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.

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Speaking Truth to Stupid

A couple of links from Drudge this morning are the cause of this post.

The first one, Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war in the Washington Post may or may not be correct.  That their is some suspicion is not insane.  There is ample evidence that the Qataris are supporting ISIS and we are their best buddies.

American policy is impenetrable.  One can only wonder at what the administration is doing.  None of it makes sense.

In a post on Sic Semper Tyrannis, a commenter is quoted,

Just trying to keep my scorecard straight. Let’s see. The Americans are using a Turkish airbase to bomb ISIS and protect our allies the Kurds. 
 The Turks are bombing our allies the Kurds while we are using their airbase.  The Americans are supplying human shields for terrorist in Syria who are being bombed by the Russians. 
On the Iraqi side, American air power is being used to protect and support the new Iranian puppet regime in Iraq installed by the Americans after the gulf war.  The Mahdi army that we fought in Sadr City are now advanced element of the Iraqi army we are protecting. 
Officers of “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” the Iranians are standing next to Iraqi officers who are standing next to American officers all cooperating to kill ISIS soldiers who have been receiving weapons from Americans through American proxies we consider”moderate rebels”. 
Meanwhile, our “enemies” the Iranians are supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen while our “allies” the people who destroyed the trade centers have involved the U.S. in yet another unauthorized war by aggressively attacking the houthis who were helping the U. S. fight Al Queda in Yemen before . 
In the meanwhile “moderate rebels” are undoubtedly being furnished weapons capable of bringing down Russian war planes. So while Russia is bombing ISIS, we are encouraging our proxies to shoot down their planes. 
Will someone tell me whose side we are on today?
It nicely sums it up the bizarre nature of our Mid-east policy.

It was thus refreshing to read the other Drudge Link.  Refreshing?  Heck, it was mind blowing.  Not only was it about someone actually making sense, it was a Democrat and it was in that journal of Neoconism, The National Review.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii has called out the folly of our reckless adventurism,

Carter got a hint of just how difficult it may be to sell Congress on such legislation when Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) suggested that Obama’s decision to place American fighter jets equipped “to target Russian planes” on the border between Turkey and Syria, and his stated opposition to Russian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, could lead the U.S. into a nuclear war with Vladimir Putin’s regime. 
“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of — whether it’s intentional or even an accidental event — where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane,” Gabbard told Carter. “And that’s really where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war.”
For the woman to take on the president, a member of her party, is brave, unless she had permission.  Generally, a politician is guilty until proven innocent, but we live in hope.

Keep talking Tulsi!

No comments: