OT, Blast from the past... Posted: March 20, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Doug Casey © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a few things to say about the coming invasion of Iraq – all of them 100 percent opposed to the adventure. Should I write an article detailing all the reasons why this war is counterproductive, stupid, destructive, immoral and totally unnecessary? Perhaps next time. Although I suspect, in today's emotional environment, reason has little to do with how people feel. Visualize a pack of chimpanzees, hooting and panting, just before they attack another pack.
But, still, if only for my own amusement, I'll discuss the coming installment of the Forever War anyway. Why? Because if you think the Iraq adventure is basically going to be a walkover, after which it's pretty much business as usual, then you'll likely want to plan your future differently than if you see it as just another disastrous government program. I believe the Forever War is going to have 100 times the combined impact of the government's ridiculous Wars on Poverty, Cancer and Drugs combined.
Of course, it's an old dictum in the market: "Don't tell me what will happen; tell me when." And that's correct since, the Law of Large Numbers being what it is, anything that can happen eventually will happen. So predictions made without a time frame are of little practical value, however philosophically entertaining. Around here, of course, we're used to thinking in terms of geological time, albeit tempered with the knowledge that most of us only live threescore and 10 years.
So how does this relate to the Forever War? Recall that it's been going on since before Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade in the 11th century, but interspersed with long periods of quiescence. But it's definitely been heating up, steadily and consistently, since the creation of Israel after World War II. Now it's building rapidly to a full boil. And I'd say, at this point, it's too hot to cool down.
Some think that Bush's flexing of America's military might will calm things down, much the way it happens in a movie when a strong-willed U.S. marshal rides into a lawless western town. After a few shoot-outs, the Good Guys triumph over the Bad Guys, and ride out of town. Problem solved. That is not, I believe, the way this is going to come down.
Unlike the marshal, the United States has no standing to ride in and enforce its will. And the United States is by no means universally viewed as The Good Guy – any more than medieval Crusaders were seen that way by the locals, regardless of how they saw themselves. And it's pretty unlikely the troops are going to ride out of Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Saudi, Kuwait and about 100 other countries, where the natives like them about as much as Americans would like Chinese troops in the United States.
Appeasement
Be that as it may, within the U.S. it seems a large and vocal majority supports the coming invasion of Iraq. It's a totally different story outside the United States. I don't believe I've met a single person in my rather extensive recent travels outside of the United States who approves of the coming invasion of Iraq. Most opinion more or less reflects that of the Jakarta newspaper Kompass: "The U.S. is just planting the seeds of vengeance, frustration and anger, which will become time bombs in the future."
I'm no great fan of Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed. But his views in a recent interview likely reflect those of most Muslims. "I don't think the U.S. is winning [the war on terror]. I don't think so because this is the kind of war that can last for ages." And, of course, he's quite correct. The current so-called War on Terror is really just the latest episode in the what started with the First Crusade in 1096. He goes on to say that Muslims feel "it's not a campaign against terrorists, but against Muslim terrorists."
Regarding the root of the problem, Mahathir says: "The Palestinian issue is basic, but of course the decision of the U.S. to keep its troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was the direct cause of bin Laden's actions." Sorry to bring Osama into this, since he has zero to do with Saddam, except in the copy of Bush's spindoctors. But one thing the Iraq invasion may do is act as a catalyst for a revolution in Saudi Arabia, something Osama would dearly love. And the U.S. troops Mahatir refers to will be a direct cause of it. Although the U.S. government will, perversely, see them as a cure.
Then, I was rather surprised to see an editorial by John Keegan taking a strong pro-war view. Keegan, you may recall, is the author of a number of excellent (well-researched and very well written) books on military history, such as "The Face of Battle." I was expecting a formidable argument, but was disappointed to read that the best he could do was draw a lame analogy between a failure to invade Iraq, and the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. He uses some form of the word "appeasement" at least 23 times, that I counted, in his short polemic.
I find arguments like Keegan's equating failure to start a war with "appeasement" to be at once ludicrous and dishonest. Non-attack is not appeasement – to equate the two does violence to the language. "Appeasement" is the giving of concessions due to threat – there's no question of that here. No concessions are being made to Saddam, nor does he pose a threat in any way. Except, at this point, to Bush's macho self-image.
But maybe he will in the future, like Hitler, some say. I agree. As may many of the thousands of people who are going to achieve political power around the world in the near future. Perhaps the U.S. government should launch pre-emptive strikes against anyone they believe poses, or may come to pose, a threat. But, of course, that's exactly what's happening right here in the United States, thanks to the Ashcroft Justice Department.
I can imagine some real threats, but Iraq isn't one of them. It's true the Iraqi government has oil revenues, so it can afford a certain amount of adventurism. But, in reality, Iraq is a very small, poor and backward country. Even its nominal population of 23 million is a fiction – once you back out the Kurds and Shiites, it's less than half as many. The place is on the edge of both economic collapse and civil war.
