Eternal Recurrence - A Bad Policy Returns

Eternal Recurrence

It could be formulated as a law.  The longer a war goes on, the probability of a bad policy being resurrected approaches 1.

During the Vietnam War, the Johnson administration would be in need of more and more soldiers.  The pool of draftees was not sufficient.  According to a Salon article, “By 1966, President Johnson was fearful that calling up the reserves or abolishing student deferments would further inflame war protesters and signal all-out war. And so, even after McNamara began privately declaring the war was unwinnable, the defense secretary devised Project 100,000.”

Under the program, potential recruits who scored as Category IVs on entrance tests were allowed to enlist.  Cat IVs, to be charitable, had cognitive issues.

The project has been acknowledged a failure in that it was sold as a “Great Society” program that “would provide remedial education and an escape from poverty.”  There was little of either for the 354,000 men:

“...the recruitment program offered a one-way ticket to Vietnam, where "the Moron Corps," as they were pathetically nicknamed by other soldiers, entered combat in disproportionate numbers.  Although Johnson was a vociferous civil rights advocate, the program took a heavy toll on young blacks. A 1970 Defense Department study disclosed that 41 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were black, compared with 12 percent in the armed forces as a whole. What's more, 40 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were trained for combat, compared with 25 percent for the services generally.”

It’s plus ca change time and this iteration is even more creative.  We shall not be targeting the intellectually lame and halt.  Rather now, it will be the emotionally lame and halt who are called to the colors.

A November 12th, 2017 USA Today article noted; “People with a history of “self-mutilation,” bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy enacted in August, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.”  

It might be impolite, if not politically incorrect to ask what could go wrong?  For some of us retrograde types, the words “German Wings” come to mind.  You might remember the pilot of that airline who missed his meds and pursued an alternative method of what could be considered a “hard landing?”

Unlike Project 100,000, the new dispensation is not being sold as a program to enhance the life of the unfortunate.  As noted above, it’s unannounced which means it’s not being sold at all.  In truth, the policy appears to have been ongoing according to USA Today: “To meet last year's goal of 69,000, the Army accepted more recruits who fared poorly on aptitude tests, increased the number of waivers granted for marijuana use and offered hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.”

That’s it, of course, there are problems meeting the numbers.  By now, anyone with a little more than average consciousness knows that we are not going to turn a corner in Afghanistan, that we shall never do any good in Syria and the real winners in Iraq may be those horrible Iranians.

So, what is the point?

The possible upcoming crusade on North Korea might not be a selling point either.  Thus, creativity in augmenting the number of troops will be necessary.

Should we be worried?  During my inglorious Vietnam era service, there was no dearth of Marijuana usage as well as other substances.  What were referred to at the time as “personal problems” were hardly non-existent.  It should be noted, we came in second place in that contest.

What is unspoken in this is that we have to be inventive in inveigling prospects to sign up.  The so-called “War On Terror” is at stake.  If finding sufficient warm bodies to volunteer becomes impossible, conscription would be the alternative.

The WOT ends the day the Donald or a successor announces a draft.

Do we arrive at the point Augustus reached when Varus lost a couple of legions and the Imperator could not draft replacements even when execution was the penalty for resistance?  Is the WOT so necessary that any warm body, native or foreign will be eligible fodder?

As it has been said, this war may never end, why would we not resurrect another bad policy?

The Neutralist position on Jerusalem

If I have any readers they probably have an idea what the Neutralist position on the Donald's policy regarding Jerusalem.

Our position is that we should not need to have one.  We should not have any troops in the Middle East or for that matter the Near East and Far East.  Neither Israel or the Arabs should expect any thing of us.

But, you might say, if we did leave and bring the boys home, we would still have to decide where our embassy would be?  That decision would be based on what is best for our country.  Any other consideration is foolish.

Saudi Crown Prince gets the Adolph Hitler award for creative war delcaration

"This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning the fire... I will continue this struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured"

The words above were spoken by Adolph Hitler on September 1, 1949.  It was a lie.  German operatives had executed a false flag op to blame Poland for starting a war.

