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.

Do you see anything? Moi, nothing. David Pakman and Peter Ingemi do not confront the elephants in the room

The last day of the year and I am driving on Route 9 here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts from Wormtown to the Holy City of Noho.  This is truly a privilege as I get to listen to the radio and go from the loony right to the vapid left in one drive.

First up is Mr. Peter Ingemi, DaTechGuy on WCRN.  He did not talk tech, but politics as is his wont.  He sounds like what he is, a tea partier who was downsized and moved on.  He does not like Ronnie Paul because he won't save us from the muzzies or something.

As Worcester receded, and I got closer to Happy Valley.  Mr. David Pakman's voice got clearer on WHMP.  He is a bit more focused in his weltanschaung.  Ronnie had misgivings about evolution and ergo is not fit to be president.  Your man has a point.  Washington, Adams and Jefferson never heard of Darwin and they sucked as presidents and human beings.

Saturday is a talk radio ghetto.  I may have been one of the pairs only listeners.  Guys in working class Worcester are out doing something.  The cool people out west are listening to Bob and Ray, I mean Tom and Ray and Car Talk from the Ministry of Information.

It has been a hard few years for our country.  The average person's net worth is way down.  Still, no matter how hard it is, there is no one in this country so poor that they cannot afford an elephant in their living room to ignore.  The president has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  If you agree with Glenn Greenwald, this is about as big a deal as it gets constitutionally.

El Presidente signs it today and nada from either Mutt or Jeff.  Now, I suspect the techie likes it because, gosh, we gotta be secure and he is always tired of hiding under the bed.  The bad news is who signed it.

Pakman, it is a little tougher.  You had George Bush and all his wars and now you have the demi-god and the wars have not changed (other than some cosmetic withdrawls).  An honest man would have to say Obama was a fraud.  Well, an honest man would say that.

As we head into the 12th year of the Bush/Obama administration maybe Rodney King couldn't get us to all get along, but there is at least some consensus in the Ingemi/Pakman Axis.

I believe in evolution, but opposing the NDAA and not believing evo is okay with me.  Being for NDAA and believing in NDAA is evidence of personal devolution.

David Pakman does his best to be the smarmiest guy on WHMP.  The competition is fierce.   Learn more about him here.

You can learn more about Mr. Ingemi here.

In truth, I may have not heard it because I was listening in the car.  If I am mistaken and they took the issue on, they have my apology.  If Mr. Pakman called Obama on it, I'll need a pacemaker.

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?

He has truly won!

Somewhere, maybe Drudge, it was noted, the biggest story of 2011 is the death of OBL.  There was a victory dance or ten caught on media.  The heartbreaking aspect of it all is that dead or alive, he won.  If we won, the new defense authorization act could be slimmer and indefinite detention would not be on it.

Radley Balko had a post in May outlining our defeat.   If you don't sigh after reading, you don't get it.

Droning on and on

So, we've been using drones for years and they are pretty spiffy. It's been such a success that a drone was used to recapture some errant cows. The Neutralist is not a psychometrician, but we feel we have proof that proof that Iranians are smarter than cows. They seem to have captured a drone used by, we guess, the Air Force. So the relative IQ scale is Iranians, drones, cows. I won't go on with this, because as an American, I find it embarrassing.

So we are using drones and have covert ops going on in Iran.  Yet we are in high dudgeon over a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that looks pretty shaky.  So it's right and just for us to bug the Persians because we're the good guys, but not right for them to do something here that might or might not be a set-up.


The Iranians have been telling us to go fry ice for a number of years now.  I just hope they don't have a viable plan to close the Strait of Hormuz as the Neutralist does not like an interesting life.


America's greatest chickenhawk is dissing the pres who has to be saying, "what have I gotta do.  I killed Osama and gave you another war and am deploying troops to more countries."


Well BHO, I have a suggestion.  Insert Cheney to retake the drone.

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.

Marco Rubio and the sanity test

I know my countrymen do not care and maybe the world does not either, but one wonders why an alliance of near broke nations would want to commit to defending a geographically isolated country known mostly for spawning maybe history's greatest tyrant. It would be bad enough to suggest this if the country we would go to war with for our ally was weak as a kitten. Granted the Bear ain't what he used to be but as the cliche goes, one nuke can ruin your whole day.

Proposing such an alliance would constitute the flunking of a sanity test. Jack Hunter over at the Daily Caller is on the case.

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

Gosh, ya gotta love that Paul family. See, when Marco was flunking, Rand was passing his sanity test with flying colors.

Of course, the Neutralist could be wrong. We humbly beg anyone out there who believes an alliance with the Georgians is a good idea to please set us straight. Good luck.

When insanity becomes too obvious to deny, continue to deny-The Pakistani bombing

Okay, Drudge has all the links you need. The Neutralist has no interest in posting them. It was bound to happen I guess. Twenty-four Pak soldiers killed. Even if they had done something to draw fire, which no one so far avers, the nation of Pakistan should be saying, "why to we even pretend to be the allies of the US."

The grand folly of our nation is that we are fighting a war in a landlocked country and we depend on a nation that has no real reason to be our ally. They control the supply lines. We are like an asthmatic breathing through a long straw. If this is not the disaster that makes us rethink policy, I hate to think what that would be.

Mercy and Justice Reign in the New Libya-NOT

Any but the most naive knew this would happen. Drudge links with this headline, MILITIA GROUPS RUN WILD IN LIBYA. Now who'd a thunk it?

Not Patrick Coburn. In the Brit Independent he has an article with a headline, This was always a civil war, and the victors are not merciful. the headline says it all, but read for some inspiring details.

Our point at the Neutralist. Well we don't know the whole story, but if Mama Hilary et al went in to bring truth, justice and the American way, they were stupidly naive. If it was for hydrocarbons, hey lumpen America, lets hope you see that at the pump.

I doubt lumpen Libya is going to benefit.

Let us stop and think we before we go to war with Iran

A recent article titled American spies outed, CIA suffers in Lebanon. we find our CIA has suffered horribly at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It seems the Lebanese and their Iranian allies are no slouches at the intelligence game.

This begs the question, how can we trust anything our intel people tell us. The Khost bombing and now this. Our agencies do seem hapless.

One could be forgiven if the current drumbeat for an Iranian adventure seems even less on the money than the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hysteria. Of course, how could anything be less on the money than that?

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.

What was that all about? Libya at war's end?

Naturally, a country swimming on light crude makes one think the overthrow might have been about securing some cheap gas, not for us lumpen slugs, but maybe for an oil company or four. The Neutralist sure doesn't know, just lets his inner paranoiac out. This guy has an idea it might have been Mo suggesting al alternative monetary system. Again, we don't know. Maybe such interpretations are whacko, but no more than the belief it was peace,freedom and goodness led NATO and us into support of the noble Libyans.

Speaking of the noble Libyan opposition, This has been hard to miss:



You may not have seen it with one of our grande dame:



What a barbarian.

With a fair trial, Mo could have been sentenced to death. It is a sad commentary that his demise means the world is no better or worse.

See Eric for alternate take on Brother-Leader.

Col. Patrick Lang has an interesting and useful website called Sic Semper Tyrannis. He was early on calling for intervention. I do not think he came out of this looking at all well. Back on the 25th of February he wrote, "As a "card carrying" non-interventionist (isolationist maybe?), I think that I have the "street cred" to call for intervention in Libya." This of course is like the people I met in a previous incarnation who would say, "I never took a dime from the government," to justify a little feeding at the trough. He may disagree, but I thought him gung ho and blithe. Anyway,he should give up his card.

That was then. Maintenant is another story. Last Friday, he wrote, "How did he die? Who cares? IMO the "Gs" killed him after they got through kicking him around. They are not soldiers. They are undisciplined civilian enthusiasts with a smidgin of training. If MQ had died in an ambush or as the "Gs" shot their way into his hideout a lot of you would think nothing of it." Hey it happens, he wrote, he was a cheerleader, someone else get the mop. No pottery barn for The Colonel.

Oh well, this wasn't as costly as some of our other interventions. Onto Uganda.

I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks!

Not really/ What I believe in is conspiracy theories. Okay, believe in is a tad strong. When I was a kid, I heard it bandied about that the oil companies had paid to stop an inventor of a pill from marketing it. A teacher spouted this in a junior high class.

Hey, i want to be one of the cool people and dismissing conspiracy theories is the way to do it. Unfortunately, my government makes it hard.

No, there has to be at least some plausibility. Fortunately, your government is giving you stuff you have to question. The Iranian plot is so inane, that you have to ask, is this my country on crack?

So I'm waiting of another WTC7 explanation.

Lesson here kids; you don't have to believe any conspiracy theory, but your nuts if you think it ain't possible.

Why do the words Turner Joy pop into my mind?

The Iranian assassination plot may be what the government says it is, even putting aside the timing questions linked to on Drudge. Why would the Persians do this in DC? One guy questioned on NPR said they might want to provoke conflict to solve domestic divisions. Why not kill a US ambassador somewhere else with less effort required?

We at the Neutralist remember the Tonkin Gulf Incident and Resolution. It is not that the government always fabricates, but sometimes it does.

Justin thinks it's fake, and many of the commenters at Sic Semper Tyrannis were not gentle.

Boob bait for the Bubbas or are we wanting confrontation to take the nation's mind off our problems? What do we know?

Syria is the new whatever

So your man Berkshire Hathaway, sorry, Bashir Assad (but what's the diff in the long run)is in the crosshairs of..... I think it was State and some other countries. Or so I think I heard when only paying superficial attention to the Ministry of Info......NPR. Monsieur Assad is a horrible meany who may even split infinitives. Yeah, he's killed a lot of civilians which is quite a feat without drones.

So what happens when he goes? Who cares? I doubt La Hilary has a clue. That is not addressed in all the news coverage.

In fact the coverage, such as I've heard, is laughably superficial. The Middle East is a tough neighborhood with fault lines Americans can hardly imagine.

Now, let me be a bit superficial myself. Not an expert on Syria, but here goes. You got your Sunnis including Sufis. They are not in power, but demonstrating and want it.

Next are Alawites. The pres is one and they are the power. They have reason to fight to the bitter end, because if they lose, the end will be bitter. Then come the Christians. They are somewhat with the Alawites as their fat would be in the fire if the Alawites are done in.

