A refreshing article at the Boston Globe, but also more of the same from Chickenhawk Jacoby

The Boston Globe was for a couple of decades owned by the New York Times.  In that era, it was reliably Timesy.  To be honest, so we guess.  I no longer live in the Boston area so what little I read was usually a link that evinced no surprises.

As there are few hot properties in daily news outlets, The Times unloaded the Globe in 2013 at a fire sale price relative to what the old Yankee ownership received about 20 years previously.  

The new owner, John Henry, is a successful businessman who also owns the Boston Red Sox.  Out here in Nowheresville, we have not discerned any change in direction from the usual knee jerk progressivism.  Then again, we are not paying attention.

It was refreshing to catch a link to an article that is in opposition to the administration policy in Eastern Europe.  The title of the September 20th piece, Russia is not the enemy, set the tone that Stephen Kinzer followed to the end.  What's interesting is Mr. Kinzer is a veteran Timesman.  Of course, as we are not following either paper too closely, we may be misjudging.

Still, the article is good.  It lays out all the reasons why the current policy toward Russia is ill advised.  Reading Kinzer, one gets the feeling that American foreign policy makers just don't know when to stop.  Well, that has been a bit of a theme here at The Neutralist.

Mr. Kinzer's article is worth your time.

The current administration at the Globe has inherited, for better or worse, old staff.  In the for worse column, we would include token conservative Jeff Jacoby.

Jeff is a neocon, which really does not bear much resemblance to conservatism.  The man is reliably for war and more war.  

Needless to say, you can leave out one word in the title of Mr. Kinzer's article and change Russia to Putin and you have serviceable theme for Jacoby's article back in March.  The title, Putin has builta Russia of hate, is not going to win awards for subtlety, nor is the article.  Jacoby blames Putin for everything except the Lindbergh kidnapping.

The article is a rehashing of all the anti-Putin tropes, as Putin has been, 

"crushing Chechnya, occupying Georgia, running interference for Syria and Iran-al while eviscerating domestic democratic opposition, plundering Russia's wealth..."

Forgetting that Putin also warned us about the Marathon bombers, but so what.  Gee, those Chechens are the nicest people.  

That running interference for Syria, we could translate that as opposing ISIS, but why quibble.

Putin might not have annexed Crimea if Nuland et al had not pushed a coup as Jacoby did not mention.

In his article, Jeff all but accuses Putin of killing dissident Boris Nemtsov.  For all we know that may be right.  Does it mean we have to go all out against the Russkies.  Jeff is all for it.

"America and the West can best give meaning to Nemtsov's death by emulating the resolve and courage he embodied in life. Condolences won't stop Putin's advances. Backbone is a different story."

Jeff knows all about backbone.  He has led the fight against those who call him and his non-serving ilk "chickenhawks."  To him its a slur.  He and the rough writers showed us by marching down to the recruiting office to lead the battle from the frontlines and not the keyboard.

Nah, he still fights from the comfortable Globe bunker on Morrisey Boulevard. 

Lest we forget

Memorial Day is over and all the speeches done by chickenhawk politicians are done and songs by non-serving cw singers have been sung, the reality is sadly with us.  Our wars overseas are doing nothing to preserve our freedoms.

The best commentary about the day was, not surprisingly, done by Col. Lang.  The Neutralist urges everyone to read it.

A Bezos Newsletter article (AKA The Washington Post) wants more war in Ukraine!

A couple of sinecuristas at the Brookings Institution have joined the call for more intervention in the Ukraine.  Why, well because as the title of the WAPO article reads, Ukraine needs America’s help.

Brookings is a 501(c)(3) non profit.  that means if you have a couple of farthings you want to donate tax deductible, Brookings will take it and turn it into impartial research.  If you have gazillions, well there is impartial and there is impartial.

It's not just any staffers blowing charge on the bugle.  No they sent their heavy hitters.  Senior fellow Steven Pifer and, if that were not enough, institution pres, Strobe Talbott, a D.C. barnacle if ever there was one.

