“History has proved France right,” says Nicholas Sarkozy. He was referring to the war in Iraq, which France decided to duck. Whether history has proved France right or wrong, we don’t know...but the war certainly looks like a losing proposition.
We’ve been following the American public debate on the subject. There seem to be two schools of thought – equally absurd and self-interested. The war was a good idea, they all agree; but many think the Bush administration made a mess of it. Presumably, it would have been a big success if others had run the show. And there is another large group that blames the Iraqis. “We did our part,” they say to themselves. “Too bad the Iraqis weren’t able to get their act together to take advantage of it.”
Today’s International Herald Tribune reports that hundreds of people gathered to remember 9/11. Osama bin Laden praised the suicide hijackers. What role he played in the affair has never been clarified – largely because, even after six years, the most wanted man in history has never been brought to justice.
How come?
Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning Australia
How has Osama bin Laden managed to evade capture? Did France make the right call on Iraq? Leave a comment below.
P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.
Related Articles:
- None Found
About the Author
Best-selling investment author Bill Bonner is the founder and president of Agora Publishing, one of the world's most successful consumer newsletter companies. Owner of both Fleet Street Publications and MoneyWeek magazine in the UK, he is also author of the free daily e-mail The Daily Reckoning.
Comment by Coffee Addict on 13 September 2007:
The answer to the first question is poor counter intelligence (a bad oxymoron). Other than pursuing incursions over the Iran border, who knows what the CIA backed tribesman in North Pakistan are actually doing? The CIA certainly does not!
Answer to question 2 is YES. To add to the depression of mind, on this topic there is a Wiki picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in the early 80s. Rumsfeld givith and Rumsfeld taketh away; and cursed be everyone in the vicinity! Like some of the radical Mullahs he opposes, Rumsfeld has a God complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
A third point you have not covered is current sabre rattling concerning Iran. My hunch is that nothing will happen (because Bush controls neither the House of Reps or the Senate) but he remains Commander-in-Chief so if it does happen, you can kiss your the current value of your investments goodbye.
Tangible resources can of course remain in the ground until markets recover.
Comment by Jonathan on 14 September 2007:
It's an unfair shake to say those are the only two schools of thought on the Iraq matter. The American media does not represent the interests of the American public as a whole. Remember the Janet Jackson boob incident? That was hardly a blip of concern to 75% of Americans, yet it dominated the airwaves for weeks and months, inspiring legislation and ridiculous fines.
Comment by Mike on 25 September 2007:
Really, Sarkozy is right: the war was a very bad idea and it could only turn sour. I think that if a fraction of the resources spent in Iraq had been directed to catch Osama and his not-so-merry men, they probably would have got him by now. This said, the situation now being what it is, I believe that a pull-out of Iraq by American troops would just be a compounding mistake. It's just too late an they have to see it though.