going to benefit.

Let us stop and think we before we go to war with Iran

2011-11-21T19:08:00.000-08:00

A recent article titled American spies outed, CIA suffers in Lebanon. we find our CIA has suffered horribly at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It seems the Lebanese and their Iranian allies are no slouches at the intelligence game.

This begs the question, how can we trust anything our intel people tell us. The Khost bombing and now this. Our agencies do seem hapless.

One could be forgiven if the current drumbeat for an Iranian adventure seems even less on the money than the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hysteria. Of course, how could anything be less on the money than that?

From Gavinthink-Defense is a Public Good. So spend less on it.

2011-10-26T06:47:00.000-07:00

Please note: The Neutralist is posting the original work of Gavin Andresen from his blog, Gavinthink. You can see it on his blog here. He is worth reading on other subjects as well.

When economists talk about something being a "public good" they don't mean "nice stuff that the government does."

The definition of a public good is something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Or in non-econogeek-speak, stuff that doesn't run out no matter how many people use it, and stuff that benefits everybody whether they pay for it or not.

National defense is a public good. I'm not saying all national militaries are "good" -- I think lots of militaries around the world are evil and the world would be a better place without them. But the idea of national defense is a public good-- assuming you're pretty happy with your government and don't want Foreign Invaders to take over your country, everybody benefits from a national military standing guard and keeping you safe. And assuming the Foreign Invader Threat doesn't grow as your population grows, the same military can protect 100 thousand people as easily as it can protect 100 million.

National defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

One funny thing about public goods is since they're non-rivalrous, you can serve more and more people while spending the same amount of money. But we don't do that; we spend more and more money on the military. In all the debates about "cutting" military spending the most radical proposals still keep spending at some constant percentage of GDP.

Why?

We should be able to get the same level of safety from Foreign Invaders with a constant level of military spending, no matter how large our population or economy grows. We'd all be much better off, and much safer, if we cut military spending by 90% and spent the money on just about anything else.

What was that all about? Libya at war's end?

2011-10-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

Naturally, a country swimming on light crude makes one think the overthrow might have been about securing some cheap gas, not for us lumpen slugs, but maybe for an oil company or four. The Neutralist sure doesn't know, just lets his inner paranoiac out. This guy has an idea it might have been Mo suggesting al alternative monetary system. Again, we don't know. Maybe such interpretations are whacko, but no more than the belief it was peace,freedom and goodness led NATO and us into support of the noble Libyans.

Speaking of the noble Libyan opposition, This has been hard to miss:

You may not have seen it with one of our grande dame:

What a barbarian.

With a fair trial, Mo could have been sentenced to death. It is a sad commentary that his demise means the world is no better or worse.

See Eric for alternate take on Brother-Leader.

Col. Patrick Lang has an interesting and useful website called Sic Semper Tyrannis. He was early on calling for intervention. I do not think he came out of this looking at all well. Back on the 25th of February he wrote, "As a "card carrying" non-interventionist (isolationist maybe?), I think that I have the "street cred" to call for intervention in Libya." This of course is like the people I met in a previous incarnation who would say, "I never took a dime from the government," to justify a little feeding at the trough. He may disagree, but I thought him gung ho and blithe. Anyway,he should give up his card.

That was then. Maintenant is another story. Last Friday, he wrote, "How did he die? Who cares? IMO the "Gs" killed him after they got through kicking him around. They are not soldiers. They are undisciplined civilian enthusiasts with a smidgin of training. If MQ had died in an ambush or as the "Gs" shot their way into his hideout a lot of you would think nothing of it." Hey it happens, he wrote, he was a cheerleader, someone else get the mop. No pottery barn for The Colonel.

Oh well, this wasn't as costly as some of our other interventions. Onto Uganda.

I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks!

2011-10-16T15:24:00.000-07:00

Not really/ What I believe in is conspiracy theories. Okay, believe in is a tad strong. When I was a kid, I heard it bandied about that the oil companies had paid to stop an inventor of a pill from marketing it. A teacher spouted this in a junior high class.

Hey, i want to be one of the cool people and dismissing conspiracy theories is the way to do it. Unfortunately, my government makes it hard.

No, there has to be at least some plausibility. Fortunately, your government is giving you stuff you have to question. The Iranian plot is so inane, that you have to ask, is this my country on crack?

So I'm waiting of another WTC7 explanation.

Lesson here kids; you don't have to believe any conspiracy theory, but your nuts if you think it ain't possible.

Why do the words Turner Joy pop into my mind?

2011-10-12T06:20:00.000-07:00

The Iranian assassination plot may be what the government says it is, even putting aside the timing questions linked to on Drudge. Why would the Persians do this in DC? One guy questioned on NPR said they might want to provoke conflict to solve domestic divisions. Why not kill a US ambassador somewhere else with less effort required?

We at the Neutralist remember the Tonkin Gulf Incident and Resolution. It is not that the government always fabricates, but sometimes it does.

Justin thinks it's fake, and many of the commenters at Sic Semper Tyrannis were not gentle.

Boob bait for the Bubbas or are we wanting confrontation to take the nation's mind off our problems? What do we know?

Syria is the new whatever

2011-08-19T15:15:00.000-07:00

So your man Berkshire Hathaway, sorry, Bashir Assad (but what's the diff in the long run)is in the crosshairs of..... I think it was State and some other countries. Or so I think I heard when only paying superficial attention to the Ministry of Info......NPR. Monsieur Assad is a horrible meany who may even split infinitives. Yeah, he's killed a lot of civilians which is quite a feat without drones.

So what happens when he goes? Who cares? I doubt La Hilary has a clue. That is not addressed in all the news coverage.

In fact the coverage, such as I've heard, is laughably superficial. The Middle East is a tough neighborhood with fault lines Americans can hardly imagine.

Now, let me be a bit superficial myself. Not an expert on Syria, but here goes. You got your Sunnis including Sufis. They are not in power, but demonstrating and want it.

Next are Alawites. The pres is one and they are the power. They have reason to fight to the bitter end, because if they lose, the end will be bitter. Then come the Christians. They are somewhat with the Alawites as their fat would be in the fire if the Alawites are done in.

Then you have your Druze, Yazidis, Shias and some others. Get ya scorecard! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Of course the press is painting the opposition as the spawn of Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Maybe not:

Christian communities almost 2,000 years old have been destroyed in Iraq, and that will be their fate in Syria, too. As the opposition openly says, Christians are to be expelled and their property confiscated, and Alawites are to be massacred (the tiny Muslim sect that the Syrian rulers belong to). The empire is about to have even more blood on its hands, if there is room.

Why hasn't that been reported by the journalistic tribunes of the truth? For more of the story behind the story, go here.

So what do we get out of this? Dunno. Are there hydrocarbons? Are the Israelis and Iranians in play on this? Given our national predilection for quagmires, not much good can be expected from this quick sand.

The late Social Democrat John Roche said there was an Irish saying that one should never get involved in the religious wars of churches to which one did not belong. Don't know much about Paddy Proverbs but this one sounds reasonable.

Somebody please give Donald Rumsfeld his courage and his honor

2011-08-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

Mish Shedlock had a post on his Global Economic Trend Analysis blog that should bother everyone. I was vaguely aware of the case, but reading about it on his page brought it into focus, disturbingly so.

The title of the post is U.S. Circuit Judge Upholds Right of Two US Citizens, Tortured in Iraq, to Sue Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for Torture (link here). So did the former Secdef actually waterboard the men personally. Of course not. I would have more respect, well, less disrespect for him if he did. No, the accusation is that the functionary approved the actions. Mish quotes an article below.

Among the methods of torture used against them during several weeks in military camps was sleep deprivation and a practice known as 'walling', in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges Mr Rumsfeld personally participated in approving the methods for use by the U.S. military in Iraq, making him responsible, it argues, for what happened to Mr Vance and Mr Ertel.

If the two men in question go forward and prove their case, The Attorney General in a decent country would then criminally charge Rumsfeld. It should not come to that.

In a movie about the Dreyfus affair, the railroaded Captain is handed a pistol and a bottle. He is told, "Here is your courage and your honor."

Maybe I'm just a simple fellow who just does not get it. Can someone tell me the National Security purpose of torturing these guys?

The can has been kicked

2011-08-01T05:22:00.000-07:00

Some defense spending cuts supposedly, but our guess is cosmetic. The faux conservatives say we need to control spending other than being able to drone-bomb and invade everywhere. That, of course means they are not truly serious.

Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.

Another Chickenhawk

2011-07-31T18:27:00.000-07:00

So I start up the family car and the radio has been left on by another fam member. They have a proclivity for C & W. Now, I am not a fan, but there is the odd song that the toe will tap to. Unfortunately, the song that came on was not one.

It was the lyrics that were listened to. The song was An American Soldier by Toby Keith. One line sings is "I am an American Soldier." Well, Toby isn't and never was. His soldier personna claims to be fighting for freedom. The poor lads who are in Iraq or Afpak have my sympathy, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their countrymen and women. It is absurd to suggest it. Not when they and the wife and kids can be genitally felt up at airports.

Mr. Keith appears to have a cottage industry on patriotic songs. Maybe he believes what he is singing. Maybe he donates every cent of profit to veterans groups. If he does not the conclusion as to what he is is obvious.

For those true believers that still believe in the purity of the Libyan adventure

2011-07-14T11:05:00.000-07:00

Libyan Rebels Accused of Pillage and Beatings

plus ça, well you know.....

The Petition

2011-07-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Reader and commenter Bailey has suggested the drafting of a petition with a clearly defined statement, purpose, and an outline of pros and cons. The role of neutrality needs to be solidified in its scope so that the people will understand that we shall still be a strong nation; however, a nation that only defends. Bailey also suggests that To appeal to the masses, we must show how beneficial neutrality can be to the well-being of our country. We must also determine what will be argued against neutrality and prepare rebuttal that will defuse their arguments.

So what does himself, the Neutralist, think about the proposal? A reasoned, logical petition should not be hard to draw up, especially as it is our belief here at Neutralist GHQ that neutralism is obviously inherently reasonable and logical. Once finished, Bailey would be willing to take it around in his home state.

I am touched by his willingness to do his part. I think a petition, well crafted, could not hurt. Unfortunately, Bailey is my only soldier. Considering the reaction to the Neutralist blog, the whelming has been under. As my what is to be expected screed to the right puts it,

What is to be expected from the Neutralist? Unfortunately, not much. There are think tanks galore in this country for all shades of thought, but, so far, neutralism is an orphan with only one known supporter. The concept is tied up with the I word, Isolationism. To get noticed and be taken seriously will be next to impossible.

Sadly, I have met all my expectations. There have been a few who have encouraged me, but only a tiny few. Moi, I have hardly been stalwart. My name, while not a complete pseudonym, has been crafted to protect my privacy. So what is the purpose. Just to bring about awareness. so tell your friends and neighbors. Heck, submit articles, links, etc.

I hate the terms like viral, but a groundswell would be nice. I admit to wishing for what I wished to happen, also to the right,

What is hoped? That the idea of neutralism will be noticed and that the concept of Wilsonian Internationalism will be seen as the failure it is. That at least a core group will form that will support the idea and spread it in blogs, articles and conversation.

What I am truly hoping with all my heart is to avert disaster. You see, neutralism of a form is coming anyway. Conservatives don't get it. They are only hoping for an end to the current loser wars (that would be all of them). They don't have an aversion to interventionism per se. So we might get, under current conditions, a partial withdrawl and new wars can await a better day. The other scenario would be some form of Dien Bien Phu. After that debacle, we were available to pick up the French pieces. If we have a DBP, our lads may never make it out.

Maybe we shall always be strong enough to avoid that. I would be more confident if we were a rich country. We are not and we'll be neutral be cause, sooner or later, we won't be strong.

