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.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Finally, someone uses the N word correctly!

In truth, I am not overly surprised that it was posted at the LRC Blog.  LewRockwell.com
bills itself as Anarcho-Capitalist and anti-war.  As the Neutralist has never observed a pro-war post at the blog or column on the website, we assume that LRC is not anti-neutralist.

Yet we never see the word Neutralism or any of its forms on the internet.  anti-intervention maybe, but it is still not the same thing.  Even people who have seen the light and see the need to stop interfering in other countries will state how they have become somewhat Isolationist.  Of course this plays into the hands of neocons and the mainstream press as they portray Isolationism as an epithet and its belief as a form of primitivism.So we were pleasantly surprised to see the title of Michael S. Rozeff's post at the LRC blog, NeutralityToward Syria Is a Non-Aggressive Policy, But Obama Wants Assad Out.  

We were not at all shocked by the thoughts expressed in the post, and we are certainly in agreement with its sentiment.  It is just the this N word never gets spoken.

It goes without saying, we don't think Mr. Rozeff changed his way of thinking and had a special moment.  He has probably always been a Neutralist, but just have never used the word.

No matter, Michael S. Rozeff has won the so far not coveted Neutralist of the Week Award.  Keep up the good work, Sir.


Saturday, July 20, 2013

It is time to just give Afghanistan to the Taliban unless we can find somebody else stupid enough to take it

Colonel Lang reports that Afghanistan customs is dunning us for the vehicles we brought into the country to keep them in power.  Maybe there was an age old and respected statute we are violating and we should be paying up.  Whatever it is, however, it should be offset by our saving the skins of the corrupt members of the government apparatus.

What is happening was characterized thus by the Colonel,

This is a standard "shake down" technique practised across the region from Morocco to Bangla Desh.  It is a common thing for governments to try to charge customs duty on everything foreign military forces or aid organizations bring into a country.
Our foreign policy of military intervention and aid is viewed by the recipients as a cow to milk.  It will always be thus and is a compelling argument for a Neutralist foreign policy.

The Colonel also writes,

The fact that this is "coming to a head" in Afghanistan is an indication that the flow of cash money is drying up.
So there is an end, at least partial coming and some are trying to suck the cow dry beforehand.  I suspect when we go the Taliban will have a run at it.  I don't want the Afghan kleptocrats finding asylum here.  I don't care if they spend their declining years in Dubai and am not wanting to see them najibullahed.  I just don't want them over here pontificating on my countries mistakes.

Original article at the Washington Post.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Margolis vs. Lang on Egypt plus a better analysis

Two of my favorite writers on the web differ in their view of the current affairs in Egypt.  Eric Margolis  thinks the coup was planned by a deep state and the the MBs were fair and moderate.

Not sure how Col. Lang view the deep state biz, but he does not find the MBs to be completely savory.

Now these are two men who do not buy the official interpretation of events, but they differ in analysis.  Of course we come to the conclusion that the unfathomable aspect of events is even more reason to be a Neutralist.

Another article we are linking to is Egypt's Possible Civil War by 28 Sherman.  Opens up by observing the hunger aspect, which is not mentioned enough.  Egypt does not produce enough food for its population that vastly exceeds carrying capacity.  Thanks to all the unrest, the money is not being made to buy food.  Of course, guess who supplies a lot of the food?

Food and civil war, hmmm.  I vaguely remember reading that Rwanda was the most densely populated region on the continent and had hunger problems. 

 Maybe giving all that food on the cheap did not help the Egyptians plan for population control.

28 Sherman touches on the regional political situation regarding Egypt, Sudan and Ethipia.  As to managing it he writes, "The British did this so much better than us."  Yeah, well HMG don't have too many colonies these days.  There empire was a waste of time.  More reason for a neutralist FP.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

American Foreign Policy Reductio Ad Absurdam Report - Just how ridiculous does Syria have to get before we are embarrassed

As the song goes, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind.  the Neutralist thought the Libyan adventure mindless, but maybe the goody two shoes had a really truly spiffy reason that the Neutralist did not understand.  The results since make it plain that it was just goofy.

That does not mean that there is a NWO or petro theft reason.  Maybe there is a method to someone's madness, but we have no sources.  Of course we never leave out the possibility of mere stupidity.

Now our president has, out of compassion, plighted our troth with the Syrian rebels.  After all, if you google chemical weapon use in Syria, Assad is trying to gas his whole country.  There is some dissent, but the chorus is deafening.  The Neutralist loves to be the skunk at the lawn party.  Why would the regime use chemical weapons when they know the neocons are itching for an excuse?

So the American people will get nothing out of a Syrian intervention, but maybe there is a strata of society that does.  I have no idea, but the thought is hard to escape.

So we are told that Assad & Co. are the bad guys, but to date, I don't think one of his troops has had a taste for human flesh.  A rebel leader eats the heart of a regime soldier.  These are supposedly the good guys.

So now news has come out that the rebels have, in a video, beheaded a Syrian Catholic Priest named Francois Murad.  Keep in mind that according to the administration it is the Syrian government that has crossed the line.

For the most part, there has been a news blackout in the so-called quality press.  Googling "New York times" and "Father Francois Murad" turns up nothing.  So what's up.

Truther, Birther, Infowars, that stuff is not our style.  Still, the paranoid get some credibility when it seems all the team from the networks and big papers are on the team.

So, just who stands to benefit from our intervention?