Victory proclaimed!

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 Although most Iraqis appear happy that Saddam is gone, they’re unhappy he’s been replaced by foreign occupiers. 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 wacko leftists who 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 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 … er, strike that … I mean re-deployment of troops.

In the meantime, the adventure does raise a few questions.

A few questions

Can the U.S. be trusted to obey international law?

I’m not a fan of the U.N., 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.

Has the U.S. become an unpredictable bully?

It’s one thing when the U.S. conducts a lynching in its back yard (Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, 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 whom the U.S. attacks, to whom it gives money and what policymakers say, this is not only a reasonable question. It’s a pointed and disturbing one to Muslims.

Can the U.S. government be trusted to tell the truth?

I know this seems like a stupid question, since no government can be trusted to do so. And it’s become a cliche 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).

Is democracy only acceptable when it produces a pro-U.S. government?

For reasons I’ve explained in the past, I’m no fan of democracy – 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 World War II, 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 percent of the vote, are about zero while the U.S. Army is there.

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, renaming of French fries to “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.

The answers

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 at 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.