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, March 30, 2015

Don't think all the King's horse's and all the King's men are going to be able to put Yemen back together again

This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out [the Islamic State] wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

Little more than a half a year ago, the president claimed success, if not victory for the policy above. The Neutralist need not be mean in pointing out this, like almost all of the policies of the current and prior administrations, has come a cropper.

There is no lack of outlets who have talking heads and scribblers discussing the great disaster that is the rise of the Houthis.  After all, we now can't run that vastly successful, game changing drone war.

None of the pundits is suggesting we say au revoir and bring it all home to pursue a neutralist foreign policy.

As usual, the best commentary is over at Sic Semper Tyrannis.  Col. Lang and his Committee of Correspondence are discussing the question at length.

In a departure from the demonization, Col. Lang has opined,
IMO the Houthis are the natural allies of the United States in the world wide war against Sunni jihadism.  The United States seems blind to that, blinded by its own delusions concerning the "evolution" of history and the dust thrown in US eyes by the Saudis who fear all things Yemeni.
If the Neutralist stopped being the Neutralist and were elected Commander of the Unfaithful (i.e. POTUS) and wanted to pursue a workable policy, he would appoint Col. Lang to run it.  Alas, it would be just a moment, not matter how effective and he and the Col. would be gone in the blink of an eye.

I truly wish a man as wise as the Colonel and his associates would give over and support neutralism.  Anything else is at best an interlude on the road to a bad end.

Sunday, March 08, 2015

The Neutralist hopes no one has illusions

There is enough analysis of the Netanyahu speech that his words themselves need not be discussed on this page.

The Neutralist would rather address the question of why he was at all invited?

Everybody knows the truth, but few will say it.  The chief of state or government of any other country would not usually be invited to speak.  Certainly not while negotiations with another country are ongoing.

We hope no one thinks Mr. Boehner loves Israel out of the goodness of his heart.  He may have affection for the nation, but that is not the true impetus for his pushing the invitation.

The Neutralist would like to pose the question, Is there anyone who believes that the Congressional Republicans (and many Dems) would support Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech sans the financial support of wealthy Likud supporters?

Such hi-jacking of American foreign policy is a constitutional problem that is not to be addressed by either party anytime soon.  It is just another bit of evidence for the necessity of a neutralist foreign policy.  That unfortunately is also not on the horizon.

The Neutralist has made its policy on Israel clear before.  It is the same policy as regards any nation.  We would not ally with any country, but we would cooperate with any nation that constituted a center of order as William S. Lind termed it.