Then you have your Druze, Yazidis, Shias and some others. Get ya scorecard! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Of course the press is painting the opposition as the spawn of Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Maybe not:

Christian communities almost 2,000 years old have been destroyed in Iraq, and that will be their fate in Syria, too. As the opposition openly says, Christians are to be expelled and their property confiscated, and Alawites are to be massacred (the tiny Muslim sect that the Syrian rulers belong to). The empire is about to have even more blood on its hands, if there is room.


Why hasn't that been reported by the journalistic tribunes of the truth? For more of the story behind the story, go here.

So what do we get out of this? Dunno. Are there hydrocarbons? Are the Israelis and Iranians in play on this? Given our national predilection for quagmires, not much good can be expected from this quick sand.

The late Social Democrat John Roche said there was an Irish saying that one should never get involved in the religious wars of churches to which one did not belong. Don't know much about Paddy Proverbs but this one sounds reasonable.

Somebody please give Donald Rumsfeld his courage and his honor

Mish Shedlock had a post on his Global Economic Trend Analysis blog that should bother everyone. I was vaguely aware of the case, but reading about it on his page brought it into focus, disturbingly so.

The title of the post is U.S. Circuit Judge Upholds Right of Two US Citizens, Tortured in Iraq, to Sue Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for Torture (link here). So did the former Secdef actually waterboard the men personally. Of course not. I would have more respect, well, less disrespect for him if he did. No, the accusation is that the functionary approved the actions. Mish quotes an article below.

Among the methods of torture used against them during several weeks in military camps was sleep deprivation and a practice known as 'walling', in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges Mr Rumsfeld personally participated in approving the methods for use by the U.S. military in Iraq, making him responsible, it argues, for what happened to Mr Vance and Mr Ertel.

If the two men in question go forward and prove their case, The Attorney General in a decent country would then criminally charge Rumsfeld. It should not come to that.

In a movie about the Dreyfus affair, the railroaded Captain is handed a pistol and a bottle. He is told, "Here is your courage and your honor."

Maybe I'm just a simple fellow who just does not get it. Can someone tell me the National Security purpose of torturing these guys?

The can has been kicked

Some defense spending cuts supposedly, but our guess is cosmetic. The faux conservatives say we need to control spending other than being able to drone-bomb and invade everywhere. That, of course means they are not truly serious.

Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.

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.

For those true believers that still believe in the purity of the Libyan adventure

Libyan Rebels Accused of Pillage and Beatings

plus ça, well you know.....

The Petition

Reader and commenter Bailey has suggested the drafting of a petition with a clearly defined statement, purpose, and an outline of pros and cons. The role of neutrality needs to be solidified in its scope so that the people will understand that we shall still be a strong nation; however, a nation that only defends. Bailey also suggests that To appeal to the masses, we must show how beneficial neutrality can be to the well-being of our country. We must also determine what will be argued against neutrality and prepare rebuttal that will defuse their arguments.

So what does himself, the Neutralist, think about the proposal? A reasoned, logical petition should not be hard to draw up, especially as it is our belief here at Neutralist GHQ that neutralism is obviously inherently reasonable and logical. Once finished, Bailey would be willing to take it around in his home state.

I am touched by his willingness to do his part. I think a petition, well crafted, could not hurt. Unfortunately, Bailey is my only soldier. Considering the reaction to the Neutralist blog, the whelming has been under. As my what is to be expected screed to the right puts it,

What is to be expected from the Neutralist? Unfortunately, not much. There are think tanks galore in this country for all shades of thought, but, so far, neutralism is an orphan with only one known supporter. The concept is tied up with the I word, Isolationism. To get noticed and be taken seriously will be next to impossible.

Sadly, I have met all my expectations. There have been a few who have encouraged me, but only a tiny few. Moi, I have hardly been stalwart. My name, while not a complete pseudonym, has been crafted to protect my privacy. So what is the purpose. Just to bring about awareness. so tell your friends and neighbors. Heck, submit articles, links, etc.

I hate the terms like viral, but a groundswell would be nice. I admit to wishing for what I wished to happen, also to the right,

What is hoped? That the idea of neutralism will be noticed and that the concept of Wilsonian Internationalism will be seen as the failure it is. That at least a core group will form that will support the idea and spread it in blogs, articles and conversation.


What I am truly hoping with all my heart is to avert disaster. You see, neutralism of a form is coming anyway. Conservatives don't get it. They are only hoping for an end to the current loser wars (that would be all of them). They don't have an aversion to interventionism per se. So we might get, under current conditions, a partial withdrawl and new wars can await a better day. The other scenario would be some form of Dien Bien Phu. After that debacle, we were available to pick up the French pieces. If we have a DBP, our lads may never make it out.

Maybe we shall always be strong enough to avoid that. I would be more confident if we were a rich country. We are not and we'll be neutral be cause, sooner or later, we won't be strong.

Anyway, thanks Bailey. Hopeless as it seems, I still hope.

Arnie Arnesen butchers the English Language

As the Neutralist, I would not want a war monger like Sarah Palin to be president. Still, I do like that she upsets all the cool people. One of them was on the Callie Crossley Show and went after La Palin. Memo to Arnie, if you are going to be a grammar nazi, make sure you know what you're talking about.

Quoting Arnie, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with you know students of English as a Second Language and I have to like repair their assignments, I'm lookin at this.going I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."

