Drudge off the deep end!

Drudge has a picture of Obama holding up a piece of paper.  the headlines accompanying it are,

PEACE FOR OUR TIME...

American Held Hostage In Iran For 444 Days Calls Deal 'Foolishness'...

'Like Jimmy Carter all over again'...

Krauthammer: Worst since Munich... 

Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own...

Rift with USA… 

Subtle it ain't.  So we have given over and the Iranian storm troopers will either be at the gates of D.C. or raining nukes on Lubbock in no time flat, or something.

The Saudis are going out on their own, according to the Telegraph.  Good luck to 'em.  Maybe the Chinese will be better partners.  Doubt they will be as easy to snooker.  Or maybe Bandar can leverage his special relationship with Putin.

The Neutralist is aware that the western industrial world runs on hydrocarbons.  If it is a choice of having our sons, and increasingly daughters, involved in another mid-east conflict with the same level of success as, oh, let's say, Iraq or Afghanistan, we should take our chances.

Israel is not amused with us either.  We wish Prime Minister Netanyahu luck as well.  After all it is his neighborhood.

The principal fact to keep in mind is that it is not our neighborhood.  We don't have to demand Iran do anything and we shall be no worse if we leave the region entirely.

The guy cited as the hostage above and who thinks the deal with Iran sucks may be right.

“My personal view is, I never found an Iranian leader I can trust,” he said. “I don’t think today it’s any different from when I was there. None of them, I think, can be trusted. Why make an agreement with people you can’t trust?”

haven't had to deal with Iranian leaders, so The Neutralist can't disagree.  Maybe in another news item the man can tell us a world leader who is absolutely trustworthy.

As we have said before, time to say au revoir.

Why Imperialism Sucks-Part Whatever

Without any legitimate provocation, we saw Spain off from the Caribbean and Far East in the late Nineteenth Century.  What did we get out of it?

Not much.  Our attempt at a Cuban protectorate took kinda for a while, but is long gone.  The 

Philippines, we fought the Spanish, then the people and then the Japanese.  Now gone.  A few islands in the Pacific are still ours.  What a waste.

The reductio ad absurdum is Puerto Rico.  Puerto Ricans can be charming and upstanding people.  It is as unfair to stereotype a people as all good as all bad.  Suffice it to say, the Puerto Rican experiment has not been an unmitigated success.  Maybe not even a mitigated triumph.

Now we have a CNBC headline, 

Worsening Debt Crisis Threatens Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has as much debt per person as Detroit and we've had Detroit about twice as long.

And who does PR want to bail them out?

Thank God we didn't land troops in Libya.  A successful invasion would have meant a headline like the one above  hundred years hence.

Time to give into the Puerto Rican Independence movements, sans severance package.  Heck, time to start a Detroit independence movement.

,

Eric "Bring the Boys Home" Margolis tells us what to do about the debt

Okay, to be honest, Mr. Margolis middle name is not Bring the Boys Home.  Still, his column leads in that direction.  He does not say bring all the boys and now some lasses home, but the logic is inescapable.

"The United States has no serious strategic enemies that can be identified."

Like duh.  As we always say at the Neutralist, the Middle Eastern countries ain't getting into carrier fleets to invade the lower the "Homeland."

there are elements that see themselves as our enemies, but if we don't let them in here, they will probably just bother their neighbors.

It's more of a "we have met the enemy and he is us" situation.  So much money being spent on what we can't afford.  The amount spent on the military benefits us in almost no way.

We need a military only to defend the US.  Our bloated defense establishment does us no good chasing poor tribesmen around some benighted backwater.

You can read the whole column here.

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

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

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

Islam’s Civil War

America can win it—by staying out.

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

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

To read Mr. Lind, go here.  

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

A simple explanation as to why the American people are not feeling war love

a Madison Avenue fable.

 Seeking to produce a new dog food, a big corporation set market researchers, food chemists and advertising agencies to work. The experts came up with a new product they were proud of. The dog food sold well, for a while. Then it slumped. Puzzled, the corporate executives commissioned a public opinion firm to see what was wrong. 

Soon, the answer came back: "The dogs don't like it."

The Neutralist is somewhat Menckenesque in attitude toward the electorate.  I am happily amazed that they find the flavor of the current sales pitch a bit off.

this is from Ben Wattenberg.  I have no idea how he feels about intervention, it is just that the story works. 

