Gold News

Waterloo, 200 Years On

The martial instinct remains strong as ever for imperial cronies...
 
WALKING along the Port Royal in Paris, we came across the statue of a dashing soldier, writes Bill Bonner in his Diary of a Rogue Economist.
 
Sword in hand, he was leading the charge – on foot.
 
Confident. Handsome. Audacious. And there, on the pedestal of the statue, was a list of the battles he fought.
 
It's a good thing his own people shot him when they did, otherwise there would not have been space to list all his battles.
 
Neerwinden, Mainz, Neuwied, Winterthur, Hohenlinden...he had faced the enemy at least a dozen times, was wounded three times, and the Napoleonic Wars hadn't even started yet.
 
Twelve years and a hundred battles later...at Waterloo, he had five horses shot from under him.
 
Marshal Michel Ney...now there was a soldier! There was a hero!
 
Wednesday is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo – one of the great battles in history.
 
So today, let us turn away from the gods of money and fraudulent conveyance. Let us turn to Mars, the god of war.
 
In our DNA appears to be the desire for organized combat.
 
Whence did it come?
 
We don't know. But it seems likely that tribes of proto-humans had to be able to compete – violently on occasion. Those who lacked an instinct or talent for combat were probably wiped out by those who didn't.
 
And so, we arrive in the 21st century, programmed for prehistoric warfare...and ready to fight off the invader. We expect our young men to be willing and able to enter the battle; one who shirks is regarded as a coward.
 
Today, the martial instinct seems unnecessary. Tennessee, for example, has only been invaded once – and then it was by troops of the Union Army.
 
But people have the wrong idea about war. They think war is an instrument of foreign policy and should be used rationally – like a tool – and conducted scientifically.
 
But that is like saying that sex is an instrument of procreation. In fact, it is an end in itself – full of mystery and majesty all its own.
 
Since World War II, America's wars have been disgraceful.
 
In Vietnam, the US promised to bomb peasants "back to the Stone Age." Instead, the "gooks" kicked our butts.
 
Thereafter, US warmongers targeted smaller, more defenseless enemies. Grenada, Honduras, Panama – none was in a position to resist.
 
And without a worthy enemy, the whole show is shameful and embarrassing. The heroes are phony...and war is nothing more than a grab for more money and power by the elites who start them.
 
And now, we are once again bumbling around in the Muslim world, nearly 800 years after French crusader Louis IX.
 
Saint Louis, as he became known, at least faced a real, competent army in the Hafsids at Tunis. Our opponents are amateurs, with no real professional training.
 
Often, you hardly have to shoot them; they blow themselves up. They have little government backing, and only the weapons they have gotten from us.
 
Yes, our war industries have hit the jackpot: They supply both sides.
 
At huge expense, the US gives tanks, guns, and thousands of Humvees to its lackeys. They promptly run away from the fight, leaving their weapons to the enemy. Then US suppliers get new orders for more weapons.
 
Our enemy-du-jour, the Islamic State, came on the scene only a few years ago.
 
It is so new that we don't know what to call it. ISIL, ISIS, ISI, IS – who knows?
 
As for its military capability, it is an ad hoc group of fighters whose strategies and tactics are little more than improvisation.
 
Still, wouldn't it be a treat to see David Petraeus – who betrayed national security by giving vital documents to his mistress – redeem himself by leading a charge against ISIL?
 
He could ride a tank...waving a sword to direct fire...encouraging his men forward in a dramatic sweep to victory.
 
It would be even better if he managed a wound – perhaps a patch over his left eye, like Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan.
 
But rather than face its new enemies in the field, the US military assassinates their leaders.
 
In the news, for example, there is a report that a US drone strike killed a top al-Qaeda chief in Yemen.
 
This strategy has the benefit of not putting US troops in the line of fire – especially when drones carry out operations. But it is obviously futile. It is more or less the same barren approach the US and Colombian governments used to fight the "war on drugs."
 
They targeted the cartel leaders – notably, Pablo Escobar. But taking out the leaders was like cutting down big, old trees – it allowed the sunlight to shine down on dozens of saplings.
 
After the Colombian cops gunned down Escobar on the rooftops of Medellín, for example, competition in the cocaine business increased...with the rise of "drug federations" and "baby cartels."
 
Getting rid of the old guard merely gives the new guard – with more energy, new ideas, and innovative methods – a chance to flourish.
 
That is how ISIL came into being: US forces first took out Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Party apparatus. Then they assassinated many in al-Qaeda's leadership, too.
 
What was left – the young fanatics who had learned, evolved, and mutated into a more dangerous enemy.
 
You can best appreciate the dumbness of targeting leaders simply imagining what it would do in the US
 
Suppose some enemy was able to take out the president, his Cabinet, and the entire US Congress.
 
Would that be a bad thing?
 
Except for those few directly affected, it would probably not reduce the happiness or wealth of anyone. New leaders would take over. It is hard to believe they would be worse.

Bill Bonner has co-authored a number of New York Times Bestsellers including Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt and Mobs, Markets and Messiahs. In his own opinion, Bill's most recent title, A Modest Theory of Civilization: Win-Win or Lose, is his best work yet. Bill also founded The Agora, a worldwide community for private researchers and publishers, in 1979. Financial analysts within the group have exposed and predicted some of the world's biggest shifts since that time, starting with the fall of the Soviet Union back in the late 1980s, to the collapse of the Dot Com (2000) and then mortgage finance (2008) bubbles, and more recently the election of President Trump.

See full archive of Bill Bonner articles

Please Note: All articles published here are to inform your thinking, not lead it. Only you can decide the best place for your money, and any decision you make will put your money at risk. Information or data included here may have already been overtaken by events – and must be verified elsewhere – should you choose to act on it. Please review our Terms & Conditions for accessing Gold News.

Follow Us

Facebook Youtube Twitter LinkedIn

 

 

Market Fundamentals