Of course, in the case of the Ukraine, who would gainsay that august institution.  It is only out of goodness of heart that they support "lethal aid."  I know, I only feel noble when I hear the words "lethal aid."

The lads aren't the only ones beating the drum.  This is so urgent that they have come together with six other "former U.S. national security practitioners" to call for action.  This is big, I had no idea there was such a title as national security practitoner.  With the crummy foreign policy record over the last decades, they should try for a more humble title.

The expert practitioners are telling us why The Ukraine needs us, but never get around to why we need the Ukraine.  Please, someone enlighten the Neutralist.  How will the world end for our country if we say the Ukraine is not our problem?  Will Putin start the tanks rolling west to not stop until he has loaded the nouveau Red Army on his carrier fleet and landed in New Jersey?

Pifer and the Strobster are practitioners, but as we consider this a family blog, we refrain from saying what they practice.

Justin Raimondo writes an Neutralist column without mentioning the N word

Justin Raimondo has a column at Antiwar.com that essentially channels the Neutralist's thoughts on our interventionist record.  Only one problem, Justin continues to use the I word when he should be calling for the N word.

I understand he has to call out those who use the Isolationist I word for the fakes they are.  Still, the Neutralist N word is where he should be heading.

Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

Iraq; The final scorecard-A seven year enema

The Neutralist was moved to write today because of John Glaser's post on Antiwar.com's blog, ‘Lasting Pride’ For the Hell We Left in Iraq.  If you remember, we were going to bring democracy and good government of Mesopotamia.  Last year, our troops pulled out not with bands playing and applauding locals lining the streets in gratitude, but in the dead of night without telling the Iraqis.  This is not accounted as the recognition that we had lost something, but as Glaser quoted,

“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” – President Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December 2011

“You will leave with great pride – lasting pride.” – Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to U.S. troops, December 2011

Mr. Glaser than states the obvious,

I’ve written repeatedly about the terrible dictatorship and lasting sectarian violenceWashington left in Iraq after the troop withdrawal of December 2011. Contrary to the lies of these indecent politicians, the enduring effects of the illegal U.S. war in Iraq are still causing havoc and bloodshed throughout the country. Iraq is neither secure, nor is it a democracy as was promised by warmongers in Washington.

I have an open question for anyone.  It would be nice if someone in government would make the effort, but if anyone would take the time to tell the Neutralist how the Iraq War was not a mindless mistake, there would be unending gratitude on my part.

There is, of course, a larger question.  How could anyone think that intervention in Syria or Iran could be anything less than loserville.  We have the recent example of Libya being a non success.  An even larger question is not why are the people running foreign policy allowed to run amuck, but why are such people considered sane.  

I remember when the Iraq war was new.  chickenhawks Michael Graham on Boston radio was exclaiming how he had Steffens like seen the future and it worked.  How anyone could not see as he had was mindlessness.  Wisely, he has moved on.  Would really like to hear from him how it was all not a mistake.

Now the right wing mantra is not that it was not winnable, but it's Obama's fault.  It's alvays Ludnendorff und ze stab in ze back, but never our fault.

Over at the Global Economic Anaysis blog, as usual, Mish is talking sense. As usual, no one is going to listen.

Mish Shedlock has an analysis of Ryan and Romney's fiscal and defense delusions.


When I was a boy, and TV was new, there was a perfume commercial that has stayed in my mind.  The words went, “Promise her anything, but give here Arpege.”  Change only the last word in that ad, and you have the Republican policy.  The only problem is that last word.  I was thinking that the Neutralist might have resort to  a word that should be avoided in polite company.  We have settled on mush.  Suffice it to say the Republicans are promising stuff they can’t deliver.