Anatoly Karlin dissects the stupid rhetoric on Syria

I can't say I know much about Mr. Karlin other than guessing he is a Russian living in the US.  Always interesting, but this time superb.  His dissection of the rhetoric could be a primer on the subject.  His introduction to the post Game of Homs is dead on,

What striking about Syria is how so many people insist on speaking about it in profoundly moralistic, Manichaean terms. This is complete nonsense, given that its civil war isn’t a showdown between democracy and dictatorship, but an ethnic and religious conflict.

His explanation of what the regime is doing is also worth reading.

The Assad regime 

The rhetoric: He kills his own people! He is the Evil Overlord (TM)! 

The reality: That’s kind of what happens in a civil war. Abraham Lincoln also “killed his own people,” you know. It is obvious why the “regime” fights on: That is what regimes do  – as a general rule of thumb, they’re fond of surviving. The rather more interesting and telling question is: Why do key elements of the population continue to back them?

As far as the Alawites and Christians are concerned, it’s pretty clear: The Sunnis have never been particularly well disposed to them, and the past few years haven’t made them any fonder. The last time the Sunnis revolted in Hama in 1982, one of the slogans of the Muslim Brotherhood was “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the graveyard.” 

In the game of Homs, you win or you die – and the “you” is in its plural form. No wonder Assad has a solid support base. 

there is more to it and everyone should read it.  Unfortunately, the web being what it is, only folks who have heard of him will notice.  The vast sea of my incurious countrymen will never see it.

Fortunately, other than the Obamanots, few still buy the idea that another war is the ticket.

Report from the telescreen-Diane Sawyer introduces the women snipers of Syria

The Neutralist almost never watches network evening news.  In our so called adult life we have witnessed all to much propaganda masquerading as news that little shocks us.  Last night, we came close.  It was not that it was blatant.  The problem was there was no effort to not be stupid.

Diane Sawyer in "I am a serious newsreader" mode introduces us to the women snipers of Syria.  She hands off to Muhammad Lila on the ground who is with black clad teachers by day who are snipers by night.  Didn't answer the question as to when the lasses get sleep, but when it's life or death for the cause, you do what you have to do.

According to Muhammad, "they've been trained as rebel snipers, patrolling to keep their neighborhood safe."

Was it all contrived?  Snipers don't ususally patrol, they have a position to observe the enemy lines and pick a target of opportunity.

But, damn it all looked contrived, and the average American wouldn't know anyway.

It is getting harder and harder for the major media to propagandize effectively.Ten, fifteen years ago, the shilling for war would have been more effective.  They must be surprised that less and less people buy the line.  Of course, there is the internet and also, they've gone to the well a little too often.

Maybe folks have the felling, fool me once shame on you, fool me ten times.........

Mara Liasson and NPR your tax dollars at work

Listening to NPR after Sunday Baroque.  Mara is talking oh so seriously about how the president has a problemo with his war as the American public is "seriously conflicted" about the proposed debacle,  She said this not just once.

I googled and found a poll that said support is 50% up from 9 or something.  I am not sure that that means we are conflicted.  Most people I are not anguishing.  They have an opinion and others have a different one.

What it means is not enough people, even NPRbots have blindly accepted the pro-intervention line.  NPR, and the other media can't sell it even to some Obama loyalists.  NPR, Fox for the left.

The story after was even more vapid.  It was Jill Biden talking about her important work in education or something.  I am sure she is a nice lady, but if she were not Gaffer Joe's wife, she would not be on radio.

What got me was I think she said, "Just after we were elected."

Good luck Mr. President

Sir I wish you this sincerely.  I hope you were not really hot for the adventure and it seemed like you might have been hesitant.  Were the furies, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, pushing you?

Who knows your thoughts?  Certainly not the Neutralist.

But here is a chance to climb down.  Here are two options:

1. Let a vote happen and lose and blame the Republicans for every bad thing that happens in the ME.

2. Make a speech laying out why intervention would be a bad thing and you were for peace and unicorns or some twaddle.  Wait and collect another Nobel.

Understand, I hope you extricate yourself not because I love any politician, but because this is a bad idea.

Bonne Chance!

Syria, beyond the beyond!!!!