I'm going to try and help English learner Arnie. Arnie, I think you meant to say, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with students of English as a Second Language and I have to repair their assignments, I'm listening to this thinking I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."

Of course other than the example above, she was more than competent to hold up her end of the banal banter during the show.

It's official, the Constitution is a joke

When the president violates the law of the land and two senators lead the charge in legislation that essentially says, "you go guy" the constitution has ceased to exist. It is now moribund in any meaningful sense.

If the Neutralist had written Obama's Speech

The United States wishes hopes and prays for peace among all parties in the Middle East. Good luck and au revoir.

The Neutralist is suspending its fundraiser in favor of antiwar.com

We suspend our fundraiser

The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are again suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.

Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........

The Terrorists have won

Res ipsa loquitur.

Any questions?

Hat tip to David Kramer at LRC Blog

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.

Does the word Pyrrhic come to mind?

My fellow countrymen are not fond of studying history. Believe me on this. I was a history nerd and generally kept it to myself. My abysmally low level of popularity could only get worse. The few readers of this blog are probably more aware than the general population, but I shall recap the career of The Macedonian general Pyrrhus.

Southern Greece was over time being subjugated by Rome. One of the Greek states, Tarentum, requested the help of Pyrrhus. He came over with an army and beat the Romans in a few battles. The problem was, the Romans, though defeated on the field, managed to kill so many of Pyrrhus men that he was not winning the attrition aspect of the war. After being congratulated on one of his victories, he has said to have said, "Another victory like this and I shall go home without an army."*

It is the classic explanation of the game not being worth the candle. Was it really worth it to invade a country to chase someone who might have eventually been apprehended with good intel? Maybe, but I disagree.

Here is the Neutralist corollary to Pyrrhus, "One more war like this and we go home without out an economy." Well, maybe we won't have one anyway. I could have put it better, but I hope you get the point.

Declare Victory and Leave

Yes, Bin Laden is dead. He will not be missed. Moi, I would have rather he had been captured and interrogated. "First question, how'd ya manage to live large instead of that cave you supposedly had to inhabit?"

Of course there are many questions for others as well. Our intel services, what took so long? The Paks, well, I've got a long list for our "allies."

Suffice it to say, our Afpak and Iraq advetures in revenge for 911 led to another equivalent in deaths of American military personnel. Yeah we slaughtered a lot of them, big whoop. We have gotten nothing real out of this. We are broke.

Come home America.

Vittorio Arrigoni, and neutralism

I know little of Mr. Arrigoni other than he was in Gaza following the example of Rachel Corrie. One must assume he was prepared to die for his beliefs. Unexpectedly, he was not killed bearing witness to Israeli oppression, but by a rival Palestinian group.

Though the Neutralist does not know the exact details, just the broad outline, it is enough to expound on. There is an Irish saying we heard from the late academic, John Roche, we feel applies here, Never get involved in the religious wars of churches you don't belong to.

Now we have to trust the Paddy on this one. People who have had their share of intra-national religious battles should know enough to walk on by when they see, say, a Jain and an animist arguing theology.

I don't mean to make light of the man's end, but he trod where he could only know so much of struggle that he stepped in. So it is with our involvement in all the squabbles we have made our own and most recently Libya. We at the Neutralist offer up a Kool Aid Free Zone.

I'm stealing from The Agitator, it's just too good

Mr. Radley Balko aka The Agitator posted this with attribution and I am doing the same. It speaks for itself. Snake handling moves left.

Wishing That Heroes, They Truly Exist

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

–Britney Spears, in 2003, commenting on the war in Iraq.

“But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do.”

– Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, in 2011, on Obama’s war in Libya.

(Hat tip: Jeromee P. Snash.)

Neutralist slam dunk by Mish!

At MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis, Mish posted about where the Republican budget proposals fall short. I don't know if he is a neutralist, but he sure reads like one. Here is what he wrote about defense:

What About Defense Spending?

Can we really be serious about tackling the deficit while doing nothing about defense spending? I think not, and Ryan wimps out big time by failing to address it.

The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We have troops in 140 countries. Yet, the simple fact of the matter is the US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

If other countries want our troops, perhaps they should pay us. However, it would be better yet if we would simply leave on our own accord.

As long as we are packing our bags, we should pack up and leave Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to declare the wars are won and leave.

If we do that, and pull some troops home, it should be an easy matter to cut $200 billion a year out of the defense budget. That would save $2 trillion over 10 years. Actually I think we should cut far more, but I am hoping to come up with a number that has a chance.

Thanks, Mish. It is to the point and not arguable by anyone sane.

It's lonely being the neutralist, but sometimes someone else says the right thing and we feel better.

All honor to the Kamikaze

Speaking tearfully through an interpreter by phone, the mother of a 32-year-old worker said: “My son and his colleagues have discussed it at length and they have committed themselves to die if necessary to save the nation.
“He told me they have accepted they will all probably die from radiation sickness in the short term or cancer in the long-term.”

Maybe this gives us a glimpse as to what it meant to sacrifice one's life on the deck of a carrier. A nation that produces such sons deserves to live.

Let us not equivocate. My relatives were in the Pacific. Japan treatment of POWs was not glorious. The courage in the face of such odds was and is.

