Ron Paul has an anti-interventionist post at Antiwar.com

 Here it is:

Mitch McConnell Cannot Stop the Non-Interventionist Tide

Mitch is lingering on for the huge purpose of fighting, yup, "isolationism."

Ron Paul calls Mitch out.

Well done, Ron, you are one of the few of your generation who has his faculties, unlike Mitch.

William Astore has a great article on the scam of citing "isolationism"

 

 At Antiwar.com and at his substack, Bracing Views, William Astore has  a fine article: That Old Canard of Isolationism: We can't have a president that focuses on domestic concerns!

In it he goes over how we've got those bases everywhere, but if we retreat an inch, isolationism will see us curl up into our shell.

One does wish he would have discussed neutralism and how it is not isolationism.

Anyway, read it here, or here.

The world order changes and continued Western or US hegemony is not on the cards

 Moon of Alabama has a thoughtful argument as to the the diminishment of US influence due to the new conflict in the Levant:

West's Pro-Israel Position Accelerates Its Loss Of Power

In the article, they quote extensively from a Naked Capitalism article:

Biden Gets Zelensky Treatment in Middle East as Israel Tries to Escalate

The gist is that no matter what we do, we can't put the humpty dumpty of world order back together again.

Now of course, here at the Neutralist, recognizing that in real terms that the games is up is always a reason to recognize we need to pursue a neutralist foreign policy.

Stephen Walt reflects on U.S. stupid

 Harvard Professor Stephen M. Walt has a column at Foreign Policy with the title The United States Couldn't Stop Being Stupid If It Wanted To.

There is a subtitle, For Washington, self-imposed restraint will always be a contradiction in terms.

Well, yes.

Just this little tidbit is worth it, 

Remeber the Kuwaiti Incubator Hoax? Bought and paid for by a foreign government and abetted by a U.S. public relations firm.

Now, we wouldn't be posting this except, his article is an argument for attaining a neutralist ethos in foreign policy, even if he does not realize it.

It is Time for Neutralism at antiwar.com

 At antiwar.com neutralism gets noticed.

 

Read the neutralist article at antiwar.com

It Is Time for Neutralism by Richard Morchoe Posted on December 06, 2022

Neutralism in another country has to deal with being out of favour with the cool kids

In our substack, The Long Hill Institute, we have written a piece about how neutralist policy is being subtly and not so subtly shunted aside in Ireland.

Neutrality had served Ireland well. Her youth would not be cast up to and slaughtered in a war not their own in the 1940s.

Now, spurious arguments are being put forward why neutralism is passé.

We disagree.

The substack looks at a country not abandoning neutralism. Professor Pascal Lottaz writes about Austria, which was able to free itself from foreign powers via neutralism and is not throwing it over as Finland is.

There is also Pascal's YouTube interview with Prof. Dr. Heinz Gärtner about Austria and the value of credible neutralism.

Read:

Irish Neutrality - If it ain't broke, break it

 

 

Some Links:

Articles to read today:

From Antiwar.com


New Poll Shows Americans Favor Non-Intervention

Dave DeCampPosted on November 24, 2019

Hat tip to the American Committee for East West Accord:

Gordon M. Hahn: Fables of Ignatius

gordonhahn.comNovember 24, 2019

It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States itself.

Thanks Bibi for making The Neutralist case for us

Prime Minister Netanyahu's dog and pony show to prove the Persians are nuclear naughty was old wine in new skins, or something.

What he was really saying was we need a war.

We don't and we don't need one to suit the purpose of other countries.

Washington was right and we need to steer clear of foreign entanglements.

Bibi made the case for bringing the boys and girls home and staying out of another meaningless conflict.

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.

I know I'll never find another Yoo, fortunately

John Yoo has an op-ed piece in the New York Times, you know the scandal sheet that features the merger of neoliberals and neoconservatives to bomb countries and then bring their suffering populations here.

Mr. Yoo, in the Bush administration, claimed the president could legally engage in torture. One would think the great and good might move away from the man who. according to Jon Schwarz of the intercept,

Yoo’s legal reasoning, as he (together with his superior Jay Bybee, who’s now a federal judge) advised the Bush White House, is that “the Department of Justice could not enforce Section 2340A [the federal probation against torture] against federal officials acting pursuant to the President’s constitutional authority to wage a military campaign.” In other words, the president can’t crush a 6-year-old boy’s testicles for fun, but if he thinks some child-testicle-crushing is needed to win the war, it’s totally constitutional.

You too might have thought that the world would have distanced itself from John Yoo, but no, he found a nice spot as a professor at Berkeley.  Wonder what he feels about his place of employment as that Madrassa has no problem with masked thugs suppressing speech.

The good professor's piece at the Times notes his misgivings about our new president.

Yoo has a problem with Mr. Trump on a few constitutional points.

Immigration has driven Mr. Trump even deeper into the constitutional thickets. Even though his executive order halting immigration from seven Muslim nations makes for bad policy, I believe it falls within the law. But after the order was issued, his adviser Rudolph Giuliani disclosed that Mr. Trump had initially asked for “a Muslim ban,” which would most likely violate the Constitution’s protection for freedom of religion or its prohibition on the state establishment of religion, or both — no mean feat. Had Mr. Trump taken advantage of the resources of the executive branch as a whole, not just a few White House advisers, he would not have rushed out an ill-conceived policy made vulnerable to judicial challenge.

So we bomb and torture people in MENA and Yoo is okay with that. Those folks may not harbor affection for us and understandably may want to harm us. The new president may believe that Muslims from disaffected regions may want to do that. Is that in the "constitutional thickets?"
If he were to proscribe the Muslim faith for all who are here legally and are citizens, no one would contest that that was unconstitutional.  People who are not here, well that is another story, and a full complement of the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter, but the idea itself is not at all outside the bounds of reason.

On December 1, The then president-elect outlined his foreign policy,

"We will destroy ISIS. At the same time, we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks," Trump told attendees at the U.S. Bank Arena. "Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It's time."

"In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

I am not sure if Trump completely means this.  Rumors of nominating Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State are not reassuring.  Nevertheless, the quote, while not neutralist, is a better sentiment than anything Mr. Yoo or any neocon has ever come up with.

I hope Trump means it and that we never hear from Mr. Yoo again.