Anyway, thanks Bailey. Hopeless as it seems, I still hope.

Arnie Arnesen butchers the English Language

2011-06-07T19:09:00.000-07:00

As the Neutralist, I would not want a war monger like Sarah Palin to be president. Still, I do like that she upsets all the cool people. One of them was on the Callie Crossley Show and went after La Palin. Memo to Arnie, if you are going to be a grammar nazi, make sure you know what you're talking about.

Quoting Arnie, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with you know students of English as a Second Language and I have to like repair their assignments, I'm lookin at this.going I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."

I'm going to try and help English learner Arnie. Arnie, I think you meant to say, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with students of English as a Second Language and I have to repair their assignments, I'm listening to this thinking I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."

Of course other than the example above, she was more than competent to hold up her end of the banal banter during the show.

It's official, the Constitution is a joke

2011-05-24T19:26:00.000-07:00

When the president violates the law of the land and two senators lead the charge in legislation that essentially says, "you go guy" the constitution has ceased to exist. It is now moribund in any meaningful sense.

If the Neutralist had written Obama's Speech

2011-05-22T08:10:00.001-07:00

The United States wishes hopes and prays for peace among all parties in the Middle East. Good luck and au revoir.

The Neutralist is suspending its fundraiser in favor of antiwar.com

2011-05-21T05:34:00.000-07:00

We suspend our fundraiser

The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are again suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.

The Terrorists have won

2011-05-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

Res ipsa loquitur.

Any questions?

Hat tip to David Kramer at LRC Blog

The Pakistani Role and what should we do about it?

2011-05-04T07:19:00.000-07:00

Did the Paks know? Short answer, I'm guessing, probably. So, what do you want to do about it? Invade? Good luck. Bomb? We do that a lot. If it worked we would have won Nam and Afghanistan would be a liberal democracy now. Oh yeah, there was Serbia, but if you remember, we bombed because we added some conditions to the peace agreement and the Serbs rejected them. We bombed and then agreed to the conditions. We have since gone back on them.

Since the usual diplomatic methods, bombing and invasion don't look so hot, let's leave. Unless you believe there is a solution instead of an outcome, it is the only sensible route.

A number of years before 911, Harry Browne said "we have a very strong national offense, but a very weak national defense." The felling of the Towers proved his point. What has changed? Not sure. A lot of security theater and a country on lockdown with swat team a growth industry, but it is not getting better.

Does the word Pyrrhic come to mind?

2011-05-03T07:43:00.000-07:00

My fellow countrymen are not fond of studying history. Believe me on this. I was a history nerd and generally kept it to myself. My abysmally low level of popularity could only get worse. The few readers of this blog are probably more aware than the general population, but I shall recap the career of The Macedonian general Pyrrhus.

Southern Greece was over time being subjugated by Rome. One of the Greek states, Tarentum, requested the help of Pyrrhus. He came over with an army and beat the Romans in a few battles. The problem was, the Romans, though defeated on the field, managed to kill so many of Pyrrhus men that he was not winning the attrition aspect of the war. After being congratulated on one of his victories, he has said to have said, "Another victory like this and I shall go home without an army."*

It is the classic explanation of the game not being worth the candle. Was it really worth it to invade a country to chase someone who might have eventually been apprehended with good intel? Maybe, but I disagree.

Here is the Neutralist corollary to Pyrrhus, "One more war like this and we go home without out an economy." Well, maybe we won't have one anyway. I could have put it better, but I hope you get the point.

Declare Victory and Leave

2011-05-02T08:08:00.000-07:00

Yes, Bin Laden is dead. He will not be missed. Moi, I would have rather he had been captured and interrogated. "First question, how'd ya manage to live large instead of that cave you supposedly had to inhabit?"

Of course there are many questions for others as well. Our intel services, what took so long? The Paks, well, I've got a long list for our "allies."

Suffice it to say, our Afpak and Iraq advetures in revenge for 911 led to another equivalent in deaths of American military personnel. Yeah we slaughtered a lot of them, big whoop. We have gotten nothing real out of this. We are broke.

Come home America.

Vittorio Arrigoni, and neutralism

2011-04-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

I know little of Mr. Arrigoni other than he was in Gaza following the example of Rachel Corrie. One must assume he was prepared to die for his beliefs. Unexpectedly, he was not killed bearing witness to Israeli oppression, but by a rival Palestinian group.

Though the Neutralist does not know the exact details, just the broad outline, it is enough to expound on. There is an Irish saying we heard from the late academic, John Roche, we feel applies here, Never get involved in the religious wars of churches you don't belong to.

Now we have to trust the Paddy on this one. People who have had their share of intra-national religious battles should know enough to walk on by when they see, say, a Jain and an animist arguing theology.

I don't mean to make light of the man's end, but he trod where he could only know so much of struggle that he stepped in. So it is with our involvement in all the squabbles we have made our own and most recently Libya. We at the Neutralist offer up a Kool Aid Free Zone.

I'm stealing from The Agitator, it's just too good

2011-04-18T15:16:00.000-07:00

Mr. Radley Balko aka The Agitator posted this with attribution and I am doing the same. It speaks for itself. Snake handling moves left.

Wishing That Heroes, They Truly Exist

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

–Britney Spears, in 2003, commenting on the war in Iraq.

“But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do.”

– Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, in 2011, on Obama’s war in Libya.

(Hat tip: Jeromee P. Snash.)

Neutralist slam dunk by Mish!

2011-04-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

At MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis, Mish posted about where the Republican budget proposals fall short. I don't know if he is a neutralist, but he sure reads like one. Here is what he wrote about defense:

What About Defense Spending?

Can we really be serious about tackling the deficit while doing nothing about defense spending? I think not, and Ryan wimps out big time by failing to address it.

The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We have troops in 140 countries. Yet, the simple fact of the matter is the US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

If other countries want our troops, perhaps they should pay us. However, it would be better yet if we would simply leave on our own accord.

As long as we are packing our bags, we should pack up and leave Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to declare the wars are won and leave.

If we do that, and pull some troops home, it should be an easy matter to cut $200 billion a year out of the defense budget. That would save $2 trillion over 10 years. Actually I think we should cut far more, but I am hoping to come up with a number that has a chance.

Thanks, Mish. It is to the point and not arguable by anyone sane.

It's lonely being the neutralist, but sometimes someone else says the right thing and we feel better.

All honor to the Kamikaze

2011-04-01T19:51:00.000-07:00

Speaking tearfully through an interpreter by phone, the mother of a 32-year-old worker said: “My son and his colleagues have discussed it at length and they have committed themselves to die if necessary to save the nation.
“He told me they have accepted they will all probably die from radiation sickness in the short term or cancer in the long-term.”

Maybe this gives us a glimpse as to what it meant to sacrifice one's life on the deck of a carrier. A nation that produces such sons deserves to live.

Let us not equivocate. My relatives were in the Pacific. Japan treatment of POWs was not glorious. The courage in the face of such odds was and is.

Ed Shultz, Chickenhawk

2011-03-31T11:09:00.000-07:00

So your man, Ed Shultz, who was against any war W wanted has had an epiphany. Libya is a holy crusade according to the big guy. I think we can parse this. Bush devil, Obama god. I looked up himself on wikpedia and can find no evidence that he was ever in the military. Ed Shultz, the Rush Limbaugh chickenhawk of the left with a smaller audience.

Libya is no different from the other wars except this president is consulting congress even less. Shultz gets the Al Smith, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney award.

Jeremy Scahill takes him to the cleaners.

The King's, er the President's Speech

2011-03-30T06:32:00.000-07:00

As the Neutralist, I suppose it is necessary to go on record concerning POTUS' speech explaining his actions as regards Libya for my readers, or maybe reader, or whatever. There is not too much to opine about. Your man said, “When our interests and our values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.” Of course I didn't come away with any real idea how our values or interests were at stake, but so what.

Now that I know "we have a responsibility to act," Iam ready. After I post this, I shall climb into my jet fighter and fly over to Libya to strafe those MG loyalist bastards. Oh, I don't have a jet and am not really going to strafe anyone. Oh, I get it, the corporate "We." So even though I'm not participating, it is being done in my name.

I am aghast. Just remember the words of a US Senator intoned in 2007, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." I wonder who that solon was?

So who the heck is Bonnie Kristian and why is she making sense? Most succinct reasoning about Libya yet

2011-03-25T05:42:00.000-07:00

Surfing a few sites this morning I came upon an article at Antiwar.com. It is a piece the Neutralist wishes he wrote. 10 Reasons the US Should Leave Libya NOW is a well ordered repository of the reasons not to be in Libya. If you know somebody who is on the fence or drinking the kool aid on the issue, urge them to read it. You don't change many minds in this life, but if someone is not invincibly ignorant, this should make an impact.

To show my gratitude to the author, I am going to steal part of her article. Specifically, Reason 9:

9. This goes against our founders’ vision for American foreign policy. Let me simply provide a few telling quotes:

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” — Thomas Jefferson

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” — John Quincy Adams

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

“All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.” — Benjamin Franklin

So called conservatives think a conservative foreign policy is "supporting the troops" (of course for them, that does not often mean being one) no matter what silly intervention is proposed. A real conservative war policy is to not get into wars as evinced by the quotes above.

Poor Bonnie Kristian, we have closed the competition. There will be no more entries. Bonnie Kristian is the Neutralist Rookie of the Year. Granted, it is not a much coveted award, and brings neither money or great applause. No matter, it's still less of a joke than the Nobel.

If Bonnie wants an 11th reason the Neutralist can supply one. The only successful exit strategy the US has executed was Viet Nam.

David Corn and a Good War

2011-03-23T05:24:00.000-07:00

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

From 1984 by George Orwell, Part 2 Chapter 9.

The analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough. David Corn tried to make the case that the Obama war is holy and Bush interventions, not so much. There is no real qualitative difference in the policy of the incumbent and his predecessor. Was Mr. Corn ever in show biz. He is quite a song and dance man.

Welcome year 11 of the Bush Obama administration.

Saving Libya, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished-This was even too fast for moi to comprehend

2011-03-21T09:56:00.000-07:00

So after dithering for what seemed like forever, A coalition of US and Euro countries with UN authorization is moving against Mo Q. The Arab League said that they wanted a no fly zone and passed a resolution to that effect.

Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.

We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.

Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.

Sec/Def Gates comes out of the closet-He's a neutralist

2011-03-01T10:13:00.000-08:00

No he didn't say that. No one as high up in government would follow the logic to its, well, logical conclusion. What Mr. Gates said you have probably read by now, but here it is,

“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.

C'mon Justin, use the good n-word

2011-02-15T07:03:00.000-08:00

Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has a good article entitled Do We Need a Foreign Policy?

Of course not. It is simple and to the point. He could have changed the title to Time for Neutralism and it would have worked as well. Oh well, we live in hope.

It is our opinion that the best paragraph is

Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.

Yup, it's all a sham.

In honor of Justin's great article of February 9, 2011, we are suspending our ongoing Neutralist Fundraiser. Our fundraiser is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. So far we have collected $0.00. It is expected that 2011 will bring a similar level of success.

Jusin, Eric et al do the heavy lifting against mindless intervention. You can participate in their fundraiser here.

Main Stream Media has good article on Neutralism even if the author has never heard the term.

2011-02-08T15:56:00.000-08:00

Thanassis Cambanis writes for the Boston Globe. Having grown up in the Boston area, I remember it as the serious newspaper, if only because it didn't publish the number like the Record did before the state went into the lottery business.

His article was a departure from MSM articles on the subject as he did not use the word Isolationist as an eptithet. Still, he could not name the right word. What is this, Harry Potter? Neutralism is "the policy whose name must not be mentioned."