Ed Shultz, Chickenhawk

So your man, Ed Shultz, who was against any war W wanted has had an epiphany. Libya is a holy crusade according to the big guy. I think we can parse this. Bush devil, Obama god. I looked up himself on wikpedia and can find no evidence that he was ever in the military. Ed Shultz, the Rush Limbaugh chickenhawk of the left with a smaller audience.

Libya is no different from the other wars except this president is consulting congress even less. Shultz gets the Al Smith, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney award.



Jeremy Scahill takes him to the cleaners.

The King's, er the President's Speech

As the Neutralist, I suppose it is necessary to go on record concerning POTUS' speech explaining his actions as regards Libya for my readers, or maybe reader, or whatever. There is not too much to opine about. Your man said, “When our interests and our values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.” Of course I didn't come away with any real idea how our values or interests were at stake, but so what.

Now that I know "we have a responsibility to act," Iam ready. After I post this, I shall climb into my jet fighter and fly over to Libya to strafe those MG loyalist bastards. Oh, I don't have a jet and am not really going to strafe anyone. Oh, I get it, the corporate "We." So even though I'm not participating, it is being done in my name.

I am aghast. Just remember the words of a US Senator intoned in 2007, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." I wonder who that solon was?

So who the heck is Bonnie Kristian and why is she making sense? Most succinct reasoning about Libya yet

Surfing a few sites this morning I came upon an article at Antiwar.com. It is a piece the Neutralist wishes he wrote. 10 Reasons the US Should Leave Libya NOW is a well ordered repository of the reasons not to be in Libya. If you know somebody who is on the fence or drinking the kool aid on the issue, urge them to read it. You don't change many minds in this life, but if someone is not invincibly ignorant, this should make an impact.

To show my gratitude to the author, I am going to steal part of her article. Specifically, Reason 9:

9. This goes against our founders’ vision for American foreign policy. Let me simply provide a few telling quotes:

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” — Thomas Jefferson

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” — John Quincy Adams

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

“All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.” — Benjamin Franklin

So called conservatives think a conservative foreign policy is "supporting the troops" (of course for them, that does not often mean being one) no matter what silly intervention is proposed. A real conservative war policy is to not get into wars as evinced by the quotes above.

Poor Bonnie Kristian, we have closed the competition. There will be no more entries. Bonnie Kristian is the Neutralist Rookie of the Year. Granted, it is not a much coveted award, and brings neither money or great applause. No matter, it's still less of a joke than the Nobel.

If Bonnie wants an 11th reason the Neutralist can supply one. The only successful exit strategy the US has executed was Viet Nam.

David Corn and a Good War

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.


From 1984 by George Orwell, Part 2 Chapter 9.

The analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough. David Corn tried to make the case that the Obama war is holy and Bush interventions, not so much. There is no real qualitative difference in the policy of the incumbent and his predecessor. Was Mr. Corn ever in show biz. He is quite a song and dance man.

Welcome year 11 of the Bush Obama administration.

Saving Libya, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished-This was even too fast for moi to comprehend

So after dithering for what seemed like forever, A coalition of US and Euro countries with UN authorization is moving against Mo Q. The Arab League said that they wanted a no fly zone and passed a resolution to that effect.

Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.

We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.

Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.

Sec/Def Gates comes out of the closet-He's a neutralist

No he didn't say that. No one as high up in government would follow the logic to its, well, logical conclusion. What Mr. Gates said you have probably read by now, but here it is,

“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.

Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"

Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.

And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.

C'mon Justin, use the good n-word

Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has a good article entitled Do We Need a Foreign Policy?

Of course not. It is simple and to the point. He could have changed the title to Time for Neutralism and it would have worked as well. Oh well, we live in hope.

It is our opinion that the best paragraph is

Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.

Yup, it's all a sham.

In honor of Justin's great article of February 9, 2011, we are suspending our ongoing Neutralist Fundraiser. Our fundraiser is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. So far we have collected $0.00. It is expected that 2011 will bring a similar level of success.

Jusin, Eric et al do the heavy lifting against mindless intervention. You can participate in their fundraiser here.

Main Stream Media has good article on Neutralism even if the author has never heard the term.

Thanassis Cambanis writes for the Boston Globe. Having grown up in the Boston area, I remember it as the serious newspaper, if only because it didn't publish the number like the Record did before the state went into the lottery business.

His article was a departure from MSM articles on the subject as he did not use the word Isolationist as an eptithet. Still, he could not name the right word. What is this, Harry Potter? Neutralism is "the policy whose name must not be mentioned."

Otherwise, the best article on the subject in a long time. To read Stand Alone: The Case for a New Isolationism you can go here if you are registered at the Globe.

Mr. Cambanis also has a blog here, which is well worth a visit. At his blog, he has written about his Globe article and this is the link for that.

If we invaded Iraq because it was run by a ruthless bad guy, why are we not Invading Egypt?

The Beacon asks the question here.

Just another example of an insane and hypocritical foreign policy. Neutralism on its worst day couldn't be stupider and would cost a lot less.

Wikileaks is just an NWO put up job?

The revelation that AQ is near to a nuke from Wikileaks could be seen as a vindication of The Daily Bell. They have been noting that Assange & Co. have not really been passing out anything that has been truly harmful to "The Elite." The dirty bomb thing kinda, sorta, maybe makes their case. Such a weapon is not something you just order up and that suitcase needs to be as big as a house for a suitcase bomb. Yet that discredited meme shows up out of Wikileaks.

