Bear Baiting with thanks to Malcolm Pollack

The Neutralist periodically meanders over to Malcolm Pollack's Waka Waka Waka blog because it is usually a pleasure.  A few days ago, he wrote a post titled Bear Baiting.  it was not a pleasure to read, but it was a fine bit of work.

It was not a pleasure because it accurately described the state of our foreign policy as regards Syria and a headlong rush to confrontation with a nuclear power.

This is a piece that clearly the Neutralist can endorse and wishes he wrote.  Please read, it is short and to the point.

Bear-Baiting

OCTOBER 7, 2016 – 4:35 PM

From this morning’s NightWatch:

Russia-US-Syria: Russian relations with the US over Syria continue to worsen.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said on 6 October, “Let me remind the so-called US strategists that the air cover for the Russian military bases in Hmeimim and Tartus is provided by S-400 and S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, whose range may come as a surprise to any unidentified flying objects.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the West of protecting the al-Nusra Front. She said at a briefing, “So far we see in the actions of Western countries, first of all, not a concern about the humanitarian situation in Syria but a desire to protect Al-Nusra fighters and the forces and groups of fighters affiliated to them. To be even franker, not just to protect them but directly get them away from harm’s way.”

Comment: The statement by General Konashenkov apparently is a pre-emptive response to press reports that the US is considering approving air attacks against Syrian government forces. His response is a dare. The message is that the Russians will shoot first at long distance.

We are playing a very dangerous game here. There is no realistic path that ends in ousting Assad that does not pass through direct combat with Russia. Moreover, even the goal is a foolish one. What do we imagine would take his place?

I must also note the shameful hypocrisy of weeping for Syria’s people (and using it as a pretext for importing millions of them to the West) while having done everything possible to maintain a rough balance of power in this civil war, thereby prolonging it for years — during which time that miserable nation, and the innocent lives of millions of its people, have been blasted to rubble. Had we not stepped in to “help”, the thing would have been over in weeks or months, cities and antiquities now completely destroyed would still be standing, and the chaos of tribalism and jihad would not have had this vacuum to occupy. Whatever you may say about Bashar Assad, it should be obvious to even the most causal observer that life under his rule was better for most people — incomparably so — than life in Syria now. His regime may have been an affliction, but our efforts to cure it have killed the patient. Chaos is death.

A more enlightened worldview would see Russia — a great Christian nation, and one that has made priceless contributions to the treasure-store of Western civilization — as a natural ally in these perilous times. We have much in common, including ancient, existential enemies who gloat to see us fighting with with each other rather than uniting against them. Yet our stance toward Russia has been relentlessly bellicose, with our support of the Ukrainian revolution, and our actions in Syria, being only the most obvious examples.

One might imagine that, standing as we do upon the crumbling lip of a very dark abyss, and with such enlightened statesmen in charge, we would now move cautiously. One would be mistaken.

POSTED BY MALCOLM ON AT 4:35 PM, FILED UNDER FOREIGN AFFAIRS

USA, a day late country and many dollars short

Martin van Creveld, The Israeli military historian has an article at his As I Please website by guest writer, Karsten Riise.  Van Creveld is an intellectual of note.  There is not much biographical information about Mr. Riise on the web, but that Professor van Creveld hosts him is an affirmation,

The article, The US Position is Untenable our current geopolitical situation.  An American who cares for his homeland can only come to one conclusion.  Our country needs to bring all it's troops, planes and ships home...yesterday.

Neutralists who have watched our country over the last several decades would have long come to the conclusion that our huge overseas footprint is a waste.  Whether if it was “all the dominos will domino if we leave Vietnam,” to “we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here,” it's all been silly sloganeering.

Mr. Riise, probably either Dutch or Dane, has not been subject to the propaganda that we Americanos have.  His piece is thoughtful and discusses what's wrong from different angles.

He begins with a graph and then explains that the Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP is set to go from 75% to 146%.  We neutralists are not all great economists, and I think his date is off, but such a number in the future is disturbing as the government usually underestimates the bad.

Should we be worried?  Since the demise of the USSR, it has not been the Nirvana we all hoped for.  Adam Smith said “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”  That was back in 1777.  The Brits have managed to hold on with varying fortune.  Can we?

Most nations muddle through dumb economic policies and then when they have no choice, do something stupider, or by accident, something smart.  We live in hope.

Mr. Riise thinks I'm part of the problem.  I resent that.  Just because I'm not as young as I once was, and there are more like me and less  young people to contribute to our happy and financially secure dotage is not our fault.

