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.

Saturday, November 03, 2018

Our Low-Life Foreign Policy

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.”
— Madeleine Albright, secretary of state (1997–2001), Clinton administration
The words of Mad Madeline seem dated and arrogant, and to say the least, foolishly wrong.  We didn't even see three years ahead when an enemy we did not take seriously flew civilian aircraft into the center of commerce.
Allbright is still feted and is too unaware to be embarrassed.  Time, however, has proved our farsightedness to be somewhat short-term.

Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq led to little good.  The destruction of Libya was buffoonery to say the least.

These are mistakes and bad ones and argue against an interventionist foreign policy.

There is now something else to consider in the light of the Khashoggi affair. 
There is no need to re-hash the events and the lies that have been floated by the regime.  That the man was murdered and dismembered is now beyond doubt.  

The complete disgrace of the pundit class in all this is bad, but what is worse is the stupidity.  Jamal Khashoggi was a cool guy who hung out with his journalistic buds.  When it was apparent the man was not going to pull himself together, his mates saw what an awful thing had happened and were outraged.  From CounterPunch:
 In his second reference to Yemen, Friedman writes: the apparent murder, if true, “would be an unfathomable violation of norms of human decency, worse not in numbers but in principle than even the Yemen war.” Worse in principle that Yemen? Really? Why—because you know Khashoggi? The murder indeed appears grizzly, but is it more brutal as a “violation of norms of human decency” than bombing busloads of schoolchildren in Yemen in order to collectively terrorize the population?
The Neutralist is trying to grasp what that principle is that the murder of one pundit is more egregious than a genocide of a nation.  We believe we have found it.

There is a Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson that explains the mind set.

"Quit complaining and eat it...Number one, chicken soup is good for the flu---and number two, it's nobody we know."

All those pictures of the pitiful starving kids, the buses full of students struck by Saudi jets, "it's nobody we know."  Our dear friend, Jamal, counts for so much more.

In all probability, Mr. Friedman is not the worst, but typical.  What is a tad new here is the Khashoggi murder has caused him to notice Yemen.  Probably not for long, but Yemen has emerged from the memory hole and we get an admission.  Not a, "well, you know the Saudis are fighting Shia and thus Iran which is necessary and thus absolves whatever," but that we have the admission of a crime even if it pales in comparison to the demise of friend Jamal.

Work for the Times, or Post or AP, then you're just doing stenography. the networks or cable, blah blah blah.  The columnists and pundits are just low-lifes.

No wonder Madeline is still part of the Nomenklatura.