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.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Steven LaTulippe tells us why we should not bug the Muzzies

Steven LaTulippe has an article posted at Takimag (November 7, 2007) that channels the thoughts of the neutralist. In Let’s Sit Out World War IV He gives reasons why the US should bug out of the Middle East. We agree and though it is not exhaustive in discussing all our geopolitical problems, it is dead on in the area it does cover:

America does not border the Islamic world. It has a statistically insignificant Muslim population that is better assimilated than that of any other Western nation. America is bounded on its east and west by vast oceans and to the north and south by two militarily weak and predominantly Christian nations.

The irony resides, of course, in the fact that despite these blessings, America is the nation doing most of the fighting against radical Islam.

When analyzing the likely course of these civilizational struggles – and plotting a strategy for America to deal with them – one must also recognize another important fact: The ultimate outcome of Islam’s civilizational wars has already been determined. Radical Islam is not a viable paradigm upon which a modern society can be built. It is destined, like communism before it, to collapse from within. The trajectory of political Islam can already be seen in Iran, where it first came to power. As a governing system, the Islamic Republic has been discredited in the eyes of the masses and survives mostly by repression and manipulation. Economically and culturally, it is an utter failure.

Furthermore, radical Islam is not now, nor will it ever be, a civilizational threat to America. Nor will it conquer the world or overturn modern civilization. These goals are simply beyond its capacity

When these two ideas are considered together (i.e. the lack of geopolitical conflict between America and Islam, and the inevitable collapse of Islam as a political ideology), America’s most prudent path becomes obvious: The United States should withdraw from the Middle East and declare itself a non-belligerent in Islam’s civilizational wars. In so doing, America can avoid the casualties and ruinous costs of wars which have nothing to do with our national survival.

Given the immediate proximity of numerous, ancient enemies (and the many bloody divisions that exist within the body of Dar-al Islam itself), the Muslim combatants will not long bother themselves with a non-threatening nation on the other side of the planet. America’s tragic involvement in these wars was wholly the product of our wrong-headed, interventionist foreign policy. When that provocation is removed, so will the cause for enmity.

While obviously beneficial to America, this strategy leaves open the issue of what will happen in the aftermath of our withdrawal.

In all probability, the civilizational struggles between Islam and its neighbors will progress along their natural trajectories.

And what would those trajectories be? Well, when the West had nothing to worry about as regards the non west, we managed to slaughter each other in the two big Twentieth Century conventional intramural contests. Maybe the Islamic world can return the compliment and show us how they can kill each other in fourth generation contests amongst themselves. Or, maybe, without us there, they will stabilize and built a great international civilization. Maybe not. We do not predict the outcome, but believe the world would be no worse and ourselves much better under Neutralism.

We might feel differently if the nations of the region possessed carrier fleets. As it is, all we need do is not let in lads who want to go to flight schools with a non landing curriculum and overstay visas along with a general tightening up of immigration policies and practices.


Black Sea said...

"Radical Islam is not a viable paradigm upon which a modern society can be built. It is destined, like communism before it, to collapse from within."

I read this guy's article on Taki's page, and this point I thought deserved further development.

As the cliche often goes, failure is more instructive than success. In the West, we look at a place like Iran, or maybe the current Pakistan, and think, my God, this disaster must be averted! But, one man's disaster is another man's object lesson.

In the Islamic world, the slow meltdown of Iranian civic culture (about which we should read more) has long served as a cautionary tale. For example, in Turkey, refugees from Iran started arriving in large numbers in the early 80s, and the tales they told of the Perisan catastrophe quickly cooled local Islamic "over-enthusiasm." If that was what an Islamic Revolution wrought, then most people weren't interested.

To this day, when a Turk argues that the nation's current regime wants to turn Turkey "into another Iran," this is understood by everyone, even Islamic conservatives, as a dire warning rather than a utopian promise.

It's too bad for the Iranians, but that's life. Their misfortune reminds others that it is probably wise to live with at least one foot on the ground. Of course, other Middle Eastern disasters might remind our own fanatics of this as well.

Joseph Moroco said...

I know you've heard the cliche,

If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning."

Til you posted here, I thought it merely a jest.