Otherwise, the best article on the subject in a long time. To read Stand Alone: The Case for a New Isolationism you can go here if you are registered at the Globe.

Mr. Cambanis also has a blog here, which is well worth a visit. At his blog, he has written about his Globe article and this is the link for that.

If we invaded Iraq because it was run by a ruthless bad guy, why are we not Invading Egypt?

2011-02-07T17:31:00.000-08:00

The Beacon asks the question here.

Just another example of an insane and hypocritical foreign policy. Neutralism on its worst day couldn't be stupider and would cost a lot less.

Wikileaks is just an NWO put up job?

2011-02-03T10:18:00.000-08:00

The revelation that AQ is near to a nuke from Wikileaks could be seen as a vindication of The Daily Bell. They have been noting that Assange & Co. have not really been passing out anything that has been truly harmful to "The Elite." The dirty bomb thing kinda, sorta, maybe makes their case. Such a weapon is not something you just order up and that suitcase needs to be as big as a house for a suitcase bomb. Yet that discredited meme shows up out of Wikileaks.

The DB certainly gives pause to those of us not privilege to big secrets. The Neutralist is for transparency. We are for erring on the side of the big T. As Holy Mother State loves keeping even the most trivial items secret. So if DB is correct and secrets are doled out for the benefit of "The Elite." we have all been scammed.

I defended Wikileaks and went after some kids who attacked them in the comments here. I had been aware of the DB's atttude, but was not convinced. I am not convinced now if only because as a nobody from nowhere, I have no access to necessary info.

However, I am not at all put off by what DB is publishing. Their case is well made and certainly possible. Anyway, a little embarrassment for, say Hilary, is a cute way to give the rest of the scam, if it is a scam, credibility.

My haters at in2thefray should start to love wiki+Julian as he serves their statists inclinations.

As usual, we take the Neutralist position, If there is an elite, there international adventure do nothing for our nation. We are better off bringing home all our forces and tending to our own business.

The Neutralist Announces Its Middle East Policy!

2011-02-01T08:10:00.000-08:00

Here it is. It should be a shock to my loyal readers (reader?)

The United States should not have anything to say in the matter of the internal politics of Middle Eastern Nations. If those nations do not threaten the American Republic, their external policies are also not our business. We screw up everything we touch.

Some Links:

Col. Lang has a number of informative posts.

Fabius Maximus has some thoughts on various aspects of what is happening including climate aspects.

As somebody like Walter Winchell would say, "Ya gotta get the story behind the story." Okay, The Neutralist doesn't know if it was Winchell, but it sounds good. The Daily Bell sees the hand of the Anglo-American Elite in everything.

Justin Raimondo notices that Rachel Maddow is bringing out her inner John Bolton. If Suzie Cool Liberal Chick is giving over, it kinda give you a reason not to dismiss the Daily Bell out of hand.

Tough Guys on the Net-They're all on the hunt for Julian Assange!

2010-12-14T09:21:00.000-08:00

What is it about the internet that it brings out the homicidal tendencies in people. It's not that they'll act on them. They are safe from that. It's just that they feel the need to threaten mayhem.

One web warrior who goes by the name of Alfie put up a post titled, Please please please Julian Assange;STFU

He starts off his offering with:

I am so sick of this fucking guy.

This Australian wannabe Swede rapist douchebag is nothing but a bitter and petty POS who wants to bask in the limelight of others risk full behaviors.Serving as the public face of WikiLeaks this douche tries to ply the waters of anti American feelings to bolster his otherwise meaningless life.

Of course, the crime he has been accused of is not near rape and, though hardly sterling behavior, is in no way a crime in the US, but why quibble. I'll just let you think about the sad fellow's language. Of course, if you are in a hurry because mom will be calling you down to supper, you just have to go with your gut.

The lad got upset with my use of the word "chickenhawk." He thinks it's overused. Only in the sense that say 1+1=2 is overused. Both are still valid.

We had a back and forth of which the most notable part was,"until he surfaces from whatever “I’m a big pussy” hiding spot he is in." Now think about it. He is calling someone a pussy who is risking life and limb. And what might Alfie be risking? "Mom, I'll hurry, please make the Chef Boyardee Ravioli tonight."

So Alfie had his two minute hate. He actually has a following. They were vile and ignorant. The the gold standard for such behavior goes to a fellow named Jonolan, his words are below.

Fuck trials and juries, Patrick – he’s a foreign enemy. Kill him and make sure the world all but knows in fact the we did it.
Hell! I’d be glad to kill him myself, might even make him watch me mutilate his son first, just to add to the fun.
It’d be sort of nice and heartwarming knowing that the last thing Assange knew before I finally finished him was that what was left of his offspring would suffer through the remaining years of his existence as a deformed and mutilated cripple, incapable of doing anything of value and being nothing but an object of disgust and pity.

How noble a sentiment. It turns out Jonolan has his own blog. His desire to harm not only Julian, was posted and removed. Amazingly, an apology was made. He felt bad? Maybe, but he admits, "Some will now say that I’m apologizing because they believe that they can do me harm. That’s actually sort of true." Certainly there would be more justice in the Oz fatwa being carried out than any harm coming to the Assange family, but let's dispense with such silly games.

Jonolan, as low as he sank, then outdid himself. He claimed to have at least in part, caused Assange to give himself up. He refers to Assange's mention of his low deed in an article in The Australian. Nowhere in the piece does Assange hint that he gave himself up because of Jonolan. Jonolan has no shame. He threatens from the anonymity of the internet and then takes credit for a man turning himself in charged for a non crime. Gee, Jono, I'm sure al Qaeda is now scared you'll come out of your room and get them.

Now the cite's owner weighs back in.

@jonolan. I followed your posts on the subject with some interest. The threads got a little crazy for sure. I think Assanges decision is actually a sound one. The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts.
I think referencing you shows his vanity,his narcissism. This is clear in context when you think about those that left WikiLeaks and why as well as the 2 women involved in the sex cases.
All in all you showed class with your follow ups and in a number of ways served a higher purpose. Congrats.
Now breaking is how a former colleague is starting a new site (OpenLeaks) and the fans of Julien have done him zero good with their petty panty raids on MC and Visa.
If nothing else I hope the whole thing cements Assanges image as a media whore as opposed to anything resembling a credible and worth

So, it goes from Swede rapist douchebag is now The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts. Now a gentleman would have noted his original remarks were intemperate. Not Alf. He does remark on Assange's vanity and narcissism in mentioning Jono. I guess he is referencing whatever version of the DSM is out there. Actually, he never gives a reason why it follows. Of course mentioning a desire at several removes to mutilate the son and then kill the man is the epitome of sanity. Thinking that Jono showed class in his follow ups is breathtaking in its goofiness.

Now, Alfie had a defender with whom I also had a back and forth with. Victoria set me straight that Alfie was not a chickenhawk but a veteran. I take her at her word that the whiny mommy's boy sounding lad actually learned the joys of low crawling. She also gave the Assange is the anti-Christ rhetoric. Her last communication to me is below:

The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry). It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance. Assange is far from perfect….he is a pedantic little piss-ant whose only claim to fame is being a tattle-tale. And more than likely, a rapist. But given your tone from previous posts, it matters not to you that the man is a possible sex offender, as long as he titilates the general public with information they should not have. It is terrifying that you can link the word “good” with Assange, yet I find a sense of peace in knowing that as of this morning, the POS is exactly where he belongs.

In my reply, I asked her questions about her assertions:

"The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry).”

Name one bit of actual harm, other than no one will believe our liars anymore. Assertions without proof are not worth much.

“It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance.”

How do you know this?

“Assange is far from perfect”

I certainly make no claims to perfection. Still, I am humbled to know that you have attained that state.

“And more than likely, a rapist.”

Please document the exact charges against him. By the way, they don’t come close to rape.
Good luck.

Okay, so one of them wasn't a question. I knew I was never going to hear from her again. The truth is, most of humanity holds views contrary to reason and evidence. Deep down, these folk know, but to admit that there stated views are ragtime would harm their fragile egos.

It is evidence of my own shallow nature that I took a perverse pleasure in the hands down stupidest ad hominem thrown at me.

You call yourself a neutralist, but you’re sounding an awful lot like a neuteredist. Oh the wounding I felt at the deft rhetorical flourish of commenter an800lbgorilla

Michael Graham would not know what conservatism was if it bit him on the nose

2010-12-03T18:21:00.000-08:00

As I drift towards Boston while driving, I can pick up its radio stations. There is a breed of mostly men who are paid to rant on the airwaves. On of them Michael Graham purports to be a conservative. Loving all those, you know, reactionary things like the rule of law, due process, the Constitution. Yup, he loves those quaint traditions, except when he doesn't.

Today, he called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange because "our defense department and diplomacy have been blown up completely. Well, if being shown up to be incompetent in your reports, yes he is right. Mr. Assange released true stuff. He offered to redact anything really dangerous. Like the Pentagon Papers, all of this was going to come out sooner or later anyway.

What it shows up is our Hilary and her Department of State as the kids who are still doing student government. It shows us with a military that really isn't doing much but chasing its tail.

The brave Mr. Graham, who "supports" the troops by not ever being one is a chickenhawk calling on others to kill someone withoug any due process. Oh, America is doomed if there is not enough mayhem.

Mr. Graham, a conservative war and foreign policy is that the only things worth defending are hearth and home. Saving the world is bound to fail. Get the right wikileaks message.

Philip Giraldi gets it, Does any Republican?

2010-11-15T06:31:00.000-08:00

Philip Giraldi, columnist at antiwar.com has, in less than a paragraph, analyzed the recent elections better than any talking head,

Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families. But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power. The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.

In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.

The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.

Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.

The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.

No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.

We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.

The Assange assassination continues on the Emily Rooney Show

2010-11-03T06:34:00.000-07:00

They can't outright shoot Julian Assange. It's a little too late for that. He is too well known now. That does not mean they won't try to make him a pariah. Last Friday, October 29th, they had a go at it on a Boston radio show.

Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.

Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show

Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.

Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.

Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.

Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.

Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.

Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well

The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.

Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.

Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."

Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."

Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.

So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.

Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).

As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.

Gene Healy says it all: Not even our leaders know why we are in Afghanistan

2010-10-06T06:30:00.000-07:00

Country Joe and the Fish may have been a one hit wonder, but their song about Viet Nam resonates today,

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam

plus ça change, ya know. According to Gene Healy, nobody knows why. Going out on a limb here, but after the half decade mark, any war our country is in, the reasons will get murky and the original justifications will no longer be relevant (as if they were to begin with). Just ask Osama down in Gitmo getting ready for his trial.

It appears Mr. Healy has read the Woodward book so I don't have to. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyway, here is a lovely quote,

Last October, Woodward reports, National Security Adviser James Jones called an emergency meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "The president was not happy": After countless meetings and dueling memoranda, "they had not found a way to articulate why the United States was in Afghanistan. What were America's interests?"

Yeah, all we gotta do is find what we believe and then tell the lumpenistas. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Did it occur to any one of the assembled sinecure holders that if you can't explain the reason, there may be no reason?

Nahhhhhh.

Taliban attack the supply lines-World surprised by the obvious tactic

2010-10-05T10:56:00.000-07:00

The Taliban has no air force, no predator drones, but that does not mean they are stupid. One does have to ask why they have taken so long to gear up their strategy of attacking supply lines? No matter, it's here.

I know my countrymen are not a nation of geographers, but a simply looking at a map of Afghanistan should be a wake up call. First thing you notice, no seacoast. It is landlocked and borders many countries, none of which are our close allies, and most of whom our relations with are problematic.

So the Taliban in one of its incarnations are attacking the tanker trucks that supply our forces over the road from Pakistan. The question becomes, can they do it enough to make our effort unsustainable?