You remember the old headline from the Boston Globe, “Mush from the Wimp” to describe some policy of the hapless Carter administration.  Okay, maybe you don’t.  Lucky you.  For the purpose of this discussion, let us settle on a definition of Mush as some rearrangement, but no real change.  That Mr. Ryan is being villified as a scrooge is what might be expected from the Dems, but, not much will change.

The two paragraphs from Mish below say it all,

Mr. Ryan (R., Wis.), who heads the House Budget Committee, said his plan would put the U.S. on a sound economic path by spending $5.3 trillion less than Mr. Obama recommends over 10 years, resulting in a budget deficit that would be $3.3 trillion narrower.
Let's pause right there for a second. The deficit is about $1.4 trillion. If the US lapses back into a recession at any time, (something I think is highly likely) it will worsen. Cutting $5.3 trillion over 10 years, is $530 billion a year, still leaving deficit spending at $900 billion a year, not counting the odds of a recession.

Let's continue with a few more snips ...
Congressional budgets by nature lack specifics—those are provided in spending bills that come later—and this one was no different. Still, Mr. Ryan made some things clear. Most dramatically, he proposed repealing Mr. Obama's health law.

Yup, ending the healthcare law would be a dent, but even so, it would be little more than a tonsilectomy in the greater picture.  

The Neutralist is more concerned with the point Mish made about the defense budget.  House Republican budget supremo, Rep. Paul Ryan is reneging on a deal to cut $55 billion from defense.  Now this is an amount Mish accurately describes as “measly.”  We are drowning in a defense budget that is bloated enough to cause trouble in the world, but is not helping to defend the nation.

The Neutralist has not read the debate or proposals in depth.  What never seems to come up is the proper force structure of our military.  

The second part of Mish’s article is about Mitt Romney’s defense plans.  Now Mitt does have some ideas about force structure.  From what I have heard in debates and from the campaign, the Mittster’s ideas are the military needs everything and more.  Mish’s words, “When it comes to the American military, the leading Republican presidential candidates evidently only learned to add and multiply, never subtract or divide.”

The administration is planning some tiny cuts after years and years of growth.  Mitt “has staked out the “high ground” in the latest round of Republican math with a proposal to set Pentagon spending at 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That would, in fact add up to an astonishing $8.3 trillion dollars over the next decade, one-third more than current, already bloated Pentagon plans” according to Mish’s article.

This will certainly allay the fears of management at Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing who are always worried where the next meal is coming from, not.  And what will those of us who are not stockholders in defense contractors get for all this largesse? Taxes and/or deficits one would guess.

Missle defense against the non-existent Korean threat, big winner.  Nine to fifteen more ships for the navy each year.  Sadly, what Mitt and just about everyone seems to forget, the naval threat to homeland ended in 1942 at Midway.  There has been no carrier fleet since then that could challenge ours.  The Soviets built a credible submarine force, but it probably was not enough against all our ships and subs, though themissles might have burnt some cities.  So, just what are we defending against?

Again, the question is, what is the proper defense structure to defend the United States, as opposed to projecting power everywhere simultaneouly?  Calling Obama weak just because he does not throw money at the military is absurd.

Mish posits that the result of the Romney spending orgy will be two wars,

1.  A war with Iran
2  A trade war with China.

This spending should forestall an invasion from either entity.

I consider myself a low tax type of guy.  The idea that high spending and high taxes can lead to prosperity does not work.  Neither does low taxes and high spending.  Making the Pentagon an entitled welfare case in either scenario is hardly the road to fiscal sanity.

After a decade of throwing money at defense, we have little to show for it.  Some folks say the country is war weary.  Can anybody not be cynical about Romney’s campaign promises?  Whoever is Mitt’s real constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Average American, it ain’t you, Babe.

Over at the CFR they ask, Was the Iraq war worth it? To whom?

The Council on Foreign Relations has taken their sweet time about it, but they have held a roundup to ask if the Iraq War was worth it.  They've rounded up some experts to opine.  We'll summarize:

Andrew Bacevich of Boston University lost a son in a war he was never excited about.  Conceding that Saddam's demise makes a better world, he does not see much else positive.  Quote, Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft. With all remaining prudential, normative, and constitutional barriers to the use of force having now been set aside, war has become a normal condition, something that the great majority of Americans accept without complaint. War is U.S.  The Neutralist would argue that maybe a world with Saddam would be better than the eternal American war.


Next up to bat is chicken hawk, Max Boot.  He bats for the home team as a sinecurista, being Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations.  Max is hopeful.  The lad's argument is that the Korean War led to a rich successful South Korea.  Taking out troops now leaves him worried that the vast progress attained might falter.  He would have us leave troops until they are not needed like in ..............South Korea.  His comment is a great argument for we should never have gone there.  Unfortunately, neither he nor the CFR will get that.


The third man is Michael Ignatieff, Professor, University of Toronto and failed Canadian Prime Ministerial candidate.  Whatever his deficiencies as a politician, he hit the first pitch out of the park in his analysis, "The question to begin with is: worth it to whom?"  He continues to score points, If we add the damage that mendacious claims about WMD did to U.S. credibility, the relative strengthening of Iran in the region and the continuing failure of Iraq to achieve democratic stability, it becomes ever more difficult to believe the war was worth it.  He makes Boot look......let's be kind.


The final savant is Michael O'Hanlon who is Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution.  Boy is that a surprise.  I don't know if Mikey likes it as in the old commercial, but Mikey likes himself.  As he self-congratulated, I made mistakes in my Iraq analysis over the years at times, but one thing I surely got right was to warn from 2001 onward that any war would be very difficult and challenging -- as in a 2001 Washington Post op-ed with Philip Gordon that provoked Ken Adelman's well-known "cakewalk" op-ed in reply [Washington Post link not available]. Gordon and I predicted no cakewalk.  Gee, Mike can you remember any of the mistakes?


Mr. O'Hanlon concludes, So any interim assessment on my part at this stage would have to voice skepticism that the war was worth it. But again, as noted, I remain hopeful that over time, the benefits will be substantial and palpable enough to make the debate interesting. We are not there yet, however.  No kidding. 


It was a war on spec with no credible evidence to justify starting it.  That O'Hanlon and Boot are employed anywhere other than as carney shills is true evidence of failing upward.  It's not what you say, but who you say it for. 


We have pondered the question here at the Neutralist Institute and have come up with our answer to the question, was the Iraq War worth it?  If you are not an Iraqi killed in the violence or a dead or, injured Serviceman of any nationality, or an American taxpayer, it was all just hunky dory.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012-finally and admission that fighting them over there was a sham

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has passed and the president is to sign it.  So we used to say we were fighting them over there so we would not have to fight them over here.  Well the Neutralist never said it.  We believe the whole posture of our so called War on Terror is a scam.  When semi chicken hawk (is a legal guy in the army, medal for paper cuts maybe), Lindsay Graham said the bill would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" he admitted as much.  If we are at this point, the terrorists have won.
Gene Healy's column, If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights at the Washington Times is worth reading.

Has any congress member, aside from those who voted no, ever read the Constitution?

Another Chickenhawk

So I start up the family car and the radio has been left on by another fam member. They have a proclivity for C & W. Now, I am not a fan, but there is the odd song that the toe will tap to. Unfortunately, the song that came on was not one.

It was the lyrics that were listened to. The song was An American Soldier by Toby Keith. One line sings is "I am an American Soldier." Well, Toby isn't and never was. His soldier personna claims to be fighting for freedom. The poor lads who are in Iraq or Afpak have my sympathy, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their countrymen and women. It is absurd to suggest it. Not when they and the wife and kids can be genitally felt up at airports.

Mr. Keith appears to have a cottage industry on patriotic songs. Maybe he believes what he is singing. Maybe he donates every cent of profit to veterans groups. If he does not the conclusion as to what he is is obvious.