The Neutralist

Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Laurence M. Vance on An America First Foreign Policy-Finally someone uses an N word (Neutrality) well!

I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building.I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that Mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.  As we at The Neutralist have not read everything he has written, we may be doing him an injustice and regret that.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building as our current adventures are failing.

So, it was wonderfully refreshing to read Mr. Vance's column of September 1, 2017, An America First Foreign Policy at Explore Freedom at the Future of Freedom Foundation's website and come across this paragraph:

An America First foreign policy would be one of neutrality. The United States regularly takes sides in civil wars, territorial disputes, and controversies in other nations, in addition to picking winners and losers. It should instead remain neutral. Neutrality guarantees a noninterventionist foreign policy. It checks presidential power, it prevents hatred of America and Americans, it doesn’t create enemies and terrorists, it respects the sovereignty of other nations, it keeps U.S. soldiers from dying unnecessarily, it doesn’t cost anything, and it ensures that the military is not misused. Not remaining neutral does not put America first.

Indeed, at the Neutralist we doubt we would be hard put to come up with anything as succint to explain our position.

Well done Mr. Vance.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Is this why Bannon was fired?

 "As Steven Bannon, President Trump’s former “Chief Strategist,” is quoted as saying, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”  That may explain why he was fired. "

 The above quote is from MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk (Part 2)

William R. Polk went into the history of our Korean involvement in Part 1 (link here) and in Part 2 looks at the situation as it is and our options.  Both parts deserve a read by everyone.

Now, the Neutralist thinks Mr. Polk is a wise man, but believes the wisest policy is to leave.  We hope that Trump is playing a deep game in showing what a truly stupid policy is to get people on board with a smart policy.

Of course, the guy who said something smart had to go.


Follow The Neutralist on Facebook.

Monday, August 28, 2017

On Afghanistan, Don channels George the elder

Remember how George the elder promised America no new taxes.  He thought his victory in an unnecessary and stupid war would allow him to betray his word to the electorate.

Well, Trump had been saying for years we should get out.  He did backpedal a bit during the campaign, but now in his speech gone all George the younger.

Maybe he has come three dimensional chess moves he is planning, but we must go on his words and they are not encouraging.


Friday, August 25, 2017

The Neutralist North Korea Policy

Our policy is:

If that was not clear, we repeat it:


Got it?

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan right now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



-->

-->

Thursday, April 20, 2017

And the Ton Kin Gulf hoax award goes to The Donald

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

Actually, he showed himself weak as a kitten.

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

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

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

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


Monday, March 27, 2017

Martin van Creveld nails it and writes a neutralist article.

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

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

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

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