In one of those plus ça changey things that eternally recur, Saudi Gulf affairs minister Thamer al-Sabhan has claimed that Lebanon has declared war on the desert sand kingdom.  Though laughably absurd.  There may be some people who pretend to take it seriously.  At least he didn't claim to be returning the fire.

According to Reuters, "Thamer said the Lebanese government would “be dealt with as a government declaring war on Saudi Arabia” because of what he described as aggression by Hezbollah."

What he kinda really means is that someone tossed a missile at the Saudi airport and it either hit the place or was repelled. 

He blames Hezies and by extension, Lebanon.  A bit of a stretch no doubt, but that's our ally.  So what's he gonna do about it?  Well, what can he do about it.  The Saudi army can't punch its way out of a paper bag.

Thamer isn't stupid enough to not know that.  So what's going?

Not completely sure, but the headline at Zero Hedge is interesting:

"Explosive" Leaked Secret Israeli Cable Confirms Israeli-Saudi Coordination To Provoke War

Alone in the world, the Saudis would be quiet little mice.  The Saudis and Israelis cannot be seen together too much, but that Wahabit-Zionist alliance is something.

At the Neutralist, we would not care.  Unfortunately, someone might want to ensnare the country we are neutral about in all these shenanigans.

That the type of thing that leads us to want this country to be neutral for.

The oil is not worth the bones of one American GI.

Is a war against Hezbollah brewing?

Lebanese PM Hariri resigned and both Sic Semper Tyrannis and Moon of Alabama are reporting that a possible Saudi war on Hezbollah might be forthcoming as the Syrian anti-Assad adventure comes a cropper.  Of course, in the end it is the targeting of Iran that is what it is all about.

Colonel sees the attack coming from Israel with the possibility at 50%.  Well that figures.  Even with google maps and a GPS, the Saudis couldn't find their way to Lebanon to save their lives.

The Neutralist is not sure where the U.S. figures in all this, but it is doubtful anything would happen without our government knowing about.

It does seem, though,  a harebrained scheme, which is about what one would expect.

The Neutralist must note again, that the U.S. need not be a part of any of this.  Yeah, we know that there is oil, but it not worth the bones of any American G.I.

Sing it Freda, Bring the Boys Home!

Update: Saudi Crown Prince has arrested just about his whole family.  How this all ties in is also discussed by SST and MOA.

In light of all that, we are seeing the chances of an attack at less than 50%.  There is a possibility the Israelis see everyone else distracted and no time like the present, but other than an air strike here and there, they have not been all that adventurous since the last Lebanese incursion.

Hey Rep. Duncan, why must it be only conservative displaying common sense

  The headline on the antiwar.com blog read Rep. John Duncan: No Conservative should support staying in Afghanistan.

We agree, John, but actually, anyone with even semi-decent cognitive skills should support the withdrawal.  

Of course, if someone can cogently answer the question, how are American troops in Afghanistan defending our freedom?, we could consider changing our mind.

So far no one has come close.

Then there is Max Boot who in being asked a question on Syria when Tucker Carlson had him on his show had no answer, but loves every war and still has ardor for keeping soldiers in the country known as "the graveyard of empires." 

Sane people of all persuasions know it is time to go.  We know Max will never be in that camp.

The Iran Deal Should Be Irrelevant

The Neutralist has not been paying oodles of attention to the Iran deal and the president’s non certification of it.

Supposedly, from much of its press, it is a great agreement and Mr. Trump should have re-certified it.

Of course, he campaigned on the promise not to.

So what does he do now?  Punt it over to Congress.

The deal is discussed ad nauseum in the media with most saying stay with it even if they believe it is several levels less than the best thing since bread that is sliced.

The advocates of re-certification make the argument that if we do not do it, then our word is without meaning and who will negotiate with us, as our faith is not good?

Also, the case has been made that Iran is keeping to the letter of the agreement.

All in all, if it is true that the deal is worth keeping and we are going to be part of an international system, then we would agree, on balance, it is better to be part of the agreement.