The DB certainly gives pause to those of us not privilege to big secrets. The Neutralist is for transparency. We are for erring on the side of the big T. As Holy Mother State loves keeping even the most trivial items secret. So if DB is correct and secrets are doled out for the benefit of "The Elite." we have all been scammed.

I defended Wikileaks and went after some kids who attacked them in the comments here. I had been aware of the DB's atttude, but was not convinced. I am not convinced now if only because as a nobody from nowhere, I have no access to necessary info.

However, I am not at all put off by what DB is publishing. Their case is well made and certainly possible. Anyway, a little embarrassment for, say Hilary, is a cute way to give the rest of the scam, if it is a scam, credibility.

My haters at in2thefray should start to love wiki+Julian as he serves their statists inclinations.

As usual, we take the Neutralist position, If there is an elite, there international adventure do nothing for our nation. We are better off bringing home all our forces and tending to our own business.

The Neutralist Announces Its Middle East Policy!

Here it is. It should be a shock to my loyal readers (reader?)

The United States should not have anything to say in the matter of the internal politics of Middle Eastern Nations. If those nations do not threaten the American Republic, their external policies are also not our business. We screw up everything we touch.

Some Links:

Col. Lang has a number of informative posts.

Fabius Maximus has some thoughts on various aspects of what is happening including climate aspects.

As somebody like Walter Winchell would say, "Ya gotta get the story behind the story." Okay, The Neutralist doesn't know if it was Winchell, but it sounds good. The Daily Bell sees the hand of the Anglo-American Elite in everything.

Justin Raimondo notices that Rachel Maddow is bringing out her inner John Bolton. If Suzie Cool Liberal Chick is giving over, it kinda give you a reason not to dismiss the Daily Bell out of hand.

Tough Guys on the Net-They're all on the hunt for Julian Assange!

What is it about the internet that it brings out the homicidal tendencies in people. It's not that they'll act on them. They are safe from that. It's just that they feel the need to threaten mayhem.

One web warrior who goes by the name of Alfie put up a post titled, Please please please Julian Assange;STFU

He starts off his offering with:

I am so sick of this fucking guy.

This Australian wannabe Swede rapist douchebag is nothing but a bitter and petty POS who wants to bask in the limelight of others risk full behaviors.Serving as the public face of WikiLeaks this douche tries to ply the waters of anti American feelings to bolster his otherwise meaningless life.

Of course, the crime he has been accused of is not near rape and, though hardly sterling behavior, is in no way a crime in the US, but why quibble. I'll just let you think about the sad fellow's language. Of course, if you are in a hurry because mom will be calling you down to supper, you just have to go with your gut.

The lad got upset with my use of the word "chickenhawk." He thinks it's overused. Only in the sense that say 1+1=2 is overused. Both are still valid.

We had a back and forth of which the most notable part was,"until he surfaces from whatever “I’m a big pussy” hiding spot he is in." Now think about it. He is calling someone a pussy who is risking life and limb. And what might Alfie be risking? "Mom, I'll hurry, please make the Chef Boyardee Ravioli tonight."

So Alfie had his two minute hate. He actually has a following. They were vile and ignorant. The the gold standard for such behavior goes to a fellow named Jonolan, his words are below.

Fuck trials and juries, Patrick – he’s a foreign enemy. Kill him and make sure the world all but knows in fact the we did it.
Hell! I’d be glad to kill him myself, might even make him watch me mutilate his son first, just to add to the fun.
It’d be sort of nice and heartwarming knowing that the last thing Assange knew before I finally finished him was that what was left of his offspring would suffer through the remaining years of his existence as a deformed and mutilated cripple, incapable of doing anything of value and being nothing but an object of disgust and pity.

How noble a sentiment. It turns out Jonolan has his own blog. His desire to harm not only Julian, was posted and removed. Amazingly, an apology was made. He felt bad? Maybe, but he admits, "Some will now say that I’m apologizing because they believe that they can do me harm. That’s actually sort of true." Certainly there would be more justice in the Oz fatwa being carried out than any harm coming to the Assange family, but let's dispense with such silly games.

Jonolan, as low as he sank, then outdid himself. He claimed to have at least in part, caused Assange to give himself up. He refers to Assange's mention of his low deed in an article in The Australian. Nowhere in the piece does Assange hint that he gave himself up because of Jonolan. Jonolan has no shame. He threatens from the anonymity of the internet and then takes credit for a man turning himself in charged for a non crime. Gee, Jono, I'm sure al Qaeda is now scared you'll come out of your room and get them.

Now the cite's owner weighs back in.

@jonolan. I followed your posts on the subject with some interest. The threads got a little crazy for sure. I think Assanges decision is actually a sound one. The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts.
I think referencing you shows his vanity,his narcissism. This is clear in context when you think about those that left WikiLeaks and why as well as the 2 women involved in the sex cases.
All in all you showed class with your follow ups and in a number of ways served a higher purpose. Congrats.
Now breaking is how a former colleague is starting a new site (OpenLeaks) and the fans of Julien have done him zero good with their petty panty raids on MC and Visa.
If nothing else I hope the whole thing cements Assanges image as a media whore as opposed to anything resembling a credible and worth

So, it goes from Swede rapist douchebag is now The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts. Now a gentleman would have noted his original remarks were intemperate. Not Alf. He does remark on Assange's vanity and narcissism in mentioning Jono. I guess he is referencing whatever version of the DSM is out there. Actually, he never gives a reason why it follows. Of course mentioning a desire at several removes to mutilate the son and then kill the man is the epitome of sanity. Thinking that Jono showed class in his follow ups is breathtaking in its goofiness.