“The biggest driver of the US Federal debt is the aging of the US population. Today 15% of Americans are aged 65+. This percentage will increase by two thirds, so that by 2060 about 24% of the US population will be 65+. Until now, the USA has benefited from a young population. The strain on medicare and social spending of an aging population, even with the still limited entitlements in the USA, will be enormous.”

Hey we didn't ask to get old even if we haven't grown up, and anyway, my government can kick a can down the road like nobody's business.

Mr. Riise claims our infrastructure is third world level and thus we are becoming un-competitive.  China is building high speed trains like crazy and we don't have any.  We do have Acela, but that is limited in service, so we can give in on this one.  Worse, Les Chinois will probably build our high speeders when we finally get them.

Substandard education also makes us fall behind as our kids are not going to have the skills in worldwide competition.  At least, thanks to the current administration, they will know the right bathroom to use.

As people are less and less middle class and the the tax base shrinks, we can always make the rich pay their fair share and then some.  How will that work out?  According to the article, “Any attempts to heavily taxate (fiscate) the upper 10% (or 0.1% !) of the US tax base will lead to US dollar capital-flight, and acute economic crisis.” 

Embarrassing to us here in the Exceptional Nation, is that “The risk of starvation amongst the poorest in the USA remains high: In Obama’s presidency, one in seven Americans (14%) face the risk of not having enough to eat.”  The store shelves are not empty.  Could somebody be cooking the books on employment stats?

Well, there is an answer.  According to Paul Krugman and to paraphrase Edwin Starr's song, “War what is it good for, the economy.”

So there's not been a real recovery, the kids are dumb, the middle class is gone, the rich could leave, let's motivate the people with a crusade.  What could go wrong?

Putting aside that we have been on the warpath near a decade and a half, much could go awry.  Again, look to Mr. Riise again as he has detailed the problem with the war for prosperity plan.

The armament is in decline and shrinking. “The number of US ships and combat aircraft is declining, their average service-age goes up and their operativeness goes down.”  New equipment is often white elephant stuff.

“In absolute strength levels, the American military is standing still or going backwards.  The US military now delays military purchases in order to keep overall military expenditures flat the next 5 years.”

That is the most ominous aspect.  One hopes the poor GI in an outpost in Afghanistan doesn't get asked to wait a couple of days into the next month for his pay to stretch the budget.  Will we be able to afford the fuel for the last helicopter to pull him out when the dénouement becomes obvious to even the most obtuse neocon?

Mr. Riise goes on to discuss how the Russian and Chinese arms industries are out-competing us. 

His comment that “China is gaining the upper-hand in the Straight of Taiwan.” should give us all pause.  Since the 50s the US Navy has made sure that remnant of Chiang Kai Shek's regime would be safe and have an economic miracle.  More than six and a half decades after the rump of China became our ward, it's coming a cropper.

Has it all been for naught?  Does anyone believe we have a real chance to pacify Afghanistan, and other than resources to exploit, why would we want to?  Iraq to become a Denmark style paradise?  Nah, ask any Iraqi if that is possible, and he'll ask you how he can get to Denmark.

It ain't working and the king's horses and men can't put it back together as there are going to be less and less of them as we go forward.

So what is to be done?

A great conservative of the last century said it best, “Come home America.”   Actually, George McGovern would be rolling in his grave at being labelled in any sense a conservative, but the people who claim the label wouldn't know what it meant if it bit them on the nose.  The only true conservative or libertarian military policy is defense of hearth and home.

We all know how it is going to end, we just don't know the day or hour.

If you don't like George, there's always Freda.

“Bring 'em back alive.”

There has since been a rebuttal to Mr. Riise.  I shall get around to reading it eventually.  I have to say, however, in this century, life here in nowheresville has only gotten worse for my fellow lumpen countrymen, and without a change of direction, I don't expect it to get better.

Deir al-Zor: Somebody got some splainin to do-Let us not hold our collective breaths

The atrocity of Deir al-Zor has led to apologies as it should.  Was it a mistake?  As usual, Sic Semper Tyrannis has an analysis that deserves consideration:

So, we and the Australians admit that we "done it."  The body count this morning is up to 83 and presumably will go higher.  Could it have been a real targeting error?  Yes.  People here on SST who have participated in air targeting know how easy it is to make a mistake.  But, there are some unusual things about this "error."  The SAA has been occupying these positions for six months or so.  Presumably US imagery and SIGINT analysts have been looking at them all that time and producing map overlays that show who is where in detail.  These documents would be widely available especially to air units and their targeteers.  US coalition led air has not struck previously in the Deir al-Zor area.  Why now?  Were they asked to strike?   The US does not talk to the Syrian government.  How would they have been asked?  Who would have designated the targets?  They struck in the presence of SAA troops without any ground liaison?  And what of the timing two days before the US-Russian deal was to be expanded into active cooperation?

