On "60 Minutes" last night I listened to part of a discussion on rebuilding Iraq after the war. It was mentioned that a new kind of government would be set up. It was not said what kind of government. How much will rebuilding cost? Billions.

I do not like the idea of our spending huge sums of taxpayer money on rebuilding other countries. If we were going to install a constitutional, representative republic that protected and enforced individual rights, that promoted and ensured laissez-faire capitalism, that would be great. It would be a step toward Pax Americana.

But given what's been said and done already in the conduct of this war, I shudder to think what a lot of that hard-earned money will go for--even though the world's two best countries will run the show. There will be rake-offs, graft and corruption. Less, surely, than if the UN runs the rebuilding. But still there will be a tremendous waste of money. Plus, the kind of government installed will be based on a moral code as collectivist as its past--no matter whether it's run by Muslims or Christians, no matter what its form.

It does not make sense to spend money and manpower rebuilding a country that never reached a level of civilization that leads toward the possibilities indicated by Ancient Greece. I can see rebuilding Germany and Japan. Culturally, both of those nations had a good understanding of the importance of productivity if not of the individual, despite each country's descent into fascism. But the Iraqis? The ones who really care about creating values and making money have emigrated.

If any such are still in Iraq, then they can rebuild what they want, and pay for it themselves. They have oil fields and there are many men who want to become involved in the country's politics. Some opine that terrorism will return if we just walk away. It will anyway so long as collectivism is operative. It's far better to use our money on us. Reduce taxes, raise military pay and have a strong defense policy. Stomp down hard and swiftly on terrorism the minute it appears. This approach would maintain our peace and security. Present plans will not.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair on Tuesday endorsed a "vital role" for the United Nations when fighting ends, but their plans may fall short of European desires...[Bush] added: "Rebuilding of Iraq will require the support and expertise of the international community. We are committed to working with international institutions, including the United Nations, which will have a vital role to play in this task." Pressed on what precisely the U.N. role would be, however, Bush mentioned only humanitarian work, "suggesting" people to staff the interim authority and helping Iraq "progress." He did not spell out how much power the United Nations would have...In a joint written statement, Bush and Blair pledged to seek U.N. Security Council resolutions to affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure aid delivery and endorse an appropriate post- conflict administration for Iraq. [Reuters, 4/8/03]

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment. "Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said. "There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back." "The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years." The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.

[Read this story about a similar incident in Castro's Cuba.]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Peter Arnett, fired by NBC earlier this week for giving an interview to state-run Iraqi television, is reporting for pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Arabiya, the station said Saturday. "He (Arnett) is an able reporter who has covered wars before and who knows Iraq well," the Dubai-based station's editor-in-chief Salah Nejm told The Associated Press. "I think he is unbiased and has a lot of experience," Nejm said. [April 5, 2003, AP]

What next? Arnett acting as Gollum in the Lord of Rings too! At least he won't need makeup--and, like Gollum, the weasel Arnett has the traitor part down too!

Related: Is Peter Arnett guilty of treason?" and Peter Arnett: Saddam's Useful Idiot.

"Not every plane is going to have a pilot who is armed," Airline Pilots Association spokesman John Mazor explained, "but you won't know if your pilot is armed or not, and that's the deterrent."

Hmmm.  I wonder if firearm possession only works as a criminal deterrent when you're above 10,000 feet...

Three Iraqis who aided the CIA in the March 20 attempt by the United States to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were executed this week by Iraqi counterintelligence, former and serving U.S. officials told United Press International. A super-secret U.S. intelligence operation, working in Baghdad for weeks before the war, provided the crucial targeting data for the attack on Saddam and his sons, launched in an effort to pre-empt a full-scale war, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The war had been scheduled to start Friday, March 21, U.S. officials told UPI. But -- after getting intelligence that a brief target opportunity presented itself to decapitate the Iraqi leadership -- President George W. Bush instead announced at 10:15 p.m. Wednesday, March 19 -- 6:15 a.m. March 20 Baghdad time -- that hostilities had begun...Sources told UPI that Iraqi counterintelligence killed the three, shooting two and cutting out the tongue of a third, who bled to death. They said U.S. intelligence had learned this from their forces on the ground in Iraq.

Two senior advisers to US President George W Bush have made contrasting statements about the relative role of the coalition partners and the United Nations in providing a new administration for Iraq after the war...

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said a UN role was not currently under discussion, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said a dialogue on the UN role had already begun. ["Bush advisers split on UN role
", BBC, 5 April 2003]

Regardless of how successful the United States is in waging war against Iraq, it will take a new president to rebuild the country's damaged relationships with the rest of the world, Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday. [AP]

Are we to presume that that new President is supposed to be you? And what "damaged relationships" are you talking about? The terrorist supporters on the United Nations Secuirty Council? Saddam's military suppliers and cheering squad in Russia and France? Shouldn't it be they who have to repair the relationship, since America's actions are right and their actions are morally despicable? (Hat Tip Chip Joyce)

Now, more than ever, equity investors should pay attention to the message being delivered by gold. Let the neophytes get their 'news' from biased reporters like Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera -- or from the media sheep who nip at the heels of U.S. military leaders in daily briefings at Central Command in Qatar. And let the Keynesians persist in dismissing gold as a 'barbaric relic.' It's no such thing -- and in recent weeks it's been predicting a swift and decisive U.S. defeat of the real barbaric relic, a.k.a. Saddam Hussein.

A rising dollar-gold price reflects a depreciating dollar and a 'flight to safety' -- which is bearish for U.S. equities. In contrast, a declining gold price reflects an appreciating dollar and a return to risk taking -- which is bullish for U.S. equities. Gold provides an objective, market-based measure of how the war is going, whether the U.S. is likely to achieve victory and how long the war will last. During the early 1970s, amid the disastrous Viet Nam War, the gold price increased by nearly 430%, from $35/ounce in 1968 to a peak of $185.4/ounce (average) in December 1974; thereafter the gold price began to decline -- an indication that the badly-fought war would soon end. It did -- when the last U.S. troops pulled out five months later (in May 1975). [Richard Salsman, CFA, Investor Alert, April 4, 2003]

Several pages later Mr. Salsman adds a few caveats, under the sub-title "How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory":

Much as we're pleased with the U.S. war effort to date -- and see it as (near-term) bullish for U.S. equities -- we're not nearly as bullish as we could be.

There are two main reasons for this. First, current evidence indicates that the U.S. government might resume, after its military victory, its haggling with the terrorist-sponsoring U.N. and giving it (and its anti-liberty principles) sway in Iraq. If the U.S. does that, its military victory will have been wasted and, however slowly, Iraq again could become a threat. After all, similar mistakes were made in Afghanistan -- where Al Qaeda and the Taliban (and the U.N.) still have a presence... [Richard Salsman, CFA, Investor Alert, April 4, 2003]

All in all a very good read.