Now, Alfie had a defender with whom I also had a back and forth with. Victoria set me straight that Alfie was not a chickenhawk but a veteran. I take her at her word that the whiny mommy's boy sounding lad actually learned the joys of low crawling. She also gave the Assange is the anti-Christ rhetoric. Her last communication to me is below:

The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry). It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance. Assange is far from perfect….he is a pedantic little piss-ant whose only claim to fame is being a tattle-tale. And more than likely, a rapist. But given your tone from previous posts, it matters not to you that the man is a possible sex offender, as long as he titilates the general public with information they should not have. It is terrifying that you can link the word “good” with Assange, yet I find a sense of peace in knowing that as of this morning, the POS is exactly where he belongs.

In my reply, I asked her questions about her assertions:

"The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry).”

Name one bit of actual harm, other than no one will believe our liars anymore. Assertions without proof are not worth much.

“It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance.”

How do you know this?

“Assange is far from perfect”

I certainly make no claims to perfection. Still, I am humbled to know that you have attained that state.

“And more than likely, a rapist.”

Please document the exact charges against him. By the way, they don’t come close to rape.
Good luck.

Okay, so one of them wasn't a question. I knew I was never going to hear from her again. The truth is, most of humanity holds views contrary to reason and evidence. Deep down, these folk know, but to admit that there stated views are ragtime would harm their fragile egos.

It is evidence of my own shallow nature that I took a perverse pleasure in the hands down stupidest ad hominem thrown at me.

You call yourself a neutralist, but you’re sounding an awful lot like a neuteredist. Oh the wounding I felt at the deft rhetorical flourish of commenter an800lbgorilla

Michael Graham would not know what conservatism was if it bit him on the nose

As I drift towards Boston while driving, I can pick up its radio stations. There is a breed of mostly men who are paid to rant on the airwaves. On of them Michael Graham purports to be a conservative. Loving all those, you know, reactionary things like the rule of law, due process, the Constitution. Yup, he loves those quaint traditions, except when he doesn't.

Today, he called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange because "our defense department and diplomacy have been blown up completely. Well, if being shown up to be incompetent in your reports, yes he is right. Mr. Assange released true stuff. He offered to redact anything really dangerous. Like the Pentagon Papers, all of this was going to come out sooner or later anyway.

What it shows up is our Hilary and her Department of State as the kids who are still doing student government. It shows us with a military that really isn't doing much but chasing its tail.

The brave Mr. Graham, who "supports" the troops by not ever being one is a chickenhawk calling on others to kill someone withoug any due process. Oh, America is doomed if there is not enough mayhem.

Mr. Graham, a conservative war and foreign policy is that the only things worth defending are hearth and home. Saving the world is bound to fail. Get the right wikileaks message.

Philip Giraldi gets it, Does any Republican?

Philip Giraldi, columnist at antiwar.com has, in less than a paragraph, analyzed the recent elections better than any talking head,

Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families.  But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power.  The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.

In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.

The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.

Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.

The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.

No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.

We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.

The Assange assassination continues on the Emily Rooney Show

They can't outright shoot Julian Assange. It's a little too late for that. He is too well known now. That does not mean they won't try to make him a pariah. Last Friday, October 29th, they had a go at it on a Boston radio show.

Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.

Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show

Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.

Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.

Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.

Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.

Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.

Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well

The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.

Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.

Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."

Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."

Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.

So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.

Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).

As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.

Gene Healy says it all: Not even our leaders know why we are in Afghanistan

Country Joe and the Fish may have been a one hit wonder, but their song about Viet Nam resonates today,

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam

plus ça change, ya know. According to Gene Healy, nobody knows why. Going out on a limb here, but after the half decade mark, any war our country is in, the reasons will get murky and the original justifications will no longer be relevant (as if they were to begin with). Just ask Osama down in Gitmo getting ready for his trial.

It appears Mr. Healy has read the Woodward book so I don't have to. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyway, here is a lovely quote,

Last October, Woodward reports, National Security Adviser James Jones called an emergency meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "The president was not happy": After countless meetings and dueling memoranda, "they had not found a way to articulate why the United States was in Afghanistan. What were America's interests?"

Yeah, all we gotta do is find what we believe and then tell the lumpenistas. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Did it occur to any one of the assembled sinecure holders that if you can't explain the reason, there may be no reason?

Nahhhhhh.

Taliban attack the supply lines-World surprised by the obvious tactic

The Taliban has no air force, no predator drones, but that does not mean they are stupid. One does have to ask why they have taken so long to gear up their strategy of attacking supply lines? No matter, it's here.

I know my countrymen are not a nation of geographers, but a simply looking at a map of Afghanistan should be a wake up call. First thing you notice, no seacoast. It is landlocked and borders many countries, none of which are our close allies, and most of whom our relations with are problematic.