Burden of proof is on USG.

The other remarks at SST about the Powers-Ash-Votel attitudes are also telling.

American FP is a mess.  Ruling the world is not working.  Bring the boys home.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/09/was-it-really-an-accident.html

Hilary's resume

Over at Colonel Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis,  an commenter gave an nice little snapshot of who and what Hilary Clinton is.

OTOH, Hillary is exposed on all flanks. She's a continuation of Obama's (and her husband's) policies, which, as already pointed out, have been economically disastrous. Her tour as Sec State was disastrous. Her emails and the cover-up are embarrassments (or should be). Her own words (and her husband's) can be used against her; e.g. to brain addled to recall security procedures. Her stint as a US Senator was lackluster. She has taken $Gazzillions from Wall St. She has a record of government service and there's nothing good that can be said about any of it. And there's all the lies. I am looking forward to what she attempts to do to spin all of that. I can't figure an effective strategy.

It may not make one vote for Trump, but it does high light what a disaster she it.

America the pushover-Ron Unz exposes how easy it was

Ron Unz hosts The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
and boy is it ever.  He features articles from some of the most outré writers going.  Never a dull moment.

He himself does an occasional column under the American Pravda banner.

His most recent offering is about the tricks the Brits took to inveigle us into WWII.

If you thought it all started with either the Gulf War (Don't go wobbly, George) or the Iraq invasion, well think again.

No Mr. Unz persuasively makes the case that Britain infiltrated just about everything in government to get us into war.

Of course, this is disconcerting to The Neutralist.  It is bad enough we are an imperialist nation throwing our weight around all over the world.  Also, it is a shame that we are influenced by everyone else like the Saudis, Israelis or Turks.  That it has been ongoing since at least World War I shows that it will probably continue unless there is a sea change.

Can it continue on forever with eternal war at the behest of foreigners?

The neutralist has always maintained, there are only two possibilities:

1. We come to our senses and defend only this nation.

2. We do not wise up and face the fate of most empires and it ain't pretty.

We hope and pray for the first alternative and that a neutralist ethos takes hold.

Go read Mr. Unz and learn something.

File this under, If that is how a country runs its foreign policy, it does not deserve to have one-apologies to Dickens

Our relationship with Turkey has been a problem for a while now and does not look to become smooth anytime soon.  So, let's just fly those nukes at Incirilik out of Anatolia and say au revoir.

It may not be that simple.  At Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz has a post, "Report: US Nukes in Turkey at Risk of Seizure by Terrorists."

Why were they there even five minutes after the end of the last cold war?  Do they serve any purpose?  According to the article, "retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger noting late last month that the tactical nuclear weapons “no longer have any military usefulness.” The low-yield weapons were designed in the 1960s, and very few remain in service anymore, with what’s left mostly just scattered around bases in Europe as a throwback to the Cold War."

So really, why are they there?

The last paragraph nails it,

"This lack of utility has led nuclear powers to dramatically scale back their tactical arsenals, though as with the rest of the nuclear arsenals on the planet, there is considerable momentum behind keeping such costly weapons funded and “modernized.” Keeping the US arms in Europe and Turkey, for no good reason and at substantial risk, seems aimed primarily at retaining the illusion that such arms matter as anything but a sinkhole for billions in funding to fall into."

Follow the money.

Another reason why we need a neutralist ethos.





The Daily Chatter-New Shill on the block

The Neutralist loves to see new ventures become successful.  As print dies, news goes online and to see something new and exciting is anticipated with pleasure.  Sadly, most often one is disappointed.

When the Daily Chatter appeared in the inbox, there was hope.  It did not last long.  DC is an email digest that promises the world in a couple of minutes.  A few snapshots maybe, but le monde, non.

What is worse, DC repeats the same goofy anti Russian, dare we say it, chatter that is already all over the media from Vox to the MSM.

Today, they start off with  the piece, Russian Roulette, with the usual media bias.

Negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin must feel a bit like Russian roulette. You know there’s a bullet in the chamber somewhere; you’re just not sure when it will go off.

A bit loaded that, but in setting the tone, the rest does not disappoint either.

With his 2014 invasion of Ukraine and his 2015 bombing campaign in Syria, the crafty Russian leader has pioneered a new sort of post-Cold War diplomacy.His invasion of Ukraine – as indicated by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent gaffe — is all-but forgotten. With the rest of the world’s attention fractured across various conflicts from Afghanistan to Syria, however, his troops and proxies have actually “steadily escalated the fighting” this summer, according to the Washington Post. Much of the Post article is hinting.  Some of it might be true, but nowhere are the machinations of Nato and the West mentioned. The Daily Chatter in this and previous postings never mentions who started the whole business.  They do not reference the rioting out of an elected, if unpopular president and the actions of Nuland and Pyatt in the event. The rest of the article is the same silly speculation and Ah but we eventually get to the full import of the article, But the talk percolating in the Trump campaign of rethinking America’s commitment to its NATO allies left many seasoned wonks aghast. And the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, for its part, signaled that it was tired of Putin’s double dealing by approving the so-called STAND for Ukraine Act on July 14.  If the full House passes the bill, U.S. President Barack Obama (or, more likely, his successor) will only be able to lift sanctions on Russia if Ukraine regains full sovereignty over Crimea or the status of the peninsula has been resolved to the Ukraine government’s satisfaction.  But that’s only if the U.S. legislators are willing to pull the trigger. So there it is.  Trump may not think going to war for Ukraine a good idea, but Phil Balboni and team DC, along with the MSM do. DC is either a lazy cut and paste or it's on the team. The hysteria promoted by the media never stops. File another under all news is propaganda.

What is it that only guys named Stephen can make sense on the news? This time Cohen.

Stephen Kinzer has been making sense in the Boston Globe on Syria and Russia.  Now along come Stephen Cohen to solidify the reputations of people named Stephen wise and thoughtful.

On CNN he discusses Putin with CNN's Michael Smerconish who recycled some talking points that Professor Cohen swatted away.  Please watch the video of a non-neocon getting on TV and doing something that is just not done, like making sense.

The Neutralist always knew what Hilary was and is from 2002

Before the neutralist was The Neutralist, I wrote a column for a now defunct but delightful online magazine.  I won't identify it as the lads behind may not want to be associated with me.

Anyway the column, Winners and Losers in the WOT looked at who had gained or would do well out of the War on Terror.  My entry for herself was,

Hilary: Maybe, maybe not. We all remember the booing in New York. Still, if the war falters and she could claim that she is enough of what her detractors say (begins with "b") and start talking about how badly she wants to fight, hey who knows? You can say that reinventing herself as a warrior queen is out of character, but, truly there is nothing that is out of character for her.

Not all the predictions panned out but I believe this one has.

I am not sure I would vote for Trump and I would not trust him with my savings., but so far he has the edge.  Johnson, is too much of a globalist and for TPP and can't win.

Under no circumstances should Hilary Clinton be allowed near the nuclear button. 

The Donald is channeling the Neutralist

Riding home from an errand, I heard Donald Trump expounding on the radio.  The talk ranged over a number of subjects until it came to defense and our allies.  He made the point that we defend and pay the bill for defending our allies, some of who are wealthy.

On November 1, 2006, the Neutralist noted essentially the same thing.  After World War II,

We ended up supporting our allies and our enemies. We really did not want Japan and Germany rearming so we generously managed their defenses. The American Army became the Japanese Army. The U.S. Air Force served as the Luftwaffe. Those countries, freed from huge defense expenditures, had "economic miracles" that allowed pundits to tell us we should be doing what they were doing. (There are few American intellectuals so poor, that they don't own an inferiority complex about something.) Of course, that advice is no longer given today.

The Neutralist is not seeking a post in a Trump administration.  We shall merely continue to advise at a distance. 

The Turkish Coup is over, who knows what happened in that deep state?

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is finally and irrevocably dead, or so it seems.  The recent coup drove the stake through his heart.

Who did what is murky and the whole "byzantine" nature of the events is, as it is put, "tl;dr" for poor little old moi.

The Neutralist only hopes for some good to come out of this.

It turns out that there are a goodly number of nukes in some state of readiness or unreadiness at the Incirlik air base.  Why they are there decades after the end of the USSR is a question I have no answer for.  We certainly don't think they need to be there at all.

It is increasingly apparent that the Erdogan regime is not in complete agreement with the NATO mission and that is not itself coherent with any precision.

