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, February 18, 2012

Official Neutralist Flowchart of American foreign policy by Mr. Andy Singer

I have no idea who Andy Singer is.  At his website there are other cartoons.  Some I agree with and some are witty.  The one above is dead on.  Visit him here.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

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

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...........

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Defeat in Afghanistan-No matter how you slice it

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.