I have long stated that there is NO longer an antiwar party or for that matter an antiwar sentiment among the people the this country.  Both of our major parties are war hawks just different colored ties…..

The Libertarians are about the best party for non-interventionism, by the way that does not mean isolationism, is the Libertarians and to a smaller degree the Green Party….the Unz Reader, a Libertarian publication has done an article on what we can expect in the coming years….

The Establishment and Realist foreign policy communities in the United States often seem separated by language which leads them to talk past each other. When a realist or Libertarian talks about non-intervention or restraint in foreign policy, as Ron Paul did in 2008 and 2012, the Establishment response is to denounce isolationism. As Dr. Paul noted during his campaigns, non-interventionism and isolationism have nothing to do with each other as a country that does not meddle in the affairs of others can nevertheless be accessible and open in dealing with other nations in many other ways. Non-interventionists are fond of quoting George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he recommended that “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible… Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.” Establishment pundits tend to dismiss that “little political connection” bit, preferring instead to warn how detachment from foreign politics might lead to the rise of a new Adolph Hitler.

Source: Bipartisan War – The Unz Review

With our last election the American people seem to want a more restrained foreign policy…..but after 20Jan17 the question will be….will we get our wish?

A recent poll by the Charles Koch Institute and the Center for the National Interest sheds new light on why Donald Trump captured the White House. Its results amount to a public-opinion indictment of the foreign policy thinking—and the foreign policy results—of both parties over the past decade and a half. It exposes a divide between the establishment outlook of Washington and public sentiment at large, and the results don’t seem to make much of a distinction between the record of Republican George W. Bush and that of Democrat Barack Obama.

Asked, for example, if U.S. foreign policy over the past 15 years made Americans more or less safe, fully 52 percent said less safe. Only 12 percent said safer, while another quarter said the nation’s foreign policy actions over that time span had had no impact on their safety. The results were similar when respondents were asked if U.S. foreign policy of the past two administrations had made the world more or less safe. Less safe: 51 percent; safer: 11 percent; no change: 24 percent.

Source: Americans Want Foreign-Policy Restraint | The American Conservative

An interesting piece by keep in mind that the Koch Industries were the ones that commissioned the study…..so just how skewed is this?

On another news front about war……

The Swedish government has told municipal authorities to prepare civil defense infrastructure and procedures for a possible war. The move was prompted by Sweden’s return to the Cold War-era ‘Total Defense Strategy’.

The instruction to ramp up preparedness for an armed conflict was sent to municipal security chiefs by the Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), an authority operating under the Defense Ministry and tasked with civil protection, public safety, emergency management and civil defense.

“This places a high demand on… operational speed, decision making, information sharing, crisis communication, flexibility, robustness and handling secret information,” the letter says, according to Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), as cited by the Local.

The instruction follows the revival of the ‘totalförsvarsplaneringen’ – or Total Defense Strategy – which states that defending the nation from foreign aggression should involve economic and civilian measures in addition to military ones. The decision, announced in December last year, was explained by a “worsening international situation” and “increased uncertainty in the immediate area.”