This is a post from Sandy Mack, I hop he comes here to participate in any discussion on it. It deos not belong in the other thread.
I am reluctant to bury this discussion on the Politics board since it does unquestionably have serious
domestic and, indeed, world economic implications.
I'm not just a little concerned over the current media and market focus on Iraq. Frankly, I can see no
potential scenario there that will resolve the issues we face relative to the oil supply, weak tech stocks,
precarious economies here and abroad, or the threat of terrorists among us. Don't get me wrong...I
agree with most everyone that Saddam is a bad and seriously demented dude. He has a history of
poisoning his own people, of denying his children the food and health care due them within the
"food-for-oil" program, and of lavishing himself with ever more opulant palaces and ever more
magnificent temples while his people continue to suffer. None of this history, though, supports the
contention that he is a threat to the U.S., either directly by attack, or indirectly by acting in concert with
international terrorists. Further, he is not held in very high regard by any of his neighbors, religion and
his pretty new temples notwithstanding.
Nine Eleven resulted in our (and much of the world) declaring "war" on international terrorism, a wholly
new and different military concept from what has ever before been experienced in man's history.
Completely lacking is any country to attack, or even any specific battleground. Initial
"successes" in Afghanistan resulted in al Qaeda slipping away and disbursing, only to regroup, like
sand through a sifter: a couple of stones are trapped, but the problem remains unabated. Even the
symbol, bin Laden, remains as elusive as ever. This has got to be tremendously frustrating for a
military used to being able to identify and locate a target, and proceed methodically against it. Is it any
wonder, then, that the "terrorist threat" seems to have been shifted to a single nation, and that
effecting a "regime change" has been defined as a "victory against international terror"? That being
achieved, the military can now proceed in a more traditional manner. That still begs the question,
though: even assuming the most positive of outcomes (e.g., a swift and decisive victory, and Saddam's
death, or ousting from Iraq), what has actually changed from an international perspective? Maybe the
markets get an initial pop from the victory...but why? International terrorism remains a threat...the
Muslim world is still suspicious of the U.S....there are no guarantees regarding the oil supply, nor of
any succeeding Iraqi regime being any better than the current one.
So, I have to ask: is our preoccupation with Iraq simply a Bush smokescreen to mask our
ineffectiveness against al Qaeda? I can see nothing good coming from it no matter how it turns out.
Sandy
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