The problem is, our history with the Persians has been one of mistakes.

By now, only the most obstinate would disagree that our promotion of the coup against Mossadegh turned out to be a bad idea.  Sure we got 16 years of a hard guy ruler and oodles of oil.  Yet beneath the surface during that time was a revolution coming that would sweep it all away,

Is certifying or decertifying a mistake?

The Neutralist has no idea.  Sure, an Iranian bomb would not be desirable, but Pakistan having one is not all that wonderful either.  If the mullahs stay with the plan, that’s great.  If they don’t what are we going to do?  Bomb them? Probably not.

No, The Neutralist believes in the Neutralist position of non-intervention.  Of course, to non-intervene means to withdraw.  Withdraw completely from MENA.  That means no more intervening in Syria, no more trying to put the Iraq humpty dumpty together.  An end to dealing with Erdogan or other kleptocrats.  We would no longer have to help the Saudis with their obscene war in Yemen.

And, with that, the Republic would fall just like it did when we left Viet Nam.

Please visit us on Facebook.

The Congressmen Speak:Khanna, Jones and Pocan in NYT op-ed on their Resolution to stop the war on Yemen

Well, they don't speak, but write, and their New York Times piece is well done.  They are exhaustive in the links to make the case to stop the war on Yemen.

Please go to the link and then call your rep and tell him to support the resolution, H. Con. Res. 81.

You can visit us on Facebook.

More Neocons Going After The Russian-It probably isn't enough

The anti-Russkie drumbeat gets louder and louder everyday.  Two posts ago, we noted that God, that is the voice of Morgan Freeman is worried.

Morgie, Rob Reiner and others are teaming up to take on the bogeyman in the shape of Putin.

They, however, are not the only ones.  Over at Sic Semper Tyrannis, Colonel Lang has information on Alliance for Securing Democracy.

Who are they?

“The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media.  It’s an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the hillary-cons.”   

Just who is the German Marshall Fund?  On The Ministry of Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the propaganda programming.  I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.

Here is a link to Der Spiegel that is a tribute to the founder, but basically is a history of the GMF.

It is a Neocon safe space.

Read Sic Semper Tyrannis article DECAMERON: NEO-CON RESET.

The article also updates us on the doings of Neocon star Bill Kristol.

“Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul.  Also on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept.   Chertoff recently landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6th, headlined, Congress Can Help Prevent Election Hacking.   I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this front if the “Alliance for Securing Democracy” has its way.  

Securing democracy?  The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?”

Why is Bill Kristol still circulating.  One has to understand that he probably believes he is a genius, but his war promotion and other buffoonery should mark him as the anti-prophet, i.e. anything he says on any subject should be seen as conclusive evidence that taking the opposite tack is wisdom.

The Neutralist has asked before, but if there is a reader that has a cogent argument as to why anyone should listen seriously to this man, please let us know.

SST references Glenn Greenwald and he is always worth reading.

Follow us on Facebook.

And, for your listening displeasure, a Neocon anthem!

House Bill to End War "on" Yemen Is a Great Idea!

Notice above the word on in quotes.  Our foul support of the Saudi war makes the nation and people of that land the victims of a vicious and stupid campaign that is little more than genocidal.

I suppose that some theory of American foreign policy is served by doing the Saudi's bidding.  Certainly Big Oil is happy to see us do that.

Of course, if we believe that it is good policy, then all the folks who spout about "American Exceptionalism" are hypocrites.  We, at the Neutralist, have long given over to that belief.

There is a moment afoot to restore at least a modicum of our national honor.

At The American Conservative, Daniel Larison has a September 28, 2017 column about the effort in Congress to end U.S. involvement in the Yemeni war.