So it's happening now. Actually, it's happened before, and it is not just the Taliban that can apply pressure.

Hey maybe we can cobble together another supply line and keep the game going until victory, or whatever. Bet on whatever.

Well, what do you expect. Of course you'd want a president to be a führer if your name was Donald the German

2010-09-12T07:52:00.000-07:00

Donnie Deutsch and Pat Buchannan the constitution out the window to protect our soldiers over there. Arrest the Koran burner to protect the troops.

May I point out the supreme irony. A military is supposedly* deployed to protect us. We are not supposed to protect the troops. Anyway, you can watch Mr. Deutsch having the vapors here.

Hat tip to the Daily Burkeman. The link on Burkeman is "this speaks for itself. If a foreign policy gets to the point where we have to arrest our own people, no matter how goofy, because our armed troops, who are pretending to be building a free country overseas might be shot at, then res ipsa loquitur. I agree with Chris Dowd. Donnie and Pat are scarier than Terry.

*our military is not deployed overseas to protect us.

Don't think modern imperialism's a loser. Now we've gotta bailout their lousy banks too!

2010-09-02T17:27:00.000-07:00

Per the Washington Post, The Kabul Bank is pulling a Citibank and crying for succor.

Now this is the Neutralist and we want all the troops home. Still, if we are going to do Imperialism, let's get something out of it. We don't bail them out, they bail us out. None of this pottery barn stuff.

This decree should go forth: On December 25th, everyone shall go to the city of their ancestors to be counted for taxes. Pay up by April 15th. Or we withdraw. That is our final offer.

Okay, Augustus didn't threaten to withdraw, but America needs love.

Interesting video from the other side-The Taliban speaks!

2010-08-30T16:41:00.000-07:00

Interesting video from the comments section on Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis site. A Norwegian was able to film them as they fought us due to their hatred of our freedom. Ah, wait a minute, at 3:14 your man talks about fighting for freedom. Who does he think he is, George Bush.

Well, I think these lads want Afghanistan more than we do. I know they want it more than I do. Heck, they probably want it more than Bennett and Kristol. And...what would you do if someone invaded your country. What those guys are doing I hope.

The man who posted the video goes by the cute name, Charlie Wilson. His actual comment was, "I don't think these guys can be beat. I think we need to redo Panama or Grenada." If we really want to feel good about ourselves, we can let the Japanese build another fleet and do Midway again.

Reason throws in the towel completely, goes chickenhawk.

2010-08-11T17:24:00.000-07:00

In an article Julian Assange, WikiJournalist
Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both? cool guy libertarian and a Reason Senior Editor, Michael C. Moynihan, went after Julian Assange. You knew it would be a typical hit piece when you read the Assange description,"He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face." The rest was the same work. Mr. Moynihan is pretty vicious with his remarks.

It is in the comments that it really gets interesting. The baying for blood is long and loud except for some exceptions. Why, why, if we had this enthusiasm for the war instead of the keyboard, we would have won by now. Of course, online is where their fight is.

Oh, all you folks baying for Assange's blood. You will never see him tried. What he might be able to bring up in a fair trial fills the powers that be with terror.

Hat tip Justin Raimondo.

The Daily Caller is not just Johnny One Note!

2010-08-10T17:28:00.000-07:00

You know, I was wondering if the Daily Caller was going to be a one trick pony. Would Journolist be it? Hey it was a big coup. Today I did not see much of that there, but a horribly reasonable take on The Afghan war by worst dress guy in the line up.

The gist, we ain't gonna win it, but it's worth hitting the link,

Engstrom, don't put on a tie for us.

A lot of blood for a lot of hands

2010-07-30T09:22:00.000-07:00

the counterattack on Julian Assange has begun. I only get to listen to NPR in the car and I drive as little as possible. Some say, NPR, our ministry of information, has always been on the war team. Others say, just since Obama’s ascendancy. Moi, I don’t care.

If you are going to have long wars, this type of thing is bound to happen. Sooner or later, somebody is going to out something. Is it good or bad? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

We at the Neutralist don’t care for the argument. We merely point out that Afghanistan is the reductio ad absurdam of our USA world policeman schtick. We only wonder what will be the next wee contretemps.

If a US grunt is killed due to a wikileaks exposé, then I resent that. If the leaks lead to us leaving sooner rather than later and less dead American lads, I rejoice.

Admiral Mullen, really give some thought to the blood on hands biz.

The McChrystal Affair-It's only the first time, we're just feeling our way here

2010-06-24T06:02:00.000-07:00

So McChrystal has been relieved. Obama let him go and talk radio is on the president's case. The Neutralist believes the best point in the discussion was made by a retired intel officer, Col. Patrick Lang. The colonel is hardly some fanatic leftie Obamista,

The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy. Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy. To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall. What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama.

That the talkmeisters did not get this and just jerked their knees is understandable. Most are just party Republicans who will do anything to get a teammate in the White House even if it's only Mitt Romney's hair and they have to forget that constitution they claim fealty to.

The Neutralist believes there is a bigger story here. This is the first time since MacArthur we have had an incident and this one is different. The general did not just disagree, he called his boss a stiff when you boiled it down.

So the CinC dismisses him. Everyone is happy.

Pas Moi.

If we have eternal war, why would we not have more of these incidents? How long until the tide of "let the generals run the war, they're the professionals" becomes overwhelming.

Disengagement leading to Neutralism is essential, because we run chance for many evils, including "Caesarism"

Year Ten of the Bush-Obama Administration

2010-06-03T13:49:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to LRC Blog.

Lest we forget

2010-05-31T09:22:00.000-07:00

Another blogger thinks a 911 holiday is in order. Don't know about the holiday thing, but I commented on his blog.

As to remembering 911, I'm all for it. Remember that it led us into two wars that have no purpose and have aided in our collapse.

Let's remember the chickenhawks who cheerlead and never went.

Please tell me what is to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? OBL did not attack us with a carrier fleet. The thing to do was tighten the borders, not send an army to not catch the bogeyman.

On the AntiWar.com blog it has been noted that we have passed 1,000 dead in the Afghan debacle. It is the flower of our youth dead to no purpose other than that noted in Burkeman's comment.

The war against the "Taliban" is a jobs work program. It is a low level war with tolerably low casualties (for Americans) but supremely profitable overhead.

We have to fight them over there so they won't bomb a Lion King matinee here

2010-05-05T14:34:00.000-07:00

or shoot up Fort Hood, or get on a plane with loaded underwear.

Okay, kids, I'm going to say it again, 911 and the subsequent terror events involving Muslims have all been border and immigration control failures.

Does anyone believe that if we bring the troops home and forget the war, that the terrorists will build carrier fleets and bomb the Big Apple from the sky and land an army on Cape May?

What is the point? and Plus ça again and again and again.

2010-03-14T09:11:00.000-07:00

Randall Parker at Parapundit has what the Neutralist believes are two useful posts. The first is,

Afhganistan Is Still Afghanistan

Happy pledges lead to happy outcomes.

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.

This is Afghanistan which is part of the planet Earth and we are all in a Global Village and all really similar to each other. Anyone who dares to say differently will get called bad names. We are all really similar. We can all just get along, live in the present, imagine all the people, and so on.

But something went wrong? How could that be?

This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.

The story includes accusations of police giving weapons to one of the factions. The disagreement degenerated into the use of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar launchers. Obviously Afghanistan needs gun control. Probably a government program to control gang violence too.

Official US policy has been damaged by this incident. Oh my.

The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. It raised questions about how effectively the American military could use tribes as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, given the patchwork of rivalries that make up Afghanistan.

The US government wouldn't make policy for a country based on unjustified asumptions about human nature, would it?

This is intra tribal rivalry. What is the point of the whole exercise if we have to keep everybody on board down to this level.

The comments are worth stealing as well,

Stephen said at March 12, 2010 3:54 AM:

Probably means we're about due for the US to announce that its killed a senior Al Qaeda commander.
mike said at March 12, 2010 4:44 AM:

Ancient land dispute? How primitive. After all, no advanced or intelligent society would support a land grab just because it was "promised" to a certain people in a thousand year old religious book.
Black Death said at March 12, 2010 5:47 AM:

"Probably a government program to control gang violence too."

How about midnight basketball?

Randall's newer post is below.

Little Government In Kandahar Afghanistan

Practice makes perfect. US forces are going to try to gain control of Kandahar again.

In theory, the Afghan government is in place in Kandahar, but its authority is nominal. Bombings and assassinations have left the government largely isolated behind concrete barricades and blast walls. In the latest burst of violence, a suicide squad struck across the city late Saturday, detonating bombs at a recently fortified prison, the police headquarters and two other sites, the Associated Press reported. At least 30 people were killed.

For the first time in years, however, the U.S. military again has Kandahar in its sights.

American troops are seeking to reclaim the city and surrounding province, where the Taliban has proved resurgent, more than eight years after the U.S.-led invasion forced the group from power. But a visit here last week made clear that American forces will face an insidious enemy that operates mainly in the shadows and exercises indirect control through intimidation and by instilling fear. The provincial governor remains mostly behind barricades. The provincial council has trouble convening because many members have fled to Kabul. The police are viewed as ill-trained, corrupt and possibly in league with criminal gangs.

Yet US Defense Secretary Robert Gates still expects US troops to begin withdrawing no later than July 2011.

"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where U.S. and British forces train Afghan soldiers.

Michael O'Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan say Afghanistan is pretty mild stuff compared to Iraq.

Also, the violence in Afghanistan today is far less severe than it was in Iraq. Before the troop surge in 2007, more Iraqi civilians were killed every month than have been killed from war-related violence in Afghanistan each year. In other words, Afghanistan is less than a tenth as violent as the Iraq of 2004-07. Communities were displaced and sectarian tensions were inflamed far more in Iraq than they have been in Afghanistan.

But low level violence is more business as usual in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.

The major US goal in Afghanistan appears to be to leave a government in power that won't be overthrown by the Taliban when the US leaves. I do not see how the US can accomplish that goal. The Taliban families make new babies in large numbers. Defeat them now and in a few years a new generation will be old enough to take up the fight.

Why should defeating them this time be more effective? The creation of the Afghan Army is supposed to be the crucial difference that will allow US and NATO forces to withdraw. But will that army become an effective and loyal fighting force?

Moi, I wish I could set up a pool for online betting on the date the third battle for Kandahar and the second battle for Marjah will start.

They know

2010-03-06T12:01:00.000-08:00

The Southern Avenger, Mr. Jack Hunter, is accomplished in the art of the youtube video. Actually, I can’t say that the youtube video is art. Merely can I say that he goes farther with it than I could, which is not into the realm of overachieving.

Still, I generally agree with his thoughts even if he only hits a single. In his February 6, 2010 offering, he blasted it out of the park with just one tiny particle,

Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”

Bingo. What Ann really said, once parsed is, I know they are right, but pretend they are wrong. I like to think she is not merely a shill, but if she abandoned neoconnery, to come over to the less financially lush side of non-interventionism, well maybe she would not be so fashionable. Ann doesn't really, really believe and the rest don't either.

Even if you hate the muzzies and think they all should be extirpated, you have to see, we are losing. It matters not how many of them we kill if we bankrupt ourselves. Granted, we are trying manfully and womanfully to ruin ourselves on many other non military fronts, but so what. Why waste the flower of our youth on a losing strategy.

Somehow, I think everyone with some modicum of intelligence, knows this. I’ll let others work out why they can’t say it. For now.

Also, the sensible policy of how to deal with Bin Laden was given us by Rep. Paul with a further comment by Mr. Hunter.

Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?

