Getting out of the Muslim civil wars - about time!

I don't understand the reaction of American civilians, Republican and Democrat alike, to Still-President Trump's announcement this week that he intends to bring US troops home from Syria and Afghanistan. Daniel McAdams, writing on Ron Paul's website, says that "Washington heads are exploding", and so it would seem, but why? Is the Paranoid States of America a nation of warmongers? Do Americans really believe that the best defence against Islamic terrorism is to hammer the jihadis in their own sandpit? Does no-one see any merit in getting out of the Muslim civil war that is really none of our business? As Mr Trump says, "Are we going to stay there forever?"

Mr McAdams writes: The warmongering Left has joined forces with the neocons to demand that President Trump reverse course in his recent decision to pull US troops from Syria. Neocons claim that ISIS will increase with the US absence, but it was the very US intervention in the region - that they supported - that led to the rise of extremist and terrorist groups.

Indeed. It was interventionism -- the insane desire to be the world's policeman and bring the so-called "pax Americana" to a war-weary world -- that got the USA into the Gulf Wars. Shortly after 9/11, US troops stormed into Afghanistan, which had littlel if anything to do with the attack. Since then, America has lost more than 2400 soldiers and spent nearly a trillion dollars in its longest war ever. And with what result? The Islamists control about half of that shithole, the rest being controlled (in theory) by a feckless government that can't keep its notional army from killing the Westerners who are there to "help" them. Does that make any sense?

I can understand the displeasure of the American military with the President's decision. Secretary of Defense James Mattis departed in a huff [a minute-and-a-huff? Ed.]. He is emblematic of the super-macho militaristic types that have held the highest ranks in the American armed forces ever since World War II. They are the philosophical heirs of Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, William Westmoreland, and [That's enough generals. Ed.] who delight in sending American kids overseas to kill... and be killed... because there's no fighting to be done at home, but if there's no fighting, there won't be any need for the billions in defence spending, and many brass hats will be out of their jobs.

And what is the result? "Pax Americana" is a myth! Ever since its troops landed in Korea as part of the Disunited Nations' "police action", America has been at war -- declared or otherwise -- with someone, somewhere, every single hour of every single day. What has that cost the nation, in treasure, in lives, and the foregone benefits of peace? With President Trump, I ask: Is this going to continue forever?

In the summer of 2017, the President announced that he was adding about 1000 more troops to those already in Afghanistan to bolster the "training and advising" mission, which we are supposed to believe doesn't involve any fighting, just teaching the Islamists how to fight. But, Mr Trump said, doing so went against his instinct. Since then, security conditions in Afghanistan have not improved, according to the latest government watchdog report.

And then there's Syria. US forces were sent to that shithole to Syria to work with local Syrian and Kurdish "partners" on the ground to help defeat ISIS. Now, the President says, that mission has been largely accomplished, and in terms of the amount of territory controlled, that would appear to be the case.

Of course the jihadis haven't been exterminated. They've simply gone to ground, or gone elsewhere. 1000s of them have migrated to Europe and, yes, America, disguised as "refugees" and asylum-seekers. So the fight against them should continue, wherever they may be found... but not in the sandpit. Leave the mopping up to the Turks, the Kurds and other Muslims. "Keep at it, Mohammeds, and lots of luck to you. We're done with you!" That's what I would like to hear all of the lawmakers in Washington say. I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Ron Paul on Afghanistan: "failed policy, purposeless war"

Looks like the Prez isn't going to end the American invasion in Afghanistan before he leaves office after all. Another promise broken. But hey, that was then, this is now. Who could have guessed that if the US military left the armpit of the world, the Taliban would come out from behind the rocks to fill the void? Who could have guessed that the Afghan National Army would be a fighting force in theory only? Who could have guessed that a new Afghan government would be just as feckless and corrupt as the old government of Mohammed Krazai?

Apparently Barack Hussein Obama never guessed those things. Neither did the Secretary of State who now aspire to fill the void left by President 0's departure from the Oval Office. The whole Afghanistan adventure didn't turn out well, did it. But rather than admit defeat, the Prez has decided to ramp up the war again. He announced last week that the US will keep 3000 more troops than planned over there in the sandpit. And the USA (and its NATO camp followers) will also continue funding the ineffectual Afghan security forces until 2020.

Why, I hear you ask, are we pouring more blood and treasure down the rathole of a chunk of barrenness that's hardly worth fighting for? According to Mr Obama, "It is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we"ve invested over the years, that we give our partners in Afghanistan the best chance to succeed."

He's kidding, right? But it's not funny. In "Fool’s Errand: NATO Pledges Four More Years of War in Afghanistan", Ron Paul says the real reason for wading back into the morass "is obvious: the mission has failed and Washington cannot bear to admit it." Mr Paul continues:

This is how irrational Washington’s logic is. Where else but in government would you see it argued that you cannot stop spending on a project because you have already spent so much to no avail? In the real world, people who invest their own hard-earned money in a failed scheme do something called "cut your losses". Government never does that. Isn't 15 years of US "blood and treasure" enough of a "best chance" to succeed?...

