Has it ever come to your mind that the profit, financially as well as otherwise, is not as big as hoped for ten years ago - because both wars were not successful, but failures?
Afghanistan was retaliation, and using the opportunity to establish a permanent presence to Russia in that part of the world, China, and to overshadow a planned vital pipeline project in the region.
Iraq was not to steal oil, fill it in bottles and smuggle it out of the country, as it is sometimes depicted. It was about gaining a dominant military position,m pleasing busienss inerest of Carlyle and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts, and flow of oil traffic patterns.
When Baghdad was taken, many plunderings took place, in hospitals as well as museums. Hospitals waited long to get protection from mobs as well. Most of Iraqi artifacts in museums were stolen and taken out of the country meanwhile. But the top priority objective to take was - the offices of the oil ministry and securing the pools of business papers and documents there.
Subcontractors of Carlyle and Halliburton got profits in return for sure, financially, and as well as in influence, insider information, contracts. These profits just are not as big as the gang around Bush had planned. And the costs for the taxpayer to finance their little company war also derailed a bit, can one say that? For America as a whole, the thing is a negative bill. For some companies linked to those who organised the adventure, it was profitable nevertheless, I would say. And for mercenary companies. And arms makers.