So the Taliban in one of its incarnations are attacking the tanker trucks that supply our forces over the road from Pakistan. The question becomes, can they do it enough to make our effort unsustainable?

So it's happening now. Actually, it's happened before, and it is not just the Taliban that can apply pressure.

Hey maybe we can cobble together another supply line and keep the game going until victory, or whatever. Bet on whatever.

Well, what do you expect. Of course you'd want a president to be a führer if your name was Donald the German

Donnie Deutsch and Pat Buchannan the constitution out the window to protect our soldiers over there. Arrest the Koran burner to protect the troops.

May I point out the supreme irony. A military is supposedly* deployed to protect us. We are not supposed to protect the troops. Anyway, you can watch Mr. Deutsch having the vapors here.

Hat tip to the Daily Burkeman. The link on Burkeman is "this speaks for itself. If a foreign policy gets to the point where we have to arrest our own people, no matter how goofy, because our armed troops, who are pretending to be building a free country overseas might be shot at, then res ipsa loquitur. I agree with Chris Dowd. Donnie and Pat are scarier than Terry.



*our military is not deployed overseas to protect us.

Don't think modern imperialism's a loser. Now we've gotta bailout their lousy banks too!

Per the Washington Post, The Kabul Bank is pulling a Citibank and crying for succor.

Now this is the Neutralist and we want all the troops home. Still, if we are going to do Imperialism, let's get something out of it. We don't bail them out, they bail us out. None of this pottery barn stuff.

This decree should go forth: On December 25th, everyone shall go to the city of their ancestors to be counted for taxes. Pay up by April 15th. Or we withdraw. That is our final offer.

Okay, Augustus didn't threaten to withdraw, but America needs love.

Interesting video from the other side-The Taliban speaks!

Interesting video from the comments section on Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis site. A Norwegian was able to film them as they fought us due to their hatred of our freedom. Ah, wait a minute, at 3:14 your man talks about fighting for freedom. Who does he think he is, George Bush.




Well, I think these lads want Afghanistan more than we do. I know they want it more than I do. Heck, they probably want it more than Bennett and Kristol. And...what would you do if someone invaded your country. What those guys are doing I hope.

The man who posted the video goes by the cute name, Charlie Wilson. His actual comment was, "I don't think these guys can be beat. I think we need to redo Panama or Grenada." If we really want to feel good about ourselves, we can let the Japanese build another fleet and do Midway again.

Reason throws in the towel completely, goes chickenhawk.

In an article Julian Assange, WikiJournalist
Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both? cool guy libertarian and a Reason Senior Editor, Michael C. Moynihan, went after Julian Assange. You knew it would be a typical hit piece when you read the Assange description,"He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face." The rest was the same work. Mr. Moynihan is pretty vicious with his remarks.

It is in the comments that it really gets interesting. The baying for blood is long and loud except for some exceptions. Why, why, if we had this enthusiasm for the war instead of the keyboard, we would have won by now. Of course, online is where their fight is.

Oh, all you folks baying for Assange's blood. You will never see him tried. What he might be able to bring up in a fair trial fills the powers that be with terror.

Hat tip Justin Raimondo.

The Daily Caller is not just Johnny One Note!

You know, I was wondering if the Daily Caller was going to be a one trick pony. Would Journolist be it? Hey it was a big coup. Today I did not see much of that there, but a horribly reasonable take on The Afghan war by worst dress guy in the line up.

The gist, we ain't gonna win it, but it's worth hitting the link,

Engstrom, don't put on a tie for us.

A lot of blood for a lot of hands

the counterattack on Julian Assange has begun. I only get to listen to NPR in the car and I drive as little as possible. Some say, NPR, our ministry of information, has always been on the war team. Others say, just since Obama’s ascendancy. Moi, I don’t care.

If you are going to have long wars, this type of thing is bound to happen. Sooner or later, somebody is going to out something. Is it good or bad? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

We at the Neutralist don’t care for the argument. We merely point out that Afghanistan is the reductio ad absurdam of our USA world policeman schtick. We only wonder what will be the next wee contretemps.

If a US grunt is killed due to a wikileaks exposé, then I resent that. If the leaks lead to us leaving sooner rather than later and less dead American lads, I rejoice.

Admiral Mullen, really give some thought to the blood on hands biz.

The McChrystal Affair-It's only the first time, we're just feeling our way here

So McChrystal has been relieved. Obama let him go and talk radio is on the president's case. The Neutralist believes the best point in the discussion was made by a retired intel officer, Col. Patrick Lang. The colonel is hardly some fanatic leftie Obamista,

The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy. Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy. To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall. What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama.

That the talkmeisters did not get this and just jerked their knees is understandable. Most are just party Republicans who will do anything to get a teammate in the White House even if it's only Mitt Romney's hair and they have to forget that constitution they claim fealty to.

The Neutralist believes there is a bigger story here. This is the first time since MacArthur we have had an incident and this one is different. The general did not just disagree, he called his boss a stiff when you boiled it down.

So the CinC dismisses him. Everyone is happy.

Pas Moi.

If we have eternal war, why would we not have more of these incidents? How long until the tide of "let the generals run the war, they're the professionals" becomes overwhelming.

Disengagement leading to Neutralism is essential, because we run chance for many evils, including "Caesarism"

Year Ten of the Bush-Obama Administration

Hat tip to LRC Blog.