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.

Times have changed, World War I no longer a holy war

There was a back and forth between Humanities Professor Paul Gottfried and Sean Gabb The Professor’s started with an article at Takimag about how the Brits were anxious to start a war, and got one in the early 20th Century.


Mr. Gabb is an English libertarian and director of the Libertarian Alliance across the pond.  He admits the Brits were not blameless, but has a few points in defense.  


It was all interesting, but what struck me was how things have changed since my childhood.  I am a boomer and when TV was new, they were constantly showed old movies while they were getting up to speed on providing constant vapid programming. There were a lot of flicks shown showcasing our involvement in World War II.  There were less, but still a number doing the same for “The Great War.”  Yankee Doodle Dandy, about George M. Cohan glorifies his role in stirring up patriotism with “Over There.”  The Fighting 69th was about how a unit of New York Irish made the Kaiser Howl.  Dawn Patrol had Errol Flynn as a Brit hero.  They never showed the Gary Cooper version of A farewell to Arms though.  There was a film that was hagiographic about Wilson.

The point is, nobody then said anything against World War I.  It was a right and just crusade to make the world safe for democracy.  A war to end all wars, blah, blah blah.
How times have changed.  neither Gottfried or Gabb thinks the war was anything but stupid and US involvement mistaken.  All thinking people have to believe that their nations’s participation unfortunate at best and buffoonery at worst.

At least the Euros and claim that they drifted into the war and mistake brought mistake.  A statesman, if we could resurrect him today and ask him why he did what he did, could only give the defense I give over all my bad choices in college, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Wilson, however has no excuse.  A war an ocean away did not call us.  We dialed it up.  The question as to why he did it has only one of two answers.  Either he was the pawn of the American financial interests or he was an idiot.  Or maybe both.

That was another century.  So to our own age.  The Neutralist was of course against both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Iraq was dopey on the face of it.  As to Afghanistan, we had been wronged and were going to have a war because, well, we had been wronged.  Dr. Gottfried has the best words on the subject, writing about WWI,  “The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.”  One would think the descendants of both the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns wish he had.  Yet to go to war probably seemed like a good or least worst idea at the time.

We shall think about Afghanistan in the same way someday.

There is the Wilson Quaterly and probably some Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian doctrine is so patently foolish, that one wonders how anyone could believe it.  Yet most everyone did.

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

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


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

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

The two paragraphs from Mish below say it all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This spending should forestall an invasion from either entity.

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

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

NPR, your tax dollars at war.

NPR,which is Fox News for the cool people had a show on Sunday March 14th about Syria.  The Antiwar.com blog discussed it here.  In reading John Walsh’s account, one is easily reminded of a Monty Python sketch.  John Cleese introduced three prominent dead people to debate life after death.  One is a churchman, another an atheist and I forget the third.  They were all propped in chairs.  Cleese finishes by saying words to the effect, there you are, three dead people offering no opininon, there is no life after death.

The three NPR panelists may not have been dead, or even brain dead, but they were not too lively.  There was no divergence from the party line that Syria is the biggest meany since......  Take your pick, we have had a lot of bogeymen in the last several years.

The panelists were longtime government functionaries so it would be a surprise if they said something that was not the position of one of the two parties.  There was no surprise.

The panel was hosted by NPR sinecurista, Melissa Block,  Walsh called the first guest, “the aptly named Anne-Marie Slaughter, former “director of planning” at the State Department.”  Her take,  she is for intervention the right way.  No kill zones, defensive arms.  all terms that will be meaningless once intervention actually starts.  Melissa would have at least shown herself to be something more than just a shill, if she could have mouthed the words any sane person knows are true, “Anne-Marie, you’re full of it.”  That, of course, was not on.

Next up was one of the architects of the failed Iraq policy and a failed World Bank honcho, Paul I always fail upward Wolfowitz.  He had some words, and Mr. Walsh duly noted their import, but who cares.  The management of NPR and its audience have to be vapid to give that man a listen.  Rumor has it, he hope to ascend to the chair of Saint Peter at the next Papal Conclave.

Third guy was an antiwar voice of dissent.  Nah.  Daniel Serwer is a former U.S. “special envoy” and “coordinator” for the Bosnian Federation.  He feels we should go in big time but can’t because no political will exists.  No kidding.

So no real opposition to war from the three, but the last guy having some slight connection to reality.  

One gets the feeling the difference between Fox and NPR is that Fox is fight them so they behave and NPR is fight them so they behave well.  Neither works and it is a distinction without a difference.


Update: Russian troops are reported in Syria. It will be fun to watch the commenters start saying no fair!

The Nature of our Army

Maybe it is not such a good idea to enlist people to fight for a cause rather than each other or "the regiment."  Disillusionment comes eventually to those who have illusions about causes.

The words of Colonel Pat Lang, of Sic Semper Tyrannis went off like a bombshell when I read them.  He had posted about Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, the NCO who killed 16 Afghan civilians.