Watch the video here:

Yoo hoo, you can come out now. Well, Maybe not. Hiding under the bed conservatism, Part III

2010-02-27T19:32:00.000-08:00

We are in the ninth year of our struggle against the forces of evil in the War on Terrorism. We must watch our backs constantly in this desperate fight against a foe that is cunning and evil. He is seeking every chance to strike at us and if we just drop our guard for a second, why, probably nothing will happen.

Yes, folks, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Actually, you do have things to fear. Lots of them.. Fortunately, an attack from the Sons of Jihad is not likely to be one. This does not mean our friends to the east love us. Au contraire, we should be surprised if they did, what with all the drones and bombings and troops in their countries. Heck, I would feel the same toward them if they had brigades over here. They don't and they are not likely to either.

I know, I know, you have been propagandized to believe that without the work of all the folks in the Department of Fatherland Security there would be widespread death and destruction across the country. Why, were it not for the vigilance of our guardians, a man with explosive underwear could just get on a plane and.......

Still, the great holy war of death is, to be honest, the least of your worries. Don't take it from me. Take it from Ryan Singel in Wired. He did one of those color coded thingies like the color coded terror threat level the government has. I can't reproduce the colors, but the breakdown is below:

Red
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327

Kind of yellow.
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302

Brighter yellow
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742

Blue
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171

Green
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554

As I have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than a Bin Ladenist, maybe we should fire all our police and hire members of Al Qaeda to staff our constabulary.
Mr. Singel should not have published this. When people read that they have a much greater chance of shuffling off the mortal coil by going to work, productivity in this country is going to nosedive.

So my fellow countrymen and women, don't come out from under the bed. Well don't fall out of bed. After all, a fall is up there in the severe category.

Lest you think it has been a long slog up from America as free fire zone to a near terrorist free garden of Eden, you may want to read the words of Paul Jackson. Jackson said basically the same thing Singel is telling, but he said it back in 2005.

These lads are a bit too pollyanish for me though. I have met terrorism dead on. Ah, almost dead on a few months ago here in hillbilly Nova Anglia. I was driving on a mountain road when out of nowhere a deer jumped in front of the car and crashed into my windshield. Had I been going faster or had someone been tailgating, another casualty of the enemy combatants would have been counted. Clever of the foe it was. They know that that doe could not have been on the no fly list.

The War on Terror is merely theater.

More in sorrow

2010-02-24T14:52:00.000-08:00

In the eighties, witch hunting hysteria returned to Massachusetts. Child abuse hunters targeted an innocent family north of Boston. The Amiraults, who ran a day care, were railroaded to prison on bizzare charges.

No one was more noble in championing the cause of the persecuted family than Wall Street Journal reporter, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Her columns in the Journal were tough and relentless. She was recently able to reprise her role during the campaign lost by the un lamented Matha, or is it Marcia, Coakley. The article not only brought the history of that sordid event back into view, it exposed Coakley as one twisted pol.

Sadly, Ms. Rabinowitz has demeaned herself with an article ostensibly on Sarah Palin. It seems she is a bit spooked by the recent success of Ron Paul. She is not the only one, but one expected more from her. A little of it is below.

Though it hasn't attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky's GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.

A bit sleazy. Come on Dorothy. We all know the press walked by all the normal well adjusted folks who liked Paul so they could find someone strange. You are doing to Paulistas what Coaks and her ilk did to the Amiraults.

You disgrace yourself.

FAIL

2010-02-22T06:07:00.000-08:00

I thought the Marjah offensive would be done. We had screamed that we were coming for so long that the Talibs should have got the message, bugging out who needed to be gone and a clever little retreat to take a few potshots and a couple of dead infidels et au revoir.

Well, it has not happened. The lads who use towels to cover their heads have shown a bit more sophistication then was expected. I guess we will eventually scour the place and send anyone who can't blend in packing. Still, it has not gone to plan.

That sneaky enemy has taken up the not fair tricks of Hezbollah or the NVA or ironically for marines, General Kuribayashi*.

Listening to Npr this morning, the embedded Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was talking about the operation. Rules of engagement limit who the marines can shoot and when. It is to protect civilians so, I would guess, they won't think we suck when the fighting is done. When all the make nice rules don't work, an air strike is called in. There were several non taliban in the building who no longer have to worry about being alienated.

Also, heard on the radio this morning, a group of Ahghans fleeing the war were also struck from the air. Twenty-seven dead, and the usual regrets were voiced.

*An interesting book on how the people we fight respond to our hi tech war tactics and strategy is Phantom Soldier by John Poole.

If this is how our miltary prosecutes an offensive, they don't deserve to have any

2010-02-18T09:51:00.000-08:00

Let’s imagine a bit of alternative history. In early May, 1944 newspaper headlines and radio broadcasts go out with the story, Allies to invade Normandy on or about June 6th. At German HQ, this conversation takes place. Dolph, “Zo, ist this ein trick?” Rommel, “Nein, Fuhrer, Das Allies have always announced before hand their plans.” Dolph, “Sehr Gut, General, plan accordingly.”

Fast forward to 2010 and the Coalition offensive at Marjah in Helmand Province. It was talked about for a long time in advance and was hardly unexpected. We telegraphed the punch and it appears the Taliban did what any good pugilist would. They ducked.

Anyone the Taliban wanted out of Marjah for strategic reasons surely left in time if only because they had all the time in the world to bug out. Anyone who stayed was part of a retreating defense. I have not been listening intensely but I have not heard any big body counts or pow takings. Not that one would feel confident in the reports. Have heard some happy talk about Afghan flags now flying above buildings. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Oh and we have reports of some senior Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan. Supposedly, the lads were so big, insurgent effectiveness will be vastly depleted. Since young, I’ve been hearing about drug busts that had reduced the supply on the street to a negative amount. The Taliban arrests have that flavor.

Lindsay will be Secretary of Obfuscation in the next Republican Administration

2010-02-14T13:45:00.000-08:00

Senator Lindsay Graham gave the weekly radio response for the Republicans. Now, I did not hear the President's message so I am not completely aware of what the Senator is responding to. I do know he was upset that people would get a trial. Of course, it is not just any people. It's people he does not want to hear from.

Here are the Grahamster words,

Never before have we allowed non-citizen enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, access to our civilian courts providing them with the same constitutional rights as American citizens. Al Qaeda terrorists should not receive more rights than a Nazi war criminal and now is not the time to go back to the pre-9/11 mentality of fighting crime instead of fighting a war.

He would be talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Your man was not captured on the battlefield. That is of course unless you consider an arrest in a house in Rawalpindi a battlefield. Also, that more rights than a Nazi war criminal business is a little silly. The Nazi trials were conducted in public. At Nuremberg the Germans had access to first rate counsel and Herman Goering was able to put prosecution lawyers on the defensive at times.

He wants to go back to the glory days of the Bush Administration when guys like Shoes Reid were tried by Military Commission. Oh, right. Bush tried Reid in an American court.

I suppose the big reason that Graham and his ilk do not want the trials to be in the Big Apple is fear. They are afraid of what might happen. A man waterboarded once, maybe that is not torture. I think it is, but I'll let it go. A man who was tortured 183 time was tortued. Maybe we'll look a little Naziish.

What if these guys get top notch counsel who can turn the tables on the tax dollars at work barristers. That would be embarrassing.

The conduct of the so called war on terror has been inept from day one. Our nation's strength ebbs apace yet no one learns.

We suspend our fundraiser

2010-02-13T19:49:00.000-08:00

The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.

antiwar.com latest coup is the exposé of the AP story that the Iranians had enriched enough enriched enough weapons grade nuclear material to end civilization. Ah, maybe that was not the case. antiwar.com's Jason Ditz issued a refutation and et voilà, the original was withdrawn and a milder bit of screed put in place.

Now I should have such authority, but I don't. So give it where it will do the most good.

Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........

Smoke without fire-All those jihadis who went back to the fight, not

2010-02-09T19:34:00.000-08:00

Ah yes, remember the days when someone would come up with something that proved Saddam had nukes and then a few days later, the evidence would turn out to be, well, nothing really. Of course you don't if you are a normal American. Three minutes ago is ancient history here.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Well, it is happening again. Not about WMD in Iraq but one of the other places we have troops. Granted, that's a lot of places. You remember that place we invaded after 911 and never left and is popping up in the news again. Yes, it's called Afghanistan.

Well, we scooped up a lot of lads and gave them a vacation in the sun drenched Caribbean where we treated them with kid gloves. Ah, well maybe we were a tad harsh with some. Still, if it is in a higher cause, what the heck.

Now John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism has written that, [T]he Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantánamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. I find that shocking. To tell you the truth, if I had been held for years against my will, I'd certainly be wanting to get back at the nation that jailed me.

The thing about the recidivist figures is that they are bunk. Over at the Future Of Freedom Commentaries, Andy Worthington exposes it in Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism. It seems that the figures were kinda fudged and repeated by the MSM. My apologies, I should have given a warning. I know those of you who believe that MSM member are killer fact checkers are going into shock.

The accounting is as creative as the Madoff team. It seems some of the former detainees went right back to the war by writing about it and were thus counted as just about to put petn down their undies. Per Andy,

We know, from earlier Pentagon claims, that this “recidivism” has included — and may well still include — publishing houses, the offices of newspapers, TV studios, and film sets because the Pentagon admitted (in a press release that was subsequently deleted from the Pentagon’s website, but is mirrored here) that it included former prisoners, like the Tipton Three — three young men from the West Midlands — who had appeared in a movie, The Road to Guantánamo, which dramatized their experiences, and the five Uighurs sent to Albania in 2006, after tribunals at Guantánamo cleared them of being “enemy combatants.” In the latter case, this was apparently because one of them, Abu Bakker Qassim, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he urged U.S. lawmakers to defend habeas corpus.

In the years since, many more ex-prisoners have written books, newspaper articles, and op-eds, and have appeared on TV and in films. Perhaps Omar Deghayes, the British resident (released in 2007), who appeared in the Guantánamo documentary that I co-directed, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo, has now joined this ever-expanding group of “recidivists” who have dared to use their words and their voices to “attack” the United States for what it did to them in its brutal, experimental prisons in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere.

Of course, If the pen is mightier than the sword, we may every right to be fearful. Being able to argue has to be defined as aggression.

No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. Lily Tomlin, I think.

We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Wasn't that the rationale?

2010-02-03T08:29:00.000-08:00

From USA Today: Intel chief: al-Qaeda likely to attempt attack

From the article: WASHINGTON (AP) — al-Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress.

The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said.

So I guess some of them are taking a break from fighting us over there so they can fight us over here.

Of course anyone who bought that line was capable of believing they hate us for our freedoms.

Now how many billions? trillions? has this brilliant strategy wasted. How many young men have been killed and maimed in the struggle?

Ah, but it has not been all a waste. Many chickenhawk journalistic careers have gotten a boost.

Let's do Dresden again!

2010-01-24T04:58:00.000-08:00

In my role as a normal, walking around human being (whatever that is?) I tend to agree with the Skeptical CPA. Heaven knows we need more auditors who are willing to use a jauniced eye.

When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,

I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.

Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.

The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.

Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.

Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.

The Neutralist Position on Haiti

2010-01-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

So what is the Neutralist position on Haiti? Yes, the desperate call for guidance from our headquarters can be measured in almost less than single digits. No matter, we are happy to state our position. The Neutralist is against Neo-Colonialism in all its forms, but especially when it leads to American military assets being deployed to save another benighted people from themselves.

Want to throw a twenty into the special collection at your church? Be my guest. Give to make Yclef Jean (whoever that is) wealthier and yourself feel better? Go for it. Whatever charitable expenditure you make is your business and if you know what you are doing or get lucky in your choice of organization, it might do some good.

We have been intervening militarily in Haiti since 1850, according to one source. Now I have no right to say that has made Haiti the supposed basket case it is. I do aver that it has not in any event really helped.

I spoke with someone who has had extensive aid experience and he does not believe the current save Haiti thingie to be glorious.

One interesting news item was that all the buildings made by Euros and Euro Americans, or in the style thereof, collapsed. Now the building codes in our sister republic might be a bit fluid, but contrast that with the shanty towns. It appears the flimsy stuff held up nicely.

I suspect that left to themselves the Haitians would build something suitable. Okay, they might not set up universities, but does a nation need a lot of sinecure factories anyway? There is an overpopulation problem that is probably being "fed" by all the do good agencies that work in the country. The thing is, Haiti should be a Haitian problem, not a people who have to be the special project of the rest of the world.

And the Haitians are not the helpless wards of the world in all things. They beat up the imperial armies of France, England and Spain. I would guess in some of our adventures, we were happy to leave.

The Boondoggle Continues

2010-01-02T19:38:00.000-08:00

I started reading Mike "Mish" Shedlock because I accidentally heard a podcast where he explained why we have not had roaring inflation despite Zimbabwe Ben's best efforts. It was the most cogent explanation I'd heard. Heck, it was the only reasonable voice on the matter that I had come across.

This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.

Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,

You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.

KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.

Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,

The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.

CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.

The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."

He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.

Back to Mish. His words are dead on.

How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.

Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.

It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.

Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.

In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.

Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.

Why Do They Hate Us?

War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.

They hate the US because ...

* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights

The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.

Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.

Congratulations, Mish.

The descent of Ben Stein

2010-01-01T05:13:00.000-08:00

I suppose everyone has seen the Stein-Lee-Paul video from Larry King where Ben Stein's knee jerks into an inference of anti-semitism when Ron Paul says our foreign policy is a cause of blowback.

I have been reading Ben Stein for, I would guess, at least thirty years. He is a wit and not without wisdom. What he has done here is stain his soul. A man of talent and ability becoming old and sad in the misguided service of something he loves.

For a Jew to defend and support Israel is natural. That is something only an true anti-semite either does not understand or opposes because he does precisely realize it is valid. Israel, however, is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. We may at times have mutual interests and at times we may not. The Neutralist avers that trying to run the world is in the interest of neither. Calling someone an anti-semite over that is sad.

The Neutralist policy on Israel, as much as there is one, is here.

Sheila Jackson Lee appeared to only be there to say Obama is God. There is no comment necessary from the Neutralist.

Establishment magazine says the war is lost. Tell us something we didn't already know.

2009-12-27T18:56:00.000-08:00

Foreign Policy, a magazine of the American establishment has said it all,

There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None.

These words were penned by BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON on DECEMBER 10, 2009. Who are the authors? Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005 as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.

Thus the men are true members of the team. I suspect they have both believed this for a while before the speech. It is not as if there were the slightest chance the Pres was going to come up with sufficient men and materiel to turn Afghanistan into any kind of stable entity capable of standing on its own.

Your humble neutralist thought the war doomed before it started. I take no joy in my country's defeat. I only note, in truth, we are defeating ourselves.

Of course, politically, Obama could not say what he knows is true even if he was so inclined. The question becomes why, really did it take so long to come up with a policy that he probably knew was ridiculous. Granted this surge may have been the least goofy alternative that was politically acceptable. His inability to tell the truth and end it, means the war is now well and truly his. In truth, did anyone not think this was going to happen?

I first read of the FP article at Randall Parker's Parapundit blog. In passing I note the comment of one of his readers.

I remember watching 3 segments on consecutive nights on Britain's Newsnight program earlier this year regarding the involvement of British forces and being shocked at the comments of various senior commanders.

i) in one segment a senior commander was interviewed who had been in command in Kabul for several months admitted on camera that he had only just recently become aware of the British Afghan campaigns in the 19th century and was reading up on them.

When I was an enlisted man during the Viet Nam war, only one of my officers knew as much about history as I did. One thought the Brits would know more. I would guess Johnson and Mason have a grasp of the history of Afghanistan. I doubt Obama and his coterie do. The previous team didn't either.

It would be nice if someone could just say let's go home and spare the lives of us and them.

Neutralism has its work cut out for it.

2009-12-05T20:25:00.000-08:00

Mr. Daniel Larison has a December 3rd post at The Amercian Conservative blog about how our countrymen will claim to be for minding our own biz while still favoring intervention.

He starts, The new Pew survey (via RCP) that purports to show a record-high level of “isolationist sentiment” is fairly misleading. No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious. One depressing thing about the survey results is that hegemonism still gets 44%. The other depressing thing is that the 49% don’t really mean what they claim to believe.

Disheartening as the above paragraph is, the one that really shocks is,

Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree.

The freaking CFR members are less warmongering than my lumpen fellow countrymen!

The title of the post is "The Bogey Of Isolationism" Mr. Larison nicely puts the whole Pew thing in perspective.

The commenters know something is wrong because if you are not for all war all the time overseas, you become an "isolationist." Not exactly a Nazi, but as goofy as a Moonie. They have come up with alternative terms such as Realist, Eunomic, George Washingtonism and others. I am saddened they have not realized the obvious. Neutralism is the term.

Of course, I have not been doing any heavy lifting of late to make Neutalist and Neutralism household words, but that does not take away from the fact that the term that they are searching for is within their grasp.

It bears repeating

2009-07-09T17:49:00.000-07:00

Over at Defense and the National Interest, a Senor Tomas made this comment,

Saddam Hussein was a counter-balance against the Iranians and a counter-balance against Islamic fundamentalists - including Al Qaeda. For this reason alone overthrowing Saddam Hussein weakened United States national security - not strenghthened it. I have said this before and I say it again - overthrowing Saddam Hussein is one of the stupidest things the United States of America has done in its 200-plus-year history.

I beg anyone to try and make the case that ST is wrong. ST may not be a neutralist, but he made the case for it. A country that treats its foreign policy so stupidly doesn't deserve to have one.

The Quaker Card as sliming

2009-05-13T05:21:00.000-07:00

Below we steal from Mr. Vance. The Quakers where I live seem to be a group of touchy feely granolas with a New Age tinge. I am sure this is unfair as I've never made a study of them. Still, I think Jefferson's point is well taken.

From LRC Blog

The Quaker Card
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 12, 2009 08:54 PM

The "Quaker card" was recently played against me again. Although I am a Baptist, I would gladly accept a hand full of Quaker cards--it beats a hand of aggression, torture, intervention, death, and destruction.

Here is Thomas Jefferson’s "Quaker" foreign policy:

Peace has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care, in pursuit of a fantastic honor, unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions, or the pride of administrators, excited by personal incidents, in which their citizens have no concern.

Answer the Question

2009-03-02T07:52:00.000-08:00

All you drunk in a bar or hiding under the bed so called conservatives* and other assorted chickenhawks should answer the questions posed by Ronnie in this speech.

Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?

*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.

Hat tip.

Drunk in A Bar Conservatism

2009-02-16T12:53:00.000-08:00

The Skeptical CPA is an interesting blog and I agree with him a lot and find him interesting. About foreign policy he has, like most of my countrymen and women, no commonsense.

Here is his February 6, 2009 post wherin he reposts the work of a so called intellectual conservative and then caps it with the words of Michael Savage speaking ex cathedra.

"What happens when the alternatives fail? What happens when all the negotiations, sanctions, and compromises fail to dissuade an aggressor? What happens when a nation is forced into war as a last resort? When is 'victory' over an aggressor truly achieved? The answer can be found in an analysis of American strategic war doctrine in the late 19th and 20th ccenturies. ... Historically, the term 'total war'--examples of which include the American Civil War and World War II--was based on the assumption that there were only two options in existential conflicts--total victory or total defeat. .. For the defeated, it meant the end of its ability to wage war, the futility of continuing the conflict and, as in the case of the Nazis, the end of their dream of a thousand-year Reich. Nazi Germany was not merely defeated, it was psychologically vanquished. ... FDR, Churchill and Generals Eisenhower and Patton--like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan before them--understood that if wars had to be fought, if blood and treasure had to be expended, if sacrifice had to be demanded of the nation (including setting the economy on a war footing, re-instituting the draft, selling war bonds, instituting food rationing, and bringing the nation with you by seeking a Congressional declaration of war), then the American people had the right to demand that wars be prosecuted to insure absolute victory so the issues over which they were being fought and for which they were being asked to sacrifice their children would never have to be 'revisted.' ... At the end of World War II, no Nazi official could stand in the ruins of Berlin in April, 1945 and urge his fellow Germans to 'stay the course' until a Nazi victory was assured. Nor, for that matter, could General Hideki Tojo of the Imperial Japanese Army convince his poeople that the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were just a 'temporary setback.' It was clear to the German and Japanese peoples that the European and Japanese wars were over. ... All this changed in the post-World War II era. With the advent of nuclear weapons, warefare theorists came to believe that a total war between the two superpowers could lead to mutual annihilation. It was this deterrent concept, applied across the board, the led post-war American military strategists to modify the historical rules of war by resurrecting the seemingly more logical and humane concept that came to be known as 'limited war.' That concept assumed that our enemies would pursue their war objectives in much the same manner and according to the same rules of engagement that we pursue ours. ... But strategists of 'limited war' failed to consider the consequences of what would happen when we confront religiously-inspired enemies like jihadists who refuse to play by our 'limited war' rules, who do not accept international treaties governing the rules of engagement or the treatment of prisoners, who use civilians as human shields, children as human grenades, see 'martyrdom' as a tactical weapon, come from an entirely different culture and value system, and seek nothing less than the destruction of our way of life. ... During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni disclosed that he had no fear of America. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing.' ... Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual ... sanctions. ... His dithering would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in the coming decades. ... This same defensive war doctrine reigns today in Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. military strategy is not geared to vanquishing its enemies. ... During World War II, it would have been unthinkable to stop at the German border after the liberation of Fance and begin reconstruction, leaving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in power. ... The U.S. has always assumed that it is the only nation with grand visions like peace, democratization, free enterprsie and globalization. But Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic surrogates have their own 'grand vision' and the grandest of them all tells that that both America and Israel will never be anything but enemies of their regime, culture and religions, and that victory over both is assured because it has been ordained by Allah. ... Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won", Mark Silverberg, 14 January 2009 at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/14/the-strategy-of-defeat-and-lessons-for-israel-in-gaza/.

This may make some cry, but war against Islamic Jihadism requires much more killing of jihadists and their populations than the West has done to date. Absent more killing, the West will not survive. That's the bottom line. Our entire war on terror rests on false premises. Spengler had a 12 June 2003 post, "More Killing Please" on this, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF12Ak01.html. How right he is. As Michael Savage, radio talk show host has said many times, "Only a more Savage nation will survive".

Alright, lets think about this. SCPA, Siverberg and Savage want to wage war. Big war, a lot of war. Well, the enemy is out thinking them. Recently, they out thought the Israelis in Operation Cast Lead. They throw some piddling rockets, the Israelis huff and puff and finally send some reservists in Merkavas. The Palis go to ground, the Israelis bust up some stuff and kill a few people and leave looking stupid. Yup, because they were stupid. The Sabras of the war of independence are gone. It was just reservists riding through. The Israelis could have killed them all if they wanted to but unless Savage is made CinC, that ain't happening. Short much better humint that can target every militant there is not much Israel can do except elect tough talkers. Even though they have a lot of stupid socialism, Israel is infinitely more advanced than the Palis. Guess who has more to lose?

Silverberg:

Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won"

SCPA agrees with that. Intellectually, If he really believes that, he and Savage have a duty to be part of that war. Go get 'em. Our overseas adventure is stupid and the biggest part of why we are financially going down the tubes. I defy SCPA to tell me how the Islamists can destroy us if we only control immigration. They don't have carrier fleets and even if they got them, they couldn't sail them.

