VICTORY PROCLAIMED
by Doug Casey
Well, it appears the U.S. invasion of Iraq went about as
well as could be expected. It would have been terminally
embarrassing if the American military couldn't crush some
half-starved fellahin dragooned into the rag-tag army of a
bankrupt Third World dictatorship on the verge of civil
war. So those who supported the invasion are, at once, smug
and jubilant. And, since most people (understandably)
prefer to be on the winning side, those who were fence-
sitters, or only opposed for technical reasons, have joined
the ranks of Bush supporters.
Personally, I'm happy it turned out to be a relative non-
event. But, then, this is only a sideshow in a much larger
circus. To mix analogies, I see Bush and his neo-con handlers
as being like the man who jumps off a 100-story building
and says, as he passes the 90th floor, "So far, so good."
Although most Iraqis appear happy that Saddam is gone,
they're unhappy he's been replaced by foreignoccupiers. Will
the American experience in Iraq start to resemble Israel's
in Gaza and the West Bank? So far, not so good.
The most unsavory part of being against the war, for me, is
the company one has to keep on the barricades. It's most
uncomfortable being surrounded by Greens, socialists, effete
literati, Hollywood bleeding hearts, European politicians,
animal rights protesters, and a vast assortment of other
whacko leftists whom I'd forgotten were even still alive.
Oh well. C'est la guerre. But I can only imagine how
embarrassed Osama must be to have been lumped together with
Saddam.
But the fact that the U.S. Government started the war has
drawn the world's attention to a number of questions.
Although it's true 21st Century Man's attention span is as
short as an MTV video, it may actually last until the next
invasion...err, strike that...I mean re-deployment of
troops. In the meantime, the adventure does raise a few
questions.
Such as...can the U.S. be trusted to obey international law?
I'm not a fan of the UN, which is mainly a cushy club
for bureaucrats. And "international law" is about as
binding and valid between nation-states as the results of
a "sit-down" are between gangsters. But, still, it's
notoriously stupid to disrespect one's peers, even if
you're bigger, stronger, and it's convenient. It's wiser to
play by the rules, if you want to retain the moral high
ground. That's why, for instance, Roosevelt goaded the
Japanese into attacking at Pearl Harbor, rather than
launching the first strike himself.
And then, has the U.S. become an unpredictable bully? It's
one thing when the U.S. conducts a lynching in its back
yard viz. Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, etc.,
etc. It was certainly pushing the envelope a bit when a Mad
Bomber like Clinton struck out in Sudan, Afghanistan, and
the former Yugoslavia. But two full-scale foreign wars in
as many years is, I think, a bit much. All these
adventures, and many others (prominently including Vietnam)
were against vastly less powerful opponents, who presented
no credible threat. Based on that, a member of an axis of
evil might want to get serious about getting nuclear
weapons as soon as possible, for the same reason a 98-pound
weakling might want to take a Charles Atlas course.
Is U.S. policy in the hands of pro-Israel ideologues? Based
on who the U.S. attacks, who it gives money to, and what
policymakers say, this is not only a reasonable question.
It's a pointed and disturbing one to Muslims.
And where is the truth in all of this...can the U.S.
government be trusted to tell it? I know this seems like a
stupid question, since no government can be trusted to do
so. And it's become a cliché that, in war, truth is the
first casualty. Still, there are limits. The Soviet
government was a laughing stock because what it said
usually amounted not just to lies, but the perverse
opposite of the truth. It doesn't help the cause of the
U.S. when the main reasons given for the invasion were
Weapons of Mass Destruction (which clearly didn't exist),
and fronting for Osama (which never made sense). I might
add the Creation of Democracy (which seems like a real
long shot).
But even if "Democracy" were to be created, would it only
be acceptable when it produces a pro-U.S. government? I'm
no fan of democracy myself; it usually amounts to no more
than a polite version of mob rule. It's certainly not a
positive value, in my view. Since the end of WWII, the U.S.
Government has a consistent history supporting the idea of
democracy, while attacking its reality, by overthrowing
popular regimes that don't suit it, and supporting
dictatorships when the ruler is compliant. I'd say the
chances of an Islamic radical becoming the next president
of Iraq, even if he's elected with 100% of the vote, are
about zero while the U.S. Army is there.
And what about Americans themselves? Is U.S. public opinion
generally uninformed and are Americans insanely patriotic?
I'm not convinced that any nationality escapes this
indictment. Sure, Americans are jingoistic (e.g., the
boycotting of French wines, re-christening of French fries
as "Freedom Fries", and other embarrassing stupidities).
But I've been to 170 countries, and have to say that things
of this nature, like the Salvadorians and the Hondurans
starting a war over a soccer match, is par for the course.
Americans are actually better informed than the vast
majority of the world's 6 billion people. But that's not
saying much, in that their main sources of information are
sound-bite television, and publications written to a sixth-
grade comprehension level. The point is that Americans
historically were - and should be, in my opinion - held to
a much higher standard. It's not a good thing when "the
natives" in all kinds of benighted places mock Americans
for being, in effect, even more ignorant and irrational
than they themselves.
I don't know how all this will end, any more than does Bush
or Rumsfeld. But my prediction is: badly. Timing is the
real question in my mind, although even that is not so
terribly critical. The important thing is to be on the
right side of the trend. And the trends are quite clear.
The trend in the U.S. dollar is decisively down. The bear
market in stocks has a long way to run. The trend in
interest rates is likely up. And the bull market in gold
and gold stocks is still in its early stages.
Stay on the right side of these trends over the next few
years, and you're likely to not only preserve capital, but
even make a killing. That's saying something during the
best of times. But, in bad times, when the vast majority of
people are suffering real declines in wealth, it makes all
the difference in the world. At some point these trends
will change, as should your investment posture. But it's
not going to be anytime soon.
Regards,
Doug Casey
For the Daily Reckoning
Editor's Note: International Speculator Doug Casey has been
seeking and finding incredible opportunities around the
world for 25 years. Mr. Casey is the author of the best-
sellers Crisis Investing and Crisis Investing for the Rest
of the 90's, as well as one of the more opinionated
contributors to The Daily Reckoning. If you're interested
in additional insights from Doug, please see:
The International Speculator
dougcasey.com |