The regime is trying to link an exiled cleric named Gulen to the coup.  That may or not be so, but why does this political operative from another country get to be the biggest charter school guy in the country?

The Turk regime threatened to close Incirlik if we don't turn Gulen over.  the Neutralist would not want to send someone back to Turkey unless the grounds were truly legitimate.

It would be, however, happy circumstance if the Turks have reason to get him back, but only if we can give back the airbase, and bring the nukes home.  That would be a win win win for the US.

The Erdogan regime has been playing the Obama administration like a banjo.  Their deep state is something a lot different from us.

In the immortal words of Martin Mull, "It's too hard to say au revoir, lets just hor d'oevre.

According to the invaluable Colonel Lang, this is much more urgent than the Neutralist thoght.

"Are the King and Queen of Spain tired of reigning?", Napoleon - What to do about Saudi Arabia?

The words above uttered by Bonaparte are instructive of how we should deal with with the Sauds.  On the usual American Tax Day, the New York Times reports a different bit of extortion.  It seems the Saudi clique like criticism as much as Turkish President Erdogan.

According to the Times,

 Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Neutralist does see the Saudis point, sort of.  They thought they could get away with anything because they were our oil buddies.

Now they want to punish us.  Are they threatening to stop selling oil.  Don't be silly.  There are a heck of a lot of spigots out there and they want to protect market share.

No, the threat is economic and according to Mish Shedlock, it is empty.  Mish has noted today that the Saudis have told their contractors that everything is going on the cuff.  They are having a liquidity crisis.

Per Mish, "Does Saudi Arabia even have $750 billion. Color me skeptical.

Saudi Arabia’s bluff that it would sell US assets if the Obama signed the bill seems more ridiculous than ever."

So, it is possible if not probable that without a sponsor (us, up until now), the ruling kleptos could experience some of the same punishments they have been happy to provide as entertainment to their primitive populace.  

How awful that would be.  In that spirit, we provide a musical interlude.

We at the Neutralist hope the people who are badly running our country wise up and don't try to save those who were complicit in 911.

That Trump has John Bolton as a foreign policy advisor should be disturbing - His role in government was that of an abusurdicrat

If there is anyone who has been following The Neutralist, they would know that I have spoken kindly about Donald Trump's foreign policy pronouncements.  In fact, they have been the best of all the candidates.  As we have quoted him before,

“Well, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, wounded warriors all over, and Putin is now taking over what we started, and he’s going into Syria, and he frankly wants to fight ISIS, and I think that’s a wonderful thing. You know, I said that a year ago and everybody said oh, that’s terrible. If he wants to fight ISIS, let him fight ISIS. Why do we always have to do everything. But he wants to go in. He wants to fight ISIS. Now, he wants to keep, as you know, he wants to keep your leadership, your current leadership, Assad in Syria. Personally I’ve been looking at the different players, and I’ve been watching Assad, and I’ve been pretty good at this stuff over the years, cause deals are people. And I’m looking at Assad and saying, ‘Maybe he’s better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.’ Because we don’t even know who we’re backing.”

Sensible and to the point.

So why would he be taking on an unreformed neocon such as John Bolton as an advisor?

David Corn in Mother Jones has a short and to the point look at Bolton who could be European royalty when we analyze what he learns and forgets (that would be nothing).

Bolton, who flirted with the notion of running for president in 2016, has a long history of extreme positions. In 2009, he noted that the only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran—an option he seemed to endorse. In 2012, he backed then-Rep. Michele Bachmann's call for an investigation of members of Congress supposedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood plot to infiltrate the US government. This past March, Bolton called for the United States and/or Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

And, of course, he is still proud of the Iraq debacle.  How  Trump squares that is hard to figure unless he listens to the chickenhawk for what not to think.

John Bolton, the great absurdicrat.

Stephen Kinzer against the grain on Syria.The question is how does this guy get published?

One would not want The Neutralist to become All Stephen Kinzer all the time, but even after being praised on these pages, he is not resting.

In the February 18, 2016 Boston Globe, He has written the article, The media are misleading the public on Syria.  Now, if you are willing to seek out other sources, you may know that there is another side to the story, but you won't find it in the regular press.

According to virtually all the Main Stream Media, Assad lives only to kill his own people and the brave Syrian people are standing up against his oppression unless they are starving in enclaves. Meanwhile, the Russkies are bombing the good rebels as opposed to ISIL or Daesh or whatever it is called this week.

