Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
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 entangle Russia in that part of the world, and 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, pleasing business interests of Carlyle Group and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts (favouring American companies), and flow of oil traffic patterns (also to hinder China).
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. That says it all.
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 corporate 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 for arms makers. |
The mercenaries always profit. If there is no short term profit, they won't come here, they would just go to the next place. And of course, we can assume the same for gun runners.
From an American perspective, the payoff 10 years ago was much lower than it is now. 10 years ago Afghanistan was a wasteland, the GDP was only slightly more than 2 billion USD.
You can say that now the GDP is more than 17 billion USD. But in comparison, US military spending in Afghanistan each year is more than 8 billion USD. and that is not counting aid money etc, just direct military spending. You just don't bet on long term profit potential in a for profit war, you look to break even early.
I really don't see how you can expect to break even when the numbers are like that.
There are so many good examples that these stupid politicians can learn from: Cortez, Clive, Rhodes, and many more
Can these goddamn idiots learn? or did they start believing their "idealism" and now they think they are bringing "freedom" to Afghanistan?