According to Larison

Democratic Reps. Khanna and Pocan and Republican Reps. Massie and Jones are the co-sponsors of the bill, and they deserve a lot of credit for working on this and bringing attention to a conflict and our government’s role in it. The U.S. role in supporting the war should receive much more scrutiny than it has, and this bill provides members of Congress with the opportunity to debate the indefensible policy that has implicated the U.S. in the crimes of the Saudis and their allies. One of the reasons that U.S. support for the war has gone on for so long with so little opposition is that Congress has failed to challenge the Obama and Trump administrations’ decisions to back the coalition. This bill offers the chance to do what Congress should have been doing for the last two years.

He quotes FP

Democratic Reps. Khanna and Pocan and Republican Reps. Massie and Jones are the co-sponsors of the bill, and they deserve a lot of credit for working on this and bringing attention to a conflict and our government’s role in it. The U.S. role in supporting the war should receive much more scrutiny than it has, and this bill provides members of Congress with the opportunity to debate the indefensible policy that has implicated the U.S. in the crimes of the Saudis and their allies. One of the reasons that U.S. support for the war has gone on for so long with so little opposition is that Congress has failed to challenge the Obama and Trump administrations’ decisions to back the coalition. This bill offers the chance to do what Congress should have been doing for the last two years.

The Neutralist concurs.  Though it rarely works wonders, we urge everyone to contact their reps and tell them you support this gang of four.

Larsson's last paragraph emphasizes the point,

U.S. involvement in the war is not only unauthorized, but it is enabling the commission of war crimes and other violations of international law. Ending that involvement could also be the first step in forcing the coalition to halt its campaign and blockade. All House members should join their four colleagues in calling for a stop to U.S. backing for the disgraceful and atrocious war on Yemen.

Reds Under The Bed Redux

A late friend of ours was an old time lefty who saw the Soviet Union as if not a workers’ paradise, at least morally superior to the U.S.  One of his favorite phrases about American cold war paranoia was our fixation on “Reds under the bed.”

It was a bit overwrought, as we were engaged in a struggle with an entity that gave as good as it got. We might have avoided the long cold war, but it was a real conflict.

It must have been fun as we seem to  be in conflict with the Russians again.  It may no longer be the U.S.S.R.  There is a pile on and as Jimmy Durante would put it, “Everybody wants to get into the act.”

It’s serious as God himself wants to find some reds under the bed.  Morgan Freeman, is taking time off from playing the almighty onscreen to descend to opine on international relations   With his tinsel town buddy, Rob Reiner ,are celebrity members of The Committee to Investigate Russia.

We at the Neutralist have a funny feeling that God, er Mr. Freeman is not going to be working on any studies, looking up footnotes, etc., nor is Mr. Reiner.  Not that they don’t care about what Russia is doing to our democracy.  We are upset as well.  Listen Putin, we are capable of screwing up our democracy by ourselves, so butt out.

Just because a couple of thespians provide window dressing does not mean there is no depth to this important committee.  There isn’t any, but Reiner and Freeman are not the reason.

The problem is outlined by Leonid Bershidsky at Bloomberg View in his article, Wanted: Russia Experts, No Expertise Required.  His subtitle, Jingoism has replaced scholarship and a spirit of real inquiry when it comes to Russia. That's a mistake, says it all.  The fanaticism of the anti-Russki crowd means study and reflection are out of place.

The group has Clapper, but under a better system he would be in disgrace for perjuring himself before Congress.  The chickenhawk Max Boot is on the team, but really, do we have to treat an Iraq invasion tout with any seriousness?

Take some time to read Mr. Bershidsky.  From our rather shallow research into the man (wikipedia) it appears he is no Putin toady.

Follow us on Facebook.

Laurence M. Vance on An America First Foreign Policy-Finally someone uses an N word (Neutrality) well!

I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building.I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that Mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.  As we at The Neutralist have not read everything he has written, we may be doing him an injustice and regret that.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building as our current adventures are failing.