I have no way of describing what is happening now as we hurtle to a war for no reason.

Except,

there has to be a reason.  The Saudis and Qataris, the Israelis, whatever.  Whomever is getting something it ain't the American people. There is absolutely no reason any American should want to be involved in Syria.

It should be self-evident that interventionism has reached its reductio ad absurdam long ago.  chem weapons, WMDs, Kuwaiti incubators, War to end all wars, Remember the Maine.

The Neutralist is slightly encouraged by the fact that polls show the the citizenry are not buying it.  On the other hand, the administration is completely disregarding popular opinion in the matter.  At least Bush sent Powell to fib to the UN.

Anyway, it's sad and discouraging, but expected.  The Neutralist has links that my few readers probably know about.

Anatoly Karlin is Russian, so one supposes that makes him suspect in some circles.  Then again, there are some of my countermen who would abandon the idea that 1+1=2 if it could be shown the devil himself believed in it.  I am passing on something he passed on as it does not sound unreasonable.  That does not mean I absolutely believe it, but Mr. Mercouris might not have less credibility than John Kerry.

If you aren't already reading Col. Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis, you should be.  Let me give you a taste:

Kerry informed the world that he and the president were absolutely sure that the Syrian government had used CW en masse against people in the Damascus suburbs.Evidence?  He said that he had seen the videos and pictures on the internet and that they tore open the wounds of his heart once again.  That was all the evidence that he mentioned except to claim that the US Government has more information that it will make available at some future time. 

So, it has been decided.  If I were more aggressive and had more readers, I would run a contest, what will be our first post Syria aggression.

Finally, someone uses the N word correctly!

In truth, I am not overly surprised that it was posted at the LRC Blog.  LewRockwell.com
bills itself as Anarcho-Capitalist and anti-war.  As the Neutralist has never observed a pro-war post at the blog or column on the website, we assume that LRC is not anti-neutralist.

Yet we never see the word Neutralism or any of its forms on the internet.  anti-intervention maybe, but it is still not the same thing.  Even people who have seen the light and see the need to stop interfering in other countries will state how they have become somewhat Isolationist.  Of course this plays into the hands of neocons and the mainstream press as they portray Isolationism as an epithet and its belief as a form of primitivism.So we were pleasantly surprised to see the title of Michael S. Rozeff's post at the LRC blog, NeutralityToward Syria Is a Non-Aggressive Policy, But Obama Wants Assad Out.  

We were not at all shocked by the thoughts expressed in the post, and we are certainly in agreement with its sentiment.  It is just the this N word never gets spoken.

It goes without saying, we don't think Mr. Rozeff changed his way of thinking and had a special moment.  He has probably always been a Neutralist, but just have never used the word.

No matter, Michael S. Rozeff has won the so far not coveted Neutralist of the Week Award.  Keep up the good work, Sir.

·       

It is time to just give Afghanistan to the Taliban unless we can find somebody else stupid enough to take it

Colonel Lang reports that Afghanistan customs is dunning us for the vehicles we brought into the country to keep them in power.  Maybe there was an age old and respected statute we are violating and we should be paying up.  Whatever it is, however, it should be offset by our saving the skins of the corrupt members of the government apparatus.

What is happening was characterized thus by the Colonel,

This is a standard "shake down" technique practised across the region from Morocco to Bangla Desh.  It is a common thing for governments to try to charge customs duty on everything foreign military forces or aid organizations bring into a country.

Our foreign policy of military intervention and aid is viewed by the recipients as a cow to milk.  It will always be thus and is a compelling argument for a Neutralist foreign policy.

The Colonel also writes,

The fact that this is "coming to a head" in Afghanistan is an indication that the flow of cash money is drying up.

So there is an end, at least partial coming and some are trying to suck the cow dry beforehand.  I suspect when we go the Taliban will have a run at it.  I don't want the Afghan kleptocrats finding asylum here.  I don't care if they spend their declining years in Dubai and am not wanting to see them najibullahed.  I just don't want them over here pontificating on my countries mistakes.

Original article at the Washington Post.

Margolis vs. Lang on Egypt plus a better analysis

Two of my favorite writers on the web differ in their view of the current affairs in Egypt.  Eric Margolis  thinks the coup was planned by a deep state and the the MBs were fair and moderate.

