Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Sheldon Richman asks the question not enough of us ask
Regarding whether McCain is a big meanie for saying Obama wants to lose while The Strait Jacket Talker wants to win,
you’ll see barely any examination of the words “win” and “lose.” But that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Should we win or lose in Iraq? Depends on what we mean.
There is something more important "we" need to think about here, and Sheldon focuses laserlike on "us,"
There’s another word that needs scrutiny: we.
When a country goes to war (more precisely, invades and occupies another country), it sounds as though only one entity is acting. But there are really at least two groups involved: the government and the population it dominates. (Of course, the government and population can each be made up of many people with different and conflicting interests.)
So “we” don’t go to war. A small group of policymakers takes the rest of us to war.
You've seen the blogposts like this one,
We are not "losing" a "war" in Iraq
The guy who wrote this is a biglaw wannabe who won't get near the military to save his life. Still, the tone makes it sound like he just got off patrol and it's all good.
I've been reading Sheldon occasionally, though he is worth much more than that. So many great columns, so little time. I recommend him highly. His blog is here. We are also linking to The Future of Freedom Foundation, his other home.