When I suggested in a recent interview that the only sensible US policy in Afghanistan would be to bring all the troops home, the host asked whether I was worried the Taliban would rush in to fill the vacuum. That’s what has already happened, I said. The Taliban are stronger than ever in Afghanistan. They control more territory than at any time since the original US invasion in 2001. Despite 15 years of US interventionism, nearly 2,500 dead US soldiers, and well over a trillion dollars, Afghanistan is no closer to being a model democracy than it was before 9/11. It’s a failed policy. It’s a purposeless war. It is a failed program.

The neocons argue that Iraq, Libya, and other US interventions fell apart because the US did not stay long enough. As usual they are wrong. They failed and they will continue to fail because they cannot succeed. You cannot invade a country, overthrow its government, and build a new country from the ground up. It is a fool’s errand and Washington has turned most Americans into fools. It’s time to end this game and get back to the wise foreign policy of the founders: non-intervention in the affairs of others.

Perry v. Paul: who's right about American involvement in foreign wars?

With all the meeja fawning over Hellery Clinton -- Will she run? Won't she run? Does it matter? -- not a whole lot of attention is being paid to the fact that two Republican presidential hopefuls are having a "conversation" [I hereby ban the use of that word to mean anything other than a private chat between two individuals! Ed.] on one important subject where Hellery and her former boss are very vulnerable -- foreign policy.

Senator Rand Paul kicked off the debate [That's better. Ed. last month with "America Shouldn't Choose Sides in Iraq's Civil War", in which he criticized not just the Prez's mishandling of the crisis, but the invasion commanded by President Bush II, which got America into the mess to begin with.

Texas Governor Rick Perry disagrees with Senator Paul's preaching of non-interventionism. In "Isolationist policies make the threat of terrorism even greater", he argued that "Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further."

Mr. Perry goes on to question his potential rival's interpretation of President Reagan's foreign policy. "Paul conveniently omitted Reagan's long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity," wrote Mr. Perry. "Unlike the noninterventionists of today, Reagan believed that our security and economic prosperity require persistent engagement and leadership abroad."

Walt doesn't like to criticize an erstwhile conservative Republic, but the Governor listeth. [Errr... that line has already been used by Bill Buckley. Ed.] OK, let's just say "Rick Perry is Dead Wrong"! [Yeah, that's what Paul said, in Politico Magazine, just yesterday! Ed.]

The way Senator Paul sees it, "The let's-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and over trillions of dollars in debt.... Tough talk like Perry's might inspire some for the moment, but when bombast becomes policy it can have long and disastrous consequences."

Mr. Paul also points out that Mr. Perry's criticism of the Reagan foreign policy is miles off-base. "Reagan was stern, but he wasn't stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the spectre of nuclear war." Which is pretty much what Pat Buchanan said in Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, by Pat Buchanan, reviewed favourably here a few days ago. Here's how Mr. Buchanan sees American "inaction" -- NON-intervention -- during the Reagan years.

"US inaction was not due to cowardice but cold calculation as to what was worth risking war with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and what was not worth risking war. When the Polish workers' movement, Solidarity, was crushed in 1981, Ronald Reagan denounced the repression but he neither broke diplomatic relations with Warsaw nor imposed economic sanctions.

"Eisenhower and Reagan were not Chamberlains, but neither were they Churchills. Who ruled in the capitals east of the Elbe was not to them a vital US interest worth a war. They believed in defending what we had, not risking war to retake what Roosevelt and Churchill had given up.... Reagan believed America and freedom were the future, that Communism was headed for the ash heap of history, that we need not, indeed, must not blunder into a war to hasten its inevitable end. Patience and perseverance were required, the use of proxies to bedevil the Soviet Empire at its outposts...and carrying a bigger stick -- that was the Reagan way."

As a favour to Governor Perry, who appears to be as untutored in history as was President Bush II, Walt presents a further quote from the Buchanan opus, on the question of whether America should be the world's policeman.

"America is the last superpower because she stayed out of the world wars until their final acts. And because she stayed out of the alliances and the world wars longer than any other great power, America avoided the fate of the seven other nations that entered the twentieth century as great powers.

"The British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, and Japanese empires are all gone. We alone remain, because we had men who recalled the wisdom of Washington, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams about avoiding entangling alliances, staying out of European wars, and not going 'abroad in search of monsters to destroy'."

Walt hopes Governor Perry or (please God) Senator Paul or whoever next occupies the Oval Office will take this advice to heart. Otherwise a lot more Americans are going to be dead...for the wrong reasons!