Not sure how Col. Lang view the deep state biz, but he does not find the MBs to be completely savory.

Now these are two men who do not buy the official interpretation of events, but they differ in analysis.  Of course we come to the conclusion that the unfathomable aspect of events is even more reason to be a Neutralist.

Another article we are linking to is Egypt's Possible Civil War by 28 Sherman.  Opens up by observing the hunger aspect, which is not mentioned enough.  Egypt does not produce enough food for its population that vastly exceeds carrying capacity.  Thanks to all the unrest, the money is not being made to buy food.  Of course, guess who supplies a lot of the food?

Food and civil war, hmmm.  I vaguely remember reading that Rwanda was the most densely populated region on the continent and had hunger problems. 

 Maybe giving all that food on the cheap did not help the Egyptians plan for population control.

28 Sherman touches on the regional political situation regarding Egypt, Sudan and Ethipia.  As to managing it he writes, "The British did this so much better than us."  Yeah, well HMG don't have too many colonies these days.  There empire was a waste of time.  More reason for a neutralist FP.

American Foreign Policy Reductio Ad Absurdam Report - Just how ridiculous does Syria have to get before we are embarrassed

As the song goes, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind.  the Neutralist thought the Libyan adventure mindless, but maybe the goody two shoes had a really truly spiffy reason that the Neutralist did not understand.  The results since make it plain that it was just goofy.

That does not mean that there is a NWO or petro theft reason.  Maybe there is a method to someone's madness, but we have no sources.  Of course we never leave out the possibility of mere stupidity.

Now our president has, out of compassion, plighted our troth with the Syrian rebels.  After all, if you google chemical weapon use in Syria, Assad is trying to gas his whole country.  There is some dissent, but the chorus is deafening.  The Neutralist loves to be the skunk at the lawn party.  Why would the regime use chemical weapons when they know the neocons are itching for an excuse?

So the American people will get nothing out of a Syrian intervention, but maybe there is a strata of society that does.  I have no idea, but the thought is hard to escape.

So we are told that Assad & Co. are the bad guys, but to date, I don't think one of his troops has had a taste for human flesh.  A rebel leader eats the heart of a regime soldier.  These are supposedly the good guys.

So now news has come out that the rebels have, in a video, beheaded a Syrian Catholic Priest named Francois Murad.  Keep in mind that according to the administration it is the Syrian government that has crossed the line.

For the most part, there has been a news blackout in the so-called quality press.  Googling "New York times" and "Father Francois Murad" turns up nothing.  So what's up.

Truther, Birther, Infowars, that stuff is not our style.  Still, the paranoid get some credibility when it seems all the team from the networks and big papers are on the team.

So, just who stands to benefit from our intervention?

Finally, someone brings bipartisanship to DC by speaking "Truth to Power"

And who would that be, Edward Snowden.

When Nancy and John and other elected government workers join hands to condemn someone along with the chorus of all the scribblers for the establishment journals and TV outlets, you know someone is  actually saying something the cool people don't want to hear.

Anita Hill used it in a title of her book about how she courageously stood up for truth about Clarence Thomas.  The fact that she had to be outed before she testified is of course irrelevant, as is that she has done rather well out of it all.  Not like the White Rose activists and Franz Jägerstätter

One can be celebrated in this world for Speaking Truth to Power, but if you actually "Speak Truth to Power," you get squashed like a bug. If you want to see what the fate of truth to power tellers is look at the White Rose and Franz Jägerstätter not to mention people who merely whispered truth and got into the maw of the Gulag.

The fatuous Bobby Schieffer went after Snowden for not being MLK or Rosa Parks and taking off to save his skin.  the Neutralist does not know if the whistleblower is for real or afflicted with any of the character disorders being attributed to him.  If he is genuine, we have to give him credit for being smart enough to get out of the way.

The righteous tones of Schieffer et al would be a bit more impressive if their outbursts led to a loss of livelihood somewhere.  Be assured, you will you will be seeing his well fed face commenting for years to come.

The heavens cry out for this rule!

Just as the Syrian conflict seems to be entering a stage where the government has attained a commanding advantage, if not victory, John McCain crosses into Syria to appear the..... well, we are not sure what, but it must have been serious.  It was not all that Syrious though.

