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, July 05, 2017

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.