So good luck SCPA and Mike. Hope you learn to low crawl, because if you're part of the invasion force, you're going to need it. The IDF probably needs to do more of that too.

Oh, and the denouement of Vietnam that Mr. Silverberg regrets our loser policy over? We got to leave the place and they never bothered us again. The only successful exit strategy we ever executed.

You Can Do Something For Neutralism Today!

2009-01-15T09:44:00.000-08:00

I read about the new President's experiment in direct democracy over at Gavinthink. Your man is giving it the old college try (he does live in Amherst, after all).

I do tend to have a suspicion of such innovations. My history nerd reading life has led me to the conclusion that even if some are better than others, there is no Philosophers Stone of Government. Even the best will become sclerotic and die.

Still, I went over and voted if only for this proposal,

Bring our troops home- from everywhere!

Why do we still have troops in Germany? Korea? Asia? Egypt?

"The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737.

Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries -- and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base's "worth" is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.
The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords" (figures from Dept. of Defense Base Structure Report 2005) Chalmers

We spend a fortune on military bases in many countries all over the world. Think of all of the money this would save, and what all of that money could accomplish here at home.

While there may have been some rationale for having far-flung bases in the 1940s, when travel and communication were slower and we may have needed a deterrent "on the ground" in many locations, this is oudated thinking.

Close all of our military bases all over the world, and bring those troops home. It would help us in many ways: the good will generated by getting our troops out of other countries; a smaller military force that would be used strictly for DEFENSE of America, as required by our Constitution; a good deterrent to our being tempted to interfere in the affairs of other countries, where we have a 60 year history of secret manipulations, assassinations, regime changes, and bad policies that have resulted in terrible "blowback" to Americans.

Just one recent example of blowback: A graduate student in Germany was so disturbed by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1996, and it's killing more than 100 innocents in Cana that he determined to pay them (and the US, who supplied the weapons) back for their actions. He was Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Our support for bad policies has long term unintended consequences. Why not follow a policy consistent with American values- friendship with all, trade with all, talk with all, but no "passionate attachments" to any but our own country.

So go to the portal, look around and if you want sign in and then go to Bring the Troops Home and vote.

Maybe it is a futile gesture, but what the heck.

Neutralism and the Middle East, by someone who might not know he is a Neutralist

2009-01-12T04:52:00.000-08:00

Mr. Jack Hunter makes videos that I usually agree with. Well, I have not seen one I disagreed with. This one makes perfect sense so we post it here as an official statement of Neutralismo even though he never used that N word in any form.

Here are some links to Jack The Southern Avenger" Hunter.

At Taki Mag, here.

At his blog, here.

Gaza and the Neutralist

2009-01-08T05:25:00.000-08:00

For anyone following the Neutralist, it is obvious our policy is Washington's no entangling alliances. We do not believe American freedom has been enhanced by any of our adventures whether in Iraq or Afghanistan and a Darfur expedition would come a cropper, just to give a few instances.

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.

I supposed 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.

The Wound Continues to Bleed

2008-12-19T19:22:00.000-08:00

The news from Afghanistan has not been encouraging. On December 7th we posted about the destruction of convoy supplies in Peshawar.

Unfortunately, the news gets worse. In a post over at Defense and the National Interest titled Your taxpayer dollars at work We find something even more disconcerting,

The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders who charge protection money to allow convoys of military supplies to reach Nato bases in the south of the country.

D-N-I got this story from TIMESONLINE

Antiwar Newswire reports of 10,000 Pakistanis protesting over the supply routes and wanting them stopped.

Of course their is an alternative route through Russian territory. That's certainly safe as we continue to bug the Russkies.

If there is any reader who has an intelligent rationale for why it is in our interest to stay in Afghanistan, we would be grateful to hear it.

More People Channeling the Neutralist!

2008-12-14T05:30:00.000-08:00

Via The Skeptical CPA is an article at Forbes by John Arquilla titled The Biggest Boondoggle. Now, one's first reaction is to think Mr. Arquilla guilty of chutzpah as there are so many doggles that boon in this country it takes nerve to claim you came up with the ne plus ultra.

Still, I think that your man made a good case that our naval fetish for the big carrier fleet is ill advised. Just the name, Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers screams incompetence and waste.

The Skeptical CPA extracted the meat of the article,

Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. ... Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion. ... Why won't the next Administration get rid of this white elephant? President-elect Obama simply has too little military expertise to take on the carrier champions, even though his senior adviser on strategic affairs, former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, has in the past called for reducing carrier crew sizes. ... Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes. They have had a good 70-year run as capital ships, but their time is over. ... In terms of so-called irregular warfare, the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery
make more effective substitutes

You see it's this "Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes" that makes me feel Mr. Arquilla is channeling The Neutralist.

In a previous Neutralist post, The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis we noted that our policy should be to

Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.

We are gratified that someone so eminent as a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey agrees with us. He may not see it all our way and could be horrified to be cited by us, but at this point he is stuck with us. We feel we have taken his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Thanks, Professor.

You heard it here first!

2008-12-07T18:42:00.000-08:00

Well, maybe you heard it here second. Maybe you never heard it here at all. Actually, as this is a blog, you couldn't hear it here at all, you could only read it.

Let us not waste time. Well, anymore time. On Sepember 5, 2008 we opined that things were heating up in the Southern supply routes to our Afghan theater. A Northern route through Russian territory was available, but we were bugging the Russkies making that a not too secure route.

Well, in a Sunday NYT article we note that

More than 100 trucks loaded with supplies for American forces in Afghanistan were destroyed Sunday by militants in Peshawar, the city that serves as an important transit point for the Afghan war effort.

The next paragraph might make us think this may not be a one off, as the Brits say,

It was the third major attack by Taliban militants on NATO supplies in Pakistan in less than a month, and served to expose the vulnerability of the route from the port of Karachi through Peshawar and over the border into Afghanistan. The United States relies on the route for an overwhelming proportion of its supplies for the war in Afghanistan.

A Col. Greg Julian, a spokesman for United States forces in Kabul noted,

The damaged trucks were loaded with American war materiel, including Humvees, destined for the Afghan National Army

Colonel Julian said the loss of equipment would have a minimum impact on the overall war effort.

“It’s a very insignificant loss in terms of everything transported into Afghanistan.”

In reading how easily the culprits were able to operate we wonder if Colonel Julian is part of the Army's whistling past the graveyard command?

There is a lot to think about here as it is happening as the Pak forces might become more distracted toward the east after the events in Mumbai. It just gets harder for us to play twister.

Time to Stop Doing Dumb

2008-12-03T10:18:00.000-08:00

Barrack Obama said the Iraq invasion would be a "dumb war." It may have been his finest hour, well minute, er few seconds as he hasn't said anything near as smart since. To be fair, almost none of our so called statesmen have said much that can be called smart.

It is hard to say where we have been at our worst in regard to Russia. It seems we can't do enough to bug the Bear. In the recent Georgian contretemps we tried to make out Russia as the invader. Both the O man and McCain acted like violated innocents. To be sure, McCain was the goofier with his "We are all Georgians now" buffoonery. Of course John outdid himself with the "in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations" silliness.

Then there is running NATO up to the Russian border. The venerable George Kennan called it, “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.” Not exactly a Dale Carnegie decision.

And there is the actual thievery performed by American academics who were to help the reformed commies privatize. The thieves were helped in their looting, or were shielded by Larry Summers. Summers could be a member of the Obama team.

All in all, our track record with Les Russes ain't too pretty. So why should we care after all, Putin and Medvedev are putting a corporatist state in place. Oh, that's happening here too.

Still, there is hope and it is being offered by the Russians as reported by William S. Lind at Defense and the National Interest. In an article of November 17, 2008 entitled The Russian Imperative he reports,

Until last week, I would have said that the U.S. had damaged the prospects for an American-Russian entente beyond repair. But to the West’s potential good fortune, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has now signaled otherwise. According to the November 14 Financial Times, speaking shortly before his trip to Washington to a group of Russian and European business leaders, President Medvedev said that Russia could develop “neighborly and partnership-based relations with the U.S.” In Washington for the Group of 20 meeting, he repeated the message. The November 16 Washington Post quoted him as saying, “I think we can create in principle a new framework…a partnership between the U.S. and Russia.”

Now, I would think even the dimmest would think that, at a minimum, not bugging the Russkies would be a good idea (of course there is no lack of the sub-dim in the American Government). The partnership idea is something good to explore as Mr. lInd points out,

America’s failure to reintegrate post-Communist Russia into the concert of powers was a strategic blunder of the first order. The threat from the global south, manifested most powerfully by invasion by immigration but also evident in many other ways, can only be met by a united global north. Russia holds the West’s vast eastern flank, which stretches all the way from the Black Sea to Vladivostok. Were that flank to collapse, as Russia came close to doing in the early 1990s, the West’s geo-strategic position would become well-nigh hopeless.

Mr. Medvedev was asked by the CFR if Russia could join NATO. Now a question from the CFR makes me ask what deviousness they are pursuiing. Here is Lind's paragraph,

......when Medvedev was asked before the CFR about the possibility of Russia joining NATO, he said, “There is a good phrase - never say never.” Since the fall of Communism, NATO has had no real reason to exist. But if Russia joined NATO, NATO would become what the West needs most, an alliance of the global north. This is a lead both the Obama administration and the European members of NATO should pursue avidly.

Well of course as a Neutralist, I would like to see NATO dissolve. What would succeed it. That is the question and Mr. Lind has addressed it here. It is that we should connect to centers of order and be as far away from centers of disorder as possible. Now, I agree in that we should not bug functioning entities if they mean us no harm and cooperate with them where necessary (e.g. in India's current problem, we should share everything we know about their antagonist). This does not mean we have to have an alliance.

There is much to learn from both of Mr. Lind's articles, but at minimum, stop bugging the Russkies.

You Didn't Notice?

2008-11-28T17:14:00.000-08:00

That's okay, some of the lads on patrol probably didn't either.

The War is over in Iraq. A site called Zombietime has declared it so. The fact that the troops are not coming home and being feted through the streets appears irrelevant to your man. That the army continues to need soldiers such that they are now taking Cat IVs also means nothing to the fellow. He cites stats that say the level of violence is way down.

Which means the troops will be coming home soon. Er, no. We are coming up with an agreement to prop up the Iraqi regime with our army for another three years.

So who am I to rain on the ChickenHawks* parade that they're not actually having. Well, I have a different conception of victory as I set out in America's greatest 20th century victory

Now, granted we might not all agree on what constitutes a win. In order to set the tone, let us define terms.

The Agamemnon School of Victory: This consists of completely destroying your enemy, grabbing a lot of plunder and a great looking slave babe. After that, you go home to be murdered by your wife and her toy boy. It is only the last part that I think needs work.

The American Century School: After victory or tie, hunker down, rebuild the place, never leave.

The Neutralist School: After the war, you can leave and forget about the place you left.

The ChickenHawk victory bloggers see it as a American Century victory where we leave troops, waste money and make sure oil profits flow.

The poor sap fighting the war who the war bloggers pretend to love but would never join may see it differently as well.

On a some of blogs I saw tip jars. The nerve! Hey lads, sign up and get the paltry bonus on offer to others not so fortunate.

If it were victory, we could leave.

*They may not all be ChickenHawks but a lot had little about me sketches telling how brilliant they are. Oddly, little about their service.

plus ça change is like deja vu all over again (sorry Yogi)

2008-11-19T05:43:00.000-08:00

So we have Clinton retread Holder at Justice.

La Pasionara herself at State.

Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago neocon hack as Chief of Staff.

Now, Obama and the Dem leadership have made peace with Department of Fatherland Security Committee Chairman Lieberman. Notice they did not take away the chairmanship of the committee where he can be as neoconnish as he likes.

So now exposed for the world to see is the meaning of change, Obama style. It is not in the sense of the management of a losing ball team firing the coach and obtaining different players. No, it is change in the sense of the purchase of new and more stylish uniforms for the same sad team.

Yes we can get ready for the Bush-Obama Administration.

Lest We Forget

2008-11-11T19:47:00.000-08:00

Today we celebrate the veterans of our country. The origin of this holiday was the armistice that ended the World War I.

I defy anyone to justify our entry into that war as anything but a horrible error. I have had this discussion many times and in the end, either my opponents would give way (rare) or resort to invective.

Then again, it is the same with the so called war on terror.

Our national motto should be:

Plus ça change, whatever.

All you need is love

2008-10-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

From a comment The Black Sea left on my last post,

There is a difference between defeating a rival football team, and trying to win the allegiance of its fans. If you define the latter as "victory," you're in for a very long game.

Excellent insight into the nature and foolishness that is our overseas adventures. I intend to steal this as often as I can.

Sunk Costs

2008-10-15T05:52:00.000-07:00

I suppose anyone reading this understands sunk costs. You own a factory with a machine that makes widgets at $2 per and you sell at three. Joe buys a new machine that makes them at $1 per and sells them at $2. You either get a similar machine or close, but your old machine is obsolete and you can only recover scrap costs. The costs are sunk, gone.

Ah, but the human condition is to say, I'll get a new machine as soon as I get back my money on the old. Dumb.

Our situation is similar to a friend of mine who owned a tanning salon that was losing money. She asked me if she should close it. I asked her if there were any prospect that profitability would happen. She said no. Obviously, my answer was get out now. Costs are sunk and would never be recovered.

So it is with Afghanistan. Put aside the fact that the concept of victory there as benefiting the US is debatable. The point is we can't win. Costs are sunk. Move on.

Don't believe me. As witness for the prosecution I give you Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, recently the senior British commander in Afghanistan. Your man said, a military victory over the Taleban was “neither feasible nor supportable”.

Of course he did blather on a bit with some positive spin,

Brigadier Carleton-Smith did suggest that the foreign troops need to stay longer: "If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them."

Veteran military affairs reporter Gwynne Dyer begs to differ,

There are two things wrong with this argument.

One is the notion that Western countries are willing to take casualties in Afghanistan for another three, five or 10 years. The other is that the Afghan government is not getting stronger.

Yup, with our economic problems we shall have oodles of cash to throw in to Afghanistan and stay the course.

Mr. Dyer was not done.

In a recently leaked diplomatic cable, the deputy French ambassador in Kabul, Francois Fitou, reported that the British ambassador there, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, told him that the strategy for Afghanistan was "doomed to failure. In Sir Sherard's view, "the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust." The usual denials followed, but that is exactly what British officials there say in private.

Mr. Dyer finishes,

So it would make sense to announce a deadline for pulling out the foreign troops and start negotiating for a final peace settlement in Afghanistan now. Waiting is unlikely to produce a better deal. Which is probably why President Hamid Karzai said last week that he had asked the king of Saudi Arabia to mediate in negotiations with the Taliban.

Oh, that negotiation word. If the deadline is set, why do the Taliban need to negotiate at all.

In the words of Martin Mull, "It's too hard to say au revoir, let's just say hors d'œuvre."

The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis

2008-09-23T04:21:00.000-07:00

We have the big financial meltdown and the imperial project has reached its reductio ad absurdam.

How do I know the foreign adventure has gone past the point of ridiculousness? The Coast Guard is serving along the coast of the wrong Georgia.

But that is a mere digression. I have come up with a solution to the problems of our financial system that will also bring about a neutral foreign policy.

Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.

No, sell 'em. If only for scrap, at the rate the dollar is going, they will be worth more made into fridges in China than as a navy.

First thing, though, is we destroy all the manuals. Getting a navy up to speed takes a while even with training. I have high respect for the Chinese people but even with the manuals, it would take them years to get it right. Without the manuals, they'll be obsolete by the time they can sail across the Pacific.

Now would the Chinese be stupid enough to buy the fleet. They put on the Olympics for prestige and they were stupid enough to buy our worthless paper to begin with. Finger s crossed.

Sell them to Chavez. Actually, that is too Machievellian. That clown would demand to sail on the fleet to show himself mas macho and would sink them faster than he can sink his own economy.

It's not even 8:00 AM here and I've done a good day's work for my country already.

Did we just lose the war in Afghanistan?

2008-09-05T05:34:00.000-07:00

No, my few readers know I believe we lost it when it started. Well, are we closer to the denouement.? Not if the Russkies are smart.

Shakespearean actor, Jim Varney was known for his character, Ernest. I remember seeing a t-shirt with Ernest's image and the question, "Do I look like I have stupid written on my forehead?" If anyone running American foreign policy were to ask me that question, the answer would not be in doubt.

Timesonline reports that the Russians are pulling out of an agreement to allow us to resupply in Afghanistan through Russia. I had not been aware of that agreement, but it certainly helps illustrate how stupid bugging Russia over Georgia and Ukraine is.

So Cheney goes to Georgia the other day and presents a blank check.

Now what would I do if I were Putin or Medvedev . The question is not as easy as it seems. The first reaction would be "No more gas to Europe or supplies to Afghanistan unless you stop bugging us." I don't think the Russians want to provoke an extreme reaction. Besides, every day we spend frittering away our strength in Afghanistan is a costless victory for Russia if they are in a contest with us. It is win win for them. We degrade and more hostile people in a hostile country on their border are killed.

I suspect the Russians will play it out with subtlety. In the current presidential silliness, we are debating who has more experience, Palin, Obama, blah blah blah. The man who has experience where it counts is Putin.

Just how important is the Russian route agreement of 2007, per the August 26, 2008 Timesonline article, you judge,

the Taleban have been targeting the supply routes of the alliance this year, mimicking tactics used against the British in 1841 and the Soviet Union two decades ago. Nato imports about 70 per cent of its food, fuel, water and equipment from Pakistan via the Khyber Pass, and flies in much of the rest through Russian airspace via bases in Central Asia.

The Blogger, Albert E. of Military Analysis points up seriousness of the problem,

The Taliban have been attacking the Main Supply Route [MSR] from Karachi, through the Khyber Pass, to Kabul. This HAS BEEN AN ON-GOING THREAT, AND HAS NOW MATERIALIZED, JUST AS I FEARED!!

The villains have gotten it into their head that this is a do-able strategy that can reap great rewards. The single MSR supplies currently 70 % of the re-supply for NATO forces in Afghan. If that life-line is cut or severely interrupted, NATO is in deep doo-doo [skat/merde'/etc.]!

Attacks on the MSR have already included:

* "one [attack] that destroyed 36 fuel tankers"
* "Four US helicopter engines worth $13 million (£7 million) went missing [pilfered]"
* "militants killed ten French soldiers on the same route"

The road, and the narrow-gauge [?] rail link from Pakistan to Kabul must be kept open. Cannot be jeopardized even slightly. NATO forces would have to face the consequences if this life-line is cut. Mission in Afghan would rapidly become untenable. American and allied forces would have beat feet, and quick.

But how? And to where? Contingency plans are on the table and being constantly reviewed!!

An Imperialist or if you wish a Benevolent Interventionist policy will always come a cropper.

The Neutralist Comes Out for Change.

2008-08-30T12:46:00.000-07:00

That does not mean we are endorsing Obama. From his acceptance speech, he wouldn't know real change if it bit him in the nose. To be non partisan, McCain wouldn't know a real American Foreign Policy if he ran into it.

It was sometime in the 70s. The Turkish airborne had just jumped into Cyprus and occupied a large part of the island. I was walking up Tremont Street across from the Common when I saw the last stragglers hurrying to a demonstration. The sign a child was carrying read, "America Help Us Drive Turks From Cyprus."

I did not stop to ask one of the demonstrators why this country should drive the Turks from Cyprus. Greek people are fun, passionate and manic. A discussion with such lovable folk goes only so far. That is not to say, one on one, you can't have a rational discussion. Most Hellenes I've met are intelligent and would stand out in Lake Woebegone. The group thing, is another matter.

The Greeks are an organized pressure group. The Turks are still in Cyprus. What this means is one or more of a few possibilities.

1. We need the Turks more or as much as the Greeks.

2. The Turks are strong enough that it would be no fun to engage them in battle even if we could prevail.

3. The Turks are organized and can lobby us as well as the Greeks even though there are far fewer Turks here.

The Sibel Edmonds case is evidence for 3.

So every country around hires lobbyists who ask for money, arms, troops, support and love. We've had the slick Georgians trying to play us like a violin. The tune hasn't worked as well as they wished.

Is all this a good thing for the United States? I recommend the Jason Raimondo's article of August 27, Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Policy. My only quibble with it is the sub title is more important than the title, American politicians are for sale – and so is our foreign policy.

It is not new, but it is still afflicting us. Justin quotes Washington's farewell address.

"nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."

We agree. In another blog, we make proposals of constitutional reform with the knowledge they have no chance of enactment. The Neutralist will propose a reform that we hope against hope is made law.

No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.

Now the next part of the bill would set the penalty. I remember the old "Branded" TV series where Chuck Connors would have his rank ripped off and his sword broken and he would be pushed out of the fort. Most of the lobbyists wear business suits and carry palms. It wouldn't be the same.

Still, we've given it some thought and remembering that defenestration is the traditional Czech method of dealing with those disagreed with, we have come up with a solution.

The guilty will be taken up in a transport, their palm will be taken from them and thrown out the door. then, the lobbyist will be pushed out of the plane a la Chuck Connors while the theme of the show is being played.

Thus the complete law will read.

No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.

The penalty will be deplaning without parachute at an altitude not less than 5,000 feet.

I'm no longer doubting you, Thomas

2008-08-20T20:05:00.000-07:00

Okay, I haven't been paying perfect attention to Thomas Sowell on our various adventures. I had the impression your man was neoconnish. So, over at NRO online of all places he causes me to overdose on his sane writing. what is he trying to do, cause me to need a pacemaker?

99% was great. I take issue with

Apparently Barack Obama doesn’t yet know it, judging by his initial response to news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, which was to call on “both sides” to cease fire and then go to the U.N.

Later he changed his position to correspond to John McCain’s more grown-up position that Russians have to pay a price if we expect them to change their behavior.

The words "John McCain's more grown up position" do not work.

Still,

Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway? Would we have done any more than we are doing now?

Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into question?

His last words nail for him the coveted Neutralist Article of the Week award,

If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if they don’t intend to back up their words.

Congratulations, Thomas. We know you have had other encomia in your career, but we award you anyway.

Al Fin on War V

2008-08-17T10:56:00.000-07:00

Al can't stop. Russia Takes the Path of Violence is a post that infers that Russia has gone off the deep end.

Hey, maybe they have. Maybe, they have decided to emulate a country that invaded another country for no reason. Or maybe Russia had a reason. We could have a discussion on this, but Al is too afraid to allow comments.

Here he steps in it.

mighty Russia with its huge army, navy, and nuclear arsenal is so unhinged by fear that it is willing to undo the difficult diplomatic work of almost two decades?

No, Al, we promised Gorby that we would not run NATO, that worthless array of spongers, up to his borders. We lied and Putin is changing the equation.

His last paragraph is a keeper.

Think about it. Clint Eastwood always says, "a man's got to know his limitations." The same is true for a nation. Already on a one way superhighway to oblivion, Russia is in the process of destroying its bridges behind it.

That goes for any country, Al.