The opposition is, for the most part, Islamist radicals with the occasional nice guy fig leaf.  The recent finding of sarin gas in rebel possession should give pause to the American cheerleaders, but it doesn't.

As usual, if there is a possibility of bombing someone, The senator from Arizona is at hand.  I don't know if he was depressed, but if anyone could give our man heart, it's the Syrian Rebels.

Anyway, whether it's Georgia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, or now Syria, you can count on John being for buffoonery.  Our man is sort of an anti-North Star, always pointing the wrong way.  The Neutralist therefore posits the McCain Rule.  If John McCain is for something, it's not merely wrong, it's dopey.  Granted, dopey is not a kind word, but this is not the time for euphemism.

A couple of pertinent links.

THOSE OLD COLONIAL LUSTS

Did John McCain Provide Material Support for Syrian Terrorists?

Justin Raimondo writes an Neutralist column without mentioning the N word

Justin Raimondo has a column at Antiwar.com that essentially channels the Neutralist's thoughts on our interventionist record.  Only one problem, Justin continues to use the I word when he should be calling for the N word.

I understand he has to call out those who use the Isolationist I word for the fakes they are.  Still, the Neutralist N word is where he should be heading.

Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

Boston Silly

SI Rosenbaum was the editor at the Phoenix in Boston until its recent demise.  I’ve not read the Phoenix in years.  No one has, in print.  It’s all migrated to the Internet and thus words on paper struggle. 

In my youth, I marveled at the left wing tone while every fashionable shop or restaurant would advertise.  How did they expect the revolution to happen while they spent so much time at brunch?  That was back in the 70s.  Who knows what its orientation was as it breathed its last?

SI now blogs.  She has a site and as far as I can tell, there is one entry.  The gist is that everyone did the right thing there in Boston.  They all happily stayed indoors doing what people do in our culture.  Watch TV, surf the Internet, blog, play video games or, maybe even read a book.  Who knows?

Then when it was over all were happy.  Why would anyone think it was anything but voluntary?

To be fair, you should read her piece.  It is not the worst argument for the lockdown I’ve seen.  I disagree and posted a comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8

The video speaks for itself, my scared little bunnies. For the record, I live in Mass, but outside of the zone. I have relatives who do.

I don’t listen to sports radio, but this is food for thought.

http://audio.weei.com/a/73784687/linda-calls-in-to-describe-the-scene-on-dexter-st-in-watertown.htm

There are other images of the searches and how they were not happy camping in home. I am glad to see how the Progressives of Eastern Mass have embraced Lindsay Graham’s definition of the homeland as the battlefield.

Ein reich, ein volk, ein Boston Strong.

The blogger did not let my comment through but posted:

SI Rosenbaum on April 25, 2013 at 9:16 am said:

Note to visitors: I reserve the right to delete any comments that trip Godwin’s Law, or contain any unironic use of “sheeple.”

Now to be fair, calling people scared little bunnies might be stretched to implying sheeple.  I think that term hackneyed and would not use it.

When people came out and yelled USA, USA, yeah, it kinda felt like people shouting ein reich etc.  No way was an jefe maximo being implied.  I think our lass was being glich francach caca laca.  It’s phrase in the westernmost Indo-European meaning cute as a shithouse rat.

The whole episode was embarrassing, from the lack of fire control that led to the wounding by his fellow cops of the T officer to the shots fired at the boat.  To feel it anything but a fiasco is buffoonery.

So is there a Neutralist connection here.  But of course.  The fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here meme is dead.

Thank you Lindsay and SI.

Assad to West, wise up!

File this under res ipsa loquitur.

Hat tip to ParaPundit.

ParaPundit is Neutralist of the Week

In a post entitled Thucydides And America: Foreign Adventures Gotta Go, Parapundit quotes another blogger quoting the author of the History of the Peloponnesian War on how Athenian hyper democracy led it to ruin and how demo ain't working for us.

As he writes,

With about two thirds of US federal spending going to old folks and poor folks we've already shot our fiscal wad before we get to foreign adventures. We really need to cut out the foreign games so that government can provide basic non-welfare services like prisons, crime investigators, roads, bridges, and scientific research.

I've followed your man for some time and this is his most Neutralist post yet.  It's not perfect, but still a strong position.  Keep up the good work.

Link here.