His insight is both correct and disturbing.  Bales was ten years younger upon enlistment.  Maybe he just needed a job, but as it was just after 911 so patriotic fervor might have been at work.  Ten years later, the men who came in to right the nations wrongs have to be disillusioned.  One would guess that to have stayed so long, he would have transferred his feelings for the country to his comrades, but who knows?  Analyzing the soldier is not the purpose here.

What needs to be looked at is the nature of our force and do we want a military of patriots or mercenaries?  Our army is a mixed force.  Some do join do for love of country.  Others, because some opportunity exists.  the patriot may end up a time server or the mercenary, a devoted soldier.  the truth is, the long serving man will leave if the pay benefits are not adequate.  Get rid of the pension and put a 401k in place and see the rush for the exits.

Gibbon is often mentioning the “donatives” necessary to keep the army compliant.  the Neutralist has always thought that the semi-mercenary nature of our armed forces would be a contradiction that could not be resolved.  An imperial forces, all over the globe will have to be completely mercenary even if the patriotic fig leaf persists for a while.  You don’t really want zealots for what is just a job.
That is, if we don’t go bankrupt first.

The Neutralist has written before about our belief in the best force structure.  In the current political climate, it cannot happen.  We will never see a hair out of place on one of the Romney boys.

Official Neutralist Flowchart of American foreign policy by Mr. Andy Singer

I have no idea who Andy Singer is.  At his website there are other cartoons.  Some I agree with and some are witty.  The one above is dead on.  Visit him here.

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...........

Defeat in Afghanistan-No matter how you slice it

No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.  Al Smith.

Such were the words of an American politician.  They have that ring like PK Dick's definition of reality.  The question is almost ridiculous to ask.  It is not so much have we lost, but why did we think there is anything to gain in the first place.  Well, the Neutralist takes no pleasure in this.  The young men and others who have died there were a waste.  Some will do jail time because they gave in to frustrations they should never have been subject two.

We have two articles to link to.  The first is by Lt.Col. Daniel L. Davis.  In the Armed Forces Journal article, Truth, lies and Afghanistan,  Col. Davis outlines the falsity of all that is going on in Afghanistan.  His experience seems to shout that what we mere citizens are fed here is happy talk.

The other article is from Stratfor.  In Afghanistan: Moving Toward a Distant Endgame, George Friedman writes,

Ultimately, the United States could remain in Afghanistan indefinitely and there is nothing the Taliban could do about it. But the United States cannot defeat the Taliban. The Taliban have nowhere to go and no desire to leave. The United States has other issues to attend to and no overriding strategic interest in Afghanistan. From the American point of view, its presence in Afghanistan does not reduce Islamist threats to the homeland but it does absorb military resources.

Mr. Friedman is intelligent, but I doubt we can remain indefinitely.  Better to say, for sometime until we break.  Better to leave long before that.

One has to give great credit to Col. Davis.  To speak out so might not be considered career enhancing.  Or, does the fact that it was published in  AFJ mean something?

If everyone knows we are leaving, sooner or later without any real victory, then staying is a betrayal of the lives of the young men who serve.  Especially in light of Col. Davis' outline of the quagmire.

Chris Hedges sues Obama over indefinite detention-Has nice words for Santorum

Below is a video of Chris Hedges.  It is an interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now
.  I am not a man of the left, nor am I a small d democrat.  As a constitutionalist, surely there are many things Amy, Chris and moi disagree on.  There is, however, not much in this video I can gainsay.  I do think a better choice of words would have been corporativist elite than corporate elites.  It may be a quibble, but many big corporations do not have the standing that say Goldman or GE or Morgan do in influencing or controlling policy.

Yet in light of the fact that the security establishment did not want the indefinite detention aspects of the bill, his deduction that elite fear is the driver is not something to be dismissed.  In truth it scares the Neutralist all the more.  In the long run, it cannot succeed and points up how brittle the system is that it perceives this as necessary.  For a time, it will cause much suffering.  People this desperate have crossed a Rubicon.

Of course this might be a declaration that we have lost overseas.  After all, were "we not fighting them over there so we did not have to fight them over there?"  Maybe that should have been all along, "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight ourselves over here."

Other small observations: has Mitt Romney ever read the bill of rights?  I thought Rick Santorum a mindless chickenhawk opportunist, but give the lad his due.  He explained our rights under the constitution as well as Chris might have.

Jacob Sullum on Ron Paul the non-Isolationist

At reason.com Jacob Sullum has a fine article on Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs.  My only disagreement is that he does not use the n word.  Neutralism is what a non-isolationist, non-interventionist ethos really means.  Then again, maybe I'm just splitting hairs.                                                                                    

Mr. Sullum starts off with a bang,

Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul's foreign policy views as "isolationist" because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.

I can't say Mr. Sullum is channeling the Neutralist, but his words,

The inaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored. 

are close enough to our words to the right, The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet.

Mr. Sullum then distills Paul's ideas,

As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense—in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.

Where the Neutralist might disagree is the second sentence.  A military response of invading a landlocked country and chasing one's tales was the wrong response to 911.

Still, all in all a wonderful Neutralist column even without the word.

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?