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, August 17, 2016

File this under, If that is how a country runs its foreign policy, it does not deserve to have one-apologies to Dickens

Our relationship with Turkey has been a problem for a while now and does not look to become smooth anytime soon.  So, let's just fly those nukes at Incirilik out of Anatolia and say au revoir.
It may not be that simple.  At Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz has a post, "Report: US Nukes in Turkey at Risk of Seizure by Terrorists."
Why were they there even five minutes after the end of the last cold war?  Do they serve any purpose?  According to the article, "retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger noting late last month that the tactical nuclear weapons “no longer have any military usefulness.” The low-yield weapons were designed in the 1960s, and very few remain in service anymore, with what’s left mostly just scattered around bases in Europe as a throwback to the Cold War."
So really, why are they there?
The last paragraph nails it,
"This lack of utility has led nuclear powers to dramatically scale back their tactical arsenals, though as with the rest of the nuclear arsenals on the planet, there is considerable momentum behind keeping such costly weapons funded and “modernized.” Keeping the US arms in Europe and Turkey, for no good reason and at substantial risk, seems aimed primarily at retaining the illusion that such arms matter as anything but a sinkhole for billions in funding to fall into."
Follow the money.
Another reason why we need a neutralist ethos.

No comments: