William S, Lind has posted a neutralist foreign policy at Traditional Right. We at The Neutralist award him.

William S. Lind at traditionalRight is always interesting and not someone we could consider a wild-eyed interventionist like say, the neocons.  We have never noticed, and it just may be our fault, an explicitly neutralist foreign policy being expressed at TR.  

This is close enough:

"There is an alternative strategy I think might work, or at least work better than recruiting more enemies.  It has two components.  The first is tight border security, far tighter than anything President Trump is planning, tight enough to keep all varieties of 4GW fighters from entering (we will still face the home-grown variety, who in the long run will be more dangerous).  The second component is invisibility.  Since what we are doing now feeds hydra, stop it.  Stop all overt actions around the world.  Bring the troops, planes, drones, and ships home.  Disappear, and thus take away our enemies’ main recruiting tool.  No longer will Somalis or Yemenis or Libyans or Syrians live with the constant hum of American drones overhead, waiting for the Hellfire missile in the night. There may still be drones, but they will not be American drones.  They will have to fight someone else."

Mr. Lind may not live down the embarrassment, but we hereby name him a Senior Fellow of The Neutralist Institute.

The Official Neutralist Position on the Iran deal and Iran

Let us preface our announcement with the admission that the Neutralist has in no way focused laser like on the negotiations or the agreement.  If the Neutralist policy were in effect, the negotiations would have been irrelevant.  Why worry about Iran anyway as a rogue neighbor that does not effectively control all its own territory has deliverable nukes.

Our official position on the deal is that it is probably sort of okay.  All the People we respect endorse it.   No one we have some confidence in has opposed it.  Many people we do not have a good opinion of have opposed it.  It wins on points.

As we stated above, if a neutralist foreign policy were in place, there would have not have been any need to have negotiations.

What should a neutralist attitude toward Iran be.

As we have noted in prior posts, William S. Lind has spelled it out,

America's grand strategy should seek to connect our country with as many centers of order as possible while isolating us from as many centers and sources of disorder as possible.

So, if Iran is a center of order, we cooperate with them where we can or have to, and as they are on the opposite side of the world, that should not be too often.

Then again, as they are where they are, there should not be too much need to bug them unless they actively bug us.  We have a history with the Persians, but I don't want to get into who started it.  We should not try to continue it unless we have to.

Then again, If Palestinia can build an ordered state, we can cooperate with them, as we could with the Israelis and the Andorrans for that matter.

Notice, cooperate does not mean ally.

Now there is one state that is a bit rogue.  Granted, it made a good effort in the negotiations, but it feels it necessary to bother the Russkies for silly reasons.  We shall let our readers, few as they are, figure that one out.

William S. Lind and our best policy in the Middle East-It's a Neutralist strategy

I used to read William S. Linds essays on strategy that that appeared at the Free Congress Foundation.  After they abruptly stopped, I read him whenever possible.  It has been mostly at The American Conservative.  He always makes sense, though the Neutralist is sure we can find something to disagree with if we try hard enough.

Not today, however.  Mr. Lind has written a thoroughly neutralist column at TAC.  The title says it all,

Islam’s Civil War

America can win it—by staying out.

Yup, as we've said before, they ain't jumping in their carrier fleets to invade our east coast.  

some have decried Mr. Lind's attitude as gloating.  I hope it is not.  I take no pleasure that Shia and Sunni will fight and kill each other.  May they find peace.  Still, facts are facts, and we, and they are better off without our attempts at managing it.

To read Mr. Lind, go here.  

He is now a fellow of the Neutralist Foundation whether he likes it or not.  If we can, we'll hit him up for dues.

The Myth of Grand Strategy-Fabius Maximus 2006

The Fabius Maximus website is indispensable for anyone considering the problems America faces today.  The article, The Myth of Grand Strategy, was pubished in 2006.  It is just as timely today.  In fact is is of more resonance than almost anything you will see at Stratfor or similar sites.  It will be so a hundred years from now, but today its relevance comes from the fact that we are flailing about in a so called War on Terror with no resolution in sight.  Whatever our strategy is, It does not seem to grand.

After the introduction, there is a discussion of what is Grand Strategy.  We quote the following:

As one of Boyd’s closest associates, Chuck Spinney, summarized Boyd’s concept:
… grand strategy is the art of pursuing national goals in a way that improves our nation’s fitness to shape and cope with the conditions of an ever-changing international environment. A nation’s grand strategy is about its organic vitality and growth … or in Sun Tzu’s words, it is the “road to survival or ruin” over the long term.

This is not bad.  so if we were to issue a report card on our Grand Strategy since 911, what would it be graded on the standard set above.  The bogeyman OBL is gone, Al Qaeda is puported to be near gone, but the fighting them over there strategy has worked so well that Americans have to be felt up at airports.

The next section discusses Primal Grand Strategies:

We often see something like a grand strategy in the early years of some societies, when the people have a single-minded commitment to a goal, often just a drive to grow. A primal strategy is an expression of this people’s core beliefs. It is non-intellectual, with no need for theories and plans.

This could be expressed simply in terms such as Romulus did not lay out a system by which Rome would conquer the world.  It was just get these hills and go from there.  That primal drive took off, but it was not intellectualized.

The next section, Ambitious Grand Strategies – a Chimera for a Global Power discusses how, after the primal is over, a nation continues.  The attempt to recapture the primal is impossible and the result is a system that cannot succeed.  The words below summarize the problems a grand strategist faces.

It is hubris to believe that any person or small group has sufficient information to develop a plan on a global scale. There are too many complex, unknowable factors. Social factors, such as ethic and religious dynamics. Plus economic, military, and political factors. We lack the understanding to process the data into accurate patterns — a plan. That requires a science of sociology developed to the degree of modern chemistry, so that we could reliably predict results of our actions. Unfortunately sociology is at the stage of chemistry in the Middle Ages, when it was called alchemy. In fact, the yearning for a grand strategy is the equivalent to the search for the Philosopher’s Stone.


The next session discusses Barnett’s Grand Strategy.  Thomas P. M. Barnett wrote and article for Esquire an age ago in  March of 2003 outlining an ambitious grand strategy.  The article, The Pentagon’s New Map   begins,

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good. When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point — the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

Barnet outlined a plan as to how US power would change a lot of countries.  The two we have gone into have not heralded success for his vision.  One only a fool would want to stay in and the other we snuck out of in the dead of night.

In the last two paragraphs of the section, Fabius Maximus has a good critique of the Barnett thesis.

Barnett’s vision failed in Iraq in many ways, but perhaps mostly in his assumption that they wanted to be like us. Liberating them from Saddam was good, but the recent elections demonstrate that most of the Iraqi people(s) reject our economic and cultural systems.

Is there a plan to conquer the world? Yes, of course. You could conquer the world with 150,000 men. Provided, the rest of the world wanted to be conquered. Hah. You see, it takes the cooperation of the losers. A brilliant plan that was impossible. Generals like those sort of thing.
— Death Check, page 510.

After ages of nations and empires, one would think an educated man would be incapable of writing Barnett’s article.   One wonders if Mr. Barnett has changed his mind.  That would be a sanity test.  We learn from a quick perusal of a wikipedia page about him, he still appears to be desirous of managing the world and is making a living out with a sinecure or two, if not actually doing it.

The next section, Why do Grand Strategies Fail? has a lot of common sense stuff as to why the grand vision does not work.  It is best summed up by quoting two parts,  

No single person or small group has the necessary knowledge necessary to do more than a cartoon sketch of our complex and changing world; and even that will be riddled with errors.

We all have biases, prejudices, and parochial views. These limit our ability to see and think broadly enough to shape a global grand strategy.

So, if you’re thinking about running the world, that’s what you’re up against.

The Seventh Section is worth quoting in its entirety.

(7)  America’s Need for a Humble Grand Strategy
The point of this essay is not to compare our performance with an impossible perfect ideal, but to suggest that humility is appropriate when conceiving a grand strategy. Because, of course, we always have a grand strategy — our collective policy with respect to the external world — either by design or default. Perhaps we should consider building our grand strategy on lower, more solid ground. Consider these four principles as the foundation for our grand strategy.
1.             Respect for other peoples, their values and beliefs. We speak of multiculturalism, but often act to impose our “universal values” (aka human rights).
2.            Reluctance to use our power and awareness of our limited wisdom.
3.            Defense in preference to offense.
4.            Defense is inherently the stronger posture, and more appropriate for a hegemonic state like America. A kinetic and unpredictable hegemon disturbs other States — both friends and foes — exacerbating the natural tendency for other States to ally together against a it.
5.            Firmness in response to clear threats.
Game theory shows “tit for tat” to be the most effective strategy in many games. Our system of international law, going back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, justifies military action only in response to an attack by another state — not preemptively. The Iraq War is another lesson in the wisdom of that policy.
As William Lind said, “So long as we are on the grand strategic offensive, threatening to impose our ways on every one else through military force, we will be defeated regardless of how many battles we win. Like Germany in both World Wars, we will generate new enemies faster than we can defeat old ones” (“Election Day“, 29 October 2004)

When I first read the article title, The Myth of Grand Strategy, I thought the author was suggesting that Grand Strategy does not exist.  In the sense that most ideas of Grand Strategy are not so grand, it would seem so.  At best the attempt would be better called, Big Ideas About Strategy That May Work For Awhile, But End In Failure Usually, or BIASTMWFABEIFU for short.

But, Fabius does believe in Grand Strategy, we always have a grand strategy — our collective policy with respect to the external world — either by design or default. Perhaps we should consider building our grand strategy on lower, more solid ground.

I disagree in calling what he suggests a “Grand Strategy.”  As he is suggesting, a humble policy, not a mange the world concept, it would be better called “National Strategy.”

Stretch it out a bit and one can see it fits in with a Neutralist foreign policy.  If you aren’t out there looking like a drunk in a bar and soberly are aware of your weaknesses as well as your strengths, you cut down the need to get in a fight by more than orders of magnitude.  Not a bad policy for the individual as well as the country.

In the odd case where someone is coming at us absolutely unprovoked, the policy of firmness (part 5) works as well.

Harry Browne said America has a strong offense, but no defense.  That is as true today as when hes said it.  Harry said it before 911 and the event proved his point.  A Neutralist grand strategy may not mean we never have an enemy, but it will mean we would have a lot less of them.  After a number of years of not trying to be the indispensable jerk nation, maybe we can do away with some of our overwrought security theater.  Maybe do away with the department of Homeland Paranoia.  In all honesty, the Neutralist is not optimistic, but lives ever in hope.

I just wish Fabius could say the other N word.

Pearl Harbor - Isn't that an elephant here in the room with us-Nah!

Pearl Harbor Day was Wednesday and was remembered less then when I was young. All my relatives who were in The Second World War are no longer with us.

No matter, the great epic is still with us. A film or documentary can be counted on every so often. The main thing for the great and good is to keep up the front that this was a holy war led by holy men. With great effort this can be done with Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin is a problem. You might find a few of his defenders on the north bank of the Charles River, but even there, they are sparse.

The Diane Rehm show commemorated the day with guest host Tom Gjelton and two authors.; Ian Toll and Steven Gillon. According to the bio notes, Mr. Stoll is a former Wall Street analyst, Federal Reserve financial analyst, political aide and speechwriter; he the author of a previous book on naval history, "Six Frigates." Steven Gillon is a history professor and author of numerous books, including "The Kennedy Assassination - 24 Hours"; resident historian for The History Channel. The two men discussed the events leading up to the attack. It was informative, but what it does not address in detail is Herbert Hoover’s book, Freedom Betrayed. Talk about large elephants in the room and everyone pretending to “normalcy.” Whatever one might think about Herb and the Depression, is there anyone who thinks he was a nut or a liar? To not mention the book or address Hoover's points about an FDR campaign to inveigle the Japanese into war when such a book has been out since November 7 is cute or maybe the lads didn't know about the tome?

Pat Buchannan, as expected, has been all over it. With a review of the Hoover book, he details the efforts of the Roosevelt administration to get a war against the wishes of much of the nation. He details Hoover's account of Japan's efforts to avoid war and Team Roosevelt's work to avoid avoiding war. His piece is all over the web including TownHall which all too often appears to be Neocon heaven.

It has been the practice in this country mainly to ignore challenges to the orthodox doctrine. On occasion, the challenge is taken up to dismiss efforts.

So how does the Neutralist see this. In 1954, the great military historian and theoretician, Basil Liddell Hart wrote:

In reply President Roosevelt demanded , on the 24th July 1941, the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Indo-China ----and to enforce his demands he issued orders on the 26th for freezing all Japanese assets in the U.S.A. and placing an embargo on oil supply. Mr. Churchill took simultaneous action and two days later the refugee Dutch Government in London was induced to follow suit----which meant, as Mr. Churchill has remarked, that ‘Japan was deprived at a stroke of her vital oil supplies.’

In early discussions it had always been recognized that such a paralyzing stroke would force Japan to fight, as the only alternative to collapse or the abandonment of her policy. It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four months, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo. The United States Government refused to lift it, unless Japan withdrew not only from Indo-China but also from China. No government, least of all the Japanese could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions.*

There is much controversy in the life of Liddell Hart. Suffice it to say, he had no political ax to grind, and it was no way controversial to say Roosevelt wanted to get into World War II at the time LH wrote. Point to Hoover.

The Neutralist position is that war cannot always be avoided, and the Neutralist never wants to see us ever lose, but greatness exists in avoiding committing your countrymen to death and destruction, while insuring that the interests of the nation are accomplished.

All else, even with victory, is failure.

Strategy,by B.H. Liddill Hart, 1954, 1967 by Faber & Faber Ltd., London, England, Page 254.

From Gavinthink-Defense is a Public Good. So spend less on it.

Please note: The Neutralist is posting the original work of Gavin Andresen from his blog, Gavinthink. You can see it on his blog here. He is worth reading on other subjects as well.

When economists talk about something being a "public good" they don't mean "nice stuff that the government does."

The definition of a public good is something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Or in non-econogeek-speak, stuff that doesn't run out no matter how many people use it, and stuff that benefits everybody whether they pay for it or not.

National defense is a public good. I'm not saying all national militaries are "good" -- I think lots of militaries around the world are evil and the world would be a better place without them. But the idea of national defense is a public good-- assuming you're pretty happy with your government and don't want Foreign Invaders to take over your country, everybody benefits from a national military standing guard and keeping you safe. And assuming the Foreign Invader Threat doesn't grow as your population grows, the same military can protect 100 thousand people as easily as it can protect 100 million.

National defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

One funny thing about public goods is since they're non-rivalrous, you can serve more and more people while spending the same amount of money. But we don't do that; we spend more and more money on the military. In all the debates about "cutting" military spending the most radical proposals still keep spending at some constant percentage of GDP.

Why?

We should be able to get the same level of safety from Foreign Invaders with a constant level of military spending, no matter how large our population or economy grows. We'd all be much better off, and much safer, if we cut military spending by 90% and spent the money on just about anything else.

The Pakistani Role and what should we do about it?

Did the Paks know? Short answer, I'm guessing, probably. So, what do you want to do about it? Invade? Good luck. Bomb? We do that a lot. If it worked we would have won Nam and Afghanistan would be a liberal democracy now. Oh yeah, there was Serbia, but if you remember, we bombed because we added some conditions to the peace agreement and the Serbs rejected them. We bombed and then agreed to the conditions. We have since gone back on them.

Since the usual diplomatic methods, bombing and invasion don't look so hot, let's leave. Unless you believe there is a solution instead of an outcome, it is the only sensible route.

A number of years before 911, Harry Browne said "we have a very strong national offense, but a very weak national defense." The felling of the Towers proved his point. What has changed? Not sure. A lot of security theater and a country on lockdown with swat team a growth industry, but it is not getting better.

Let's do Dresden again!

In my role as a normal, walking around human being (whatever that is?) I tend to agree with the Skeptical CPA. Heaven knows we need more auditors who are willing to use a jauniced eye.

When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,

I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.

Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.

The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.

Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.

Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.

Answer the Question

All you drunk in a bar or hiding under the bed so called conservatives* and other assorted chickenhawks should answer the questions posed by Ronnie in this speech.



Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?

*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.

Hat tip.

More People Channeling the Neutralist!

Via The Skeptical CPA is an article at Forbes by John Arquilla titled The Biggest Boondoggle. Now, one's first reaction is to think Mr. Arquilla guilty of chutzpah as there are so many doggles that boon in this country it takes nerve to claim you came up with the ne plus ultra.

Still, I think that your man made a good case that our naval fetish for the big carrier fleet is ill advised. Just the name, Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers screams incompetence and waste.

The Skeptical CPA extracted the meat of the article,

Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. ... Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion. ... Why won't the next Administration get rid of this white elephant? President-elect Obama simply has too little military expertise to take on the carrier champions, even though his senior adviser on strategic affairs, former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, has in the past called for reducing carrier crew sizes. ... Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes. They have had a good 70-year run as capital ships, but their time is over. ... In terms of so-called irregular warfare, the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery
make more effective substitutes

You see it's this "Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes" that makes me feel Mr. Arquilla is channeling The Neutralist.

In a previous Neutralist post, The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis we noted that our policy should be to

Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.

We are gratified that someone so eminent as a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey agrees with us. He may not see it all our way and could be horrified to be cited by us, but at this point he is stuck with us. We feel we have taken his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Thanks, Professor.

The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis

We have the big financial meltdown and the imperial project has reached its reductio ad absurdam.

How do I know the foreign adventure has gone past the point of ridiculousness? The Coast Guard is serving along the coast of the wrong Georgia.

But that is a mere digression. I have come up with a solution to the problems of our financial system that will also bring about a neutral foreign policy.

Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.

No, sell 'em. If only for scrap, at the rate the dollar is going, they will be worth more made into fridges in China than as a navy.

First thing, though, is we destroy all the manuals. Getting a navy up to speed takes a while even with training. I have high respect for the Chinese people but even with the manuals, it would take them years to get it right. Without the manuals, they'll be obsolete by the time they can sail across the Pacific.

Now would the Chinese be stupid enough to buy the fleet. They put on the Olympics for prestige and they were stupid enough to buy our worthless paper to begin with. Finger s crossed.

Sell them to Chavez. Actually, that is too Machievellian. That clown would demand to sail on the fleet to show himself mas macho and would sink them faster than he can sink his own economy.

It's not even 8:00 AM here and I've done a good day's work for my country already.