His last article which was discussed on The Neutralist was refreshing.  This one, well it's sticking a thumb into the eye of not just the media, but the government apparatus.  It's the emperor has no clothes on steroids.  With that said, Mr. Kinzer is not really trying to be a firebrand.  His article is nicely laid out.  It can't be helped, the normal press has gone so far overboard that reason seems almost unhinged.

After the Globe article, he appeared on NECN to speak with one of their hosts.  Now New England Cable News is not Fox or CNN, but it was still a happy surprise.  If you get a chance, watch it and see a reasonable man talk sense.

Poor Stephen Kinzer, the lowly, mostly unread Neutralist is rewarding him by making him a Neutralist Fellow

The Neutralist trudges along in obscurity trying to get the nation on board with a humble non-interventionist foreign policy.  We spend almost all our time in the great swamp of despondency, feeling unwanted and unloved.

Then along comes someone to prove to us there is some sanity in the universe.

In of all places, someone made sense in the Boston Globe, an establishment organ if there ever was one.

It was without a sense of urgency that we got to this as it was published on December 13th of last year.  Mr. Kinzer's What a truly conservative foreign policy looks like is not long, about 700 words, but that hardly matters.  It is as direct and to the point as anything the Globe has printed on the subject, which isn't much.

He begins by setting out what American Foreign Policy is,

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY is based on deep convictions. Those who shape it believe the United States is the indispensable nation that must lead the world; this leadership requires toughness; and toughness is best shown by threatening or using force. Beneath these beliefs lies the assumption that the United States knows more and sees further than other countries.

He then tells us why it is essentially liberal,

Many liberals embrace this dogma. That makes sense. It emerges from the liberal tradition, which imagines that humanity is steadily progressing toward a perfect world in which no one will go hungry, warlords will disappear, diseases will be cured, and people will cooperate for the common good. 

As the few readers of this blog must know, we see such an attitude at best as misguided and at worst, delusional and dangerous.

Mr. Kinzer than gives us the conservative FP.

Conservatism, by contrast, is a live-and-let-live ideology. By nature it is prudent, careful, and restrained. Conservatives do not believe that any country can solve the world’s problems or is called to do so. They want to leave other nations alone, not remake them. That makes restraint in foreign affairs an essentially conservative doctrine. 

It is well stated.  He then asks the question,

Why, then, do so many self-proclaimed conservatives vote for lavish defense budgets, favor maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world, and support foreign wars?

Our good man knows the answer,

It is because they have left true conservatism behind. The vision of an exceptional America, dominating the world and shaping the fate of nations near and far, has seduced them away from conservative values.

Though this is valid as far as it goes, there is a problem with it.  He mentions Taft and Hoover and Ron Paul as real conservatives and he is right.  Most, however on the American right have never been really conservative, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned, even though they claim the label. They never held conservative values to be seduced from.  This is not just sad, it's tragic.

It is a excellent work by the visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.  He finishes it strongly,

Mainstream conservatism has joined the foreign policy consensus. By helping to push the United States into ambitious nation-building projects, its leaders have abandoned their movement’s founding principles. A true conservative looks dubiously on foreign intervention. Who does not, is none.

As they say, the thing speaks for itself.

Kinzer never labels himself, for all we know, he may not be a conservative and might be appalled that The Neutralist is favoring his article.  No matter.

So, our apologies Mr.Kinzer, but we officially make you a fellow of theNeutralist institute.

We might ask Globe token "conservative" Jeff Jacoby should read What a truly conservative foreign policy looks like.  

All News is Propaganda - BBC Lyse Doucet edition

Driving on errands during the week, the BBC correspondent was talking about the horrible starvation happening in a Syrian town held by rebels and under siege by government forces.  There was some mention that there were towns occupied by Assad's men.

the reporter, Lyse Doucet, oozed concern.  It truly sounded as if an event was occurring that would make Pol Pot blush.

Who could ever think that such a kindly and caring voice was having us on?

I may be wrong as my ride ended soon enough, but my ragtime meter was straining to go to 11.

Sure enough, there was a lot of exposure of the false narrative.  The ever reliable Colonel Lang was on the case,

Now we have the interesting case of Madaya, a rebel controlled town on the Syria/Lebanon border up on the Anti-Lebanon mountain. 

In this piece the author demonstrates that the images being spread across the world by the Western media are demonstrably false.

Particularly annoying are the photos of a pretty little girl claimed to be starving in Madaya.  this girl has now revealed on the internet that she is happily living with her family in south Lebanon.

See the article he references here.

If an article appears on Big News, be suspicious, be very suspicious.