So, it was wonderfully refreshing to read Mr. Vance's column of September 1, 2017, An America First Foreign Policy at Explore Freedom at the Future of Freedom Foundation's website and come across this paragraph:

An America First foreign policy would be one of neutrality. The United States regularly takes sides in civil wars, territorial disputes, and controversies in other nations, in addition to picking winners and losers. It should instead remain neutral. Neutrality guarantees a noninterventionist foreign policy. It checks presidential power, it prevents hatred of America and Americans, it doesn’t create enemies and terrorists, it respects the sovereignty of other nations, it keeps U.S. soldiers from dying unnecessarily, it doesn’t cost anything, and it ensures that the military is not misused. Not remaining neutral does not put America first.

Indeed, at the Neutralist we doubt we would be hard put to come up with anything as succint to explain our position.

Well done Mr. Vance.

Is this why Bannon was fired?

 "As Steven Bannon, President Trump’s former “Chief Strategist,” is quoted as saying, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”  That may explain why he was fired. "

 The above quote is from MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk (Part 2)

William R. Polk went into the history of our Korean involvement in Part 1 (link here) and in Part 2 looks at the situation as it is and our options.  Both parts deserve a read by everyone.

Now, the Neutralist thinks Mr. Polk is a wise man, but believes the wisest policy is to leave.  We hope that Trump is playing a deep game in showing what a truly stupid policy is to get people on board with a smart policy.

Of course, the guy who said something smart had to go.


Follow The Neutralist on Facebook.

On Afghanistan, Don channels George the elder

Remember how George the elder promised America no new taxes.  He thought his victory in an unnecessary and stupid war would allow him to betray his word to the electorate.

Well, Trump had been saying for years we should get out.  He did backpedal a bit during the campaign, but now in his speech gone all George the younger.

Maybe he has come three dimensional chess moves he is planning, but we must go on his words and they are not encouraging.

The Neutralist North Korea Policy

Our policy is:

If that was not clear, we repeat it:

Got it?

For those who don't yet get the Neutralist, our position is to forget about NK.  Withdraw our troops from SK and leave the place alone.

Nothing else we do will improve the situation, and will probably make it worse.

Oh, did we also mention taking the troops out of Okinawa and Japan?

MENA? Europe?

Come home America.

Can someone please tell the Neutralist how having even one soldier in Afghanistan is keeping us free?

We have thousands of lads and lasses stationed in Afghanistan and no one thinks they are there to win the war or a war or something.  Is it a holding action?  No one quite knows, but they are there.

Now, according to the Voice of America on June 27th, we are sending 1,500 troops to Afghanistan to augment our forces in whatever the mission is.

The title of the VOA article says it all, US Sends Fresh Troops to Afghanistan as Policy Debate Continues. 

So, instead of getting the mission right first, we will send in fresh meat and have the interminable "conversation" about why.  To quote Jon Lovitz, "Yeah, that's the ticket."

Meanwhile, politicians and celebrity chicken hawks will tell us we need to support the troops because they are keeping us free.

Putting aside for the moment what the definition of "free" is, the Neutralist would love to have an answer as to how some American out in the Afghan boondocks is keeping us free?

If we really all supported the troops we wouldn't send them to the ends of the Earth to languish for no purpose.

On May 9, 2017 in Business Insider, Paul Szoldra, Marine veteran of the Afghan mess, had an article about the situation.  It is a good description of mess.  He has some pithy quotes starting off hot with,

What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan right now?

I ask this very important question because President Donald Trump's senior advisers are proposing sending thousands of additional US troops there so they can "start winning" again, according to one official who spoke with The Washington Post.

That would be great if the word "winning" could be defined.

Mr. Szoldra also says, "Reality check: We're not. And we probably never will be. The war in Afghanistan has been a lost cause for a long time."

There are other intelligent words in his article, but he wrecks it all with,

I don't want to "lose" in Afghanistan. There is a lot we can do to turn the situation around there. But the way forward is not to send in a few thousand more soldiers who would inevitably feed failure. 

The war requires a full, independent review of the situation — and, most importantly, realistic goals and a clear strategy for achieving them.

He does not want to "lose."  That contradicts all that he had said.  What there is to win, he already made it clear, nothing.

For Mr. Szoldra and all my countrymen, let me define what losing in Afghanistan is.  Losing is staying.

-->

-->