The Iraqi regime is ugly, but no threat to anyone – not even its neighbors. In any event, the United States has no more right to destroy it than do China, or India, or Russia. I wonder what the U.S. reaction would be if one of those countries was about to launch a unilateral attack against the place, followed by a long occupation?
The shameless Bush regime continues to repeat, as a mantra, that Saddam "has threatened the U.S." I've searched, and can find no record anywhere of a threat (unlike North Korea). In his State of the Union address, Bush twice used the phrase "if war is forced upon us." But I can't find anyone trying to goad the United States into a war – rather, just the opposite
I find the entire matter so bizarre, so surreal, that I'd like to pose an appropriate alternative to war. Just as Saddam challenged Bush to a debate, which Bush wisely (but churlishly) ignored, let Bush challenge Saddam to a cage fight, where only the winner walks away. And all of Bush's warmongering advisers – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et. al., can test their courage against their counterparts in the Iraqi government. It would undoubtedly be the largest grossing sports event in world history. And nobody gets hurt except the people who want a fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second reason for invading Iraq
Posted: April 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The second reason I believe Bush invaded Iraq: The psychological makeup of the men ruling America.
Some might say that Bush wants to get Saddam because, as he famously said, "He tried to kill my Daddy." While I don't doubt that accurately plumbs the depths of the president's thinking on the subject, Bush isn't the only one plotting the course here.
We'd all like to believe that people (including ourselves) always act rationally. The fact is, however, that our actions are controlled by our psychological makeup, as much as by our reason. So what is the psychology of the Baby Bush? It's tough to make a truly accurate assessment without knowing the man personally. And I'd say the chances of my getting to know Bush are minimal – certainly if he asks Dick Cheney (whom I have met) whether he'd enjoy meeting me.
What we know for sure is that the Bush administration is completely controlled by what are known as neoconservatives. It's misleading, of course, to use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" since neither label represents anything like a consistent philosophical worldview. It's been said that neoconservatives are liberals who've been mugged by reality. But I think it's more accurate to define them as ultra-nationalists who are generally sympathetic to the conservatives, but with more polish, and intellectual patina. It might be good to look at how their minds work by comparing them to liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
Libertarians share some practical views with both liberals (who have a purported belief in social and intellectual liberty), and conservatives (who claim to have a belief in economic liberty). Both liberals and conservatives, however, tend to dislike and distrust libertarians. The liberals feel threatened by libertarians' sincerely held views advocating economic freedom; the conservatives feel threatened by their sincerely held views advocating social and intellectual freedom.
The neocons tend to be the polar opposite of libertarians – they're authoritarians. They're like liberals because they believe in economic controls. And they're like conservatives because they believe in social and intellectual controls. The neocons believe they actually know what's best for everybody in all areas of life, and they're happy to use the power of the state to enforce their opinions.
Other than their own righteousness, one of the few things the neocons really believe in is the American Empire. And, in that light, they support Big Business because it pays taxes, co-operates closely with Big Government, and thereby extends its reach. They're often for free-market solutions not because they're ethically sound or promote individual freedom, but because they create wealth that can then be deployed by the American Empire.
They love the military-industrial complex and the National Security State. They believe that their (bent and distorted, in my opinion) view of what America is all about should be imposed on the rest of the world while we have the power to do it. They think of themselves as tough and shrewd and realistic. Which is why, I suppose, they're called neoconservatives instead of neoliberals. They're in the tradition of people like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or "Scoop" Jackson. They're all for the Welfare State (for both corporations and individuals) – not for so-called humanitarian reasons, but because they think it cements the Nation (or should I say Homeland) together.
In my opinion, they're the very worst, and most dangerous, kind of people to have anywhere near power. Especially when they're closely associated with (or actually are) religious fundamentalists who think they're on a mission from God to smite the infidel.
One reason why religion is an especially dangerous admixture to authoritarianism and nationalism in government officials – either here, or in the Muslim world – is that it makes them especially susceptible to what might be called "deity-speak." They're programmed to see themselves as God's temporal representatives, authorized to interpret the Heavenly Will. Listen to Bush or Ashcroft talk sometime. Their speech is full of imperatives, using words like "should," "ought" and "must." They have a fixed idea of how the world "should" be and, By God, they're going to make sure you, me and (especially) those swarthy furriners toe the line.
Believe it or not, I get hate mail for writing stuff like this and, as often as not, my correspondents quote the Bible as proof for their arguments. But perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised. America is after all the most religious country in the West. Things haven't really changed that much from the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial, when H.L. Mencken remarked: "It's probably impossible to throw a Bible from a speeding train anywhere in America without hitting a Christian in the head with it."
You'd think it couldn't get much worse than having militaristic, nationalistic authoritarians in control. But combine that with self-assigned righteousness and a real whiff of religious fervor, and you're looking at big trouble. Especially when you're dealing (as we are) with relatively primitive cultures for whom their own religion is the centerpiece of life. And those religions have a history of mutual antagonism from Day One.
Expect the Forever War to keep ramping up. It's really just begun.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
