The Heavy Cost Of The Bush-Obama Murder Rampage By Anthony Gregory
(2011-06-01 at 18:25:27 )

The Heavy Cost Of The Bush-Obama Murder Rampage By Anthony Gregory

In every election cycle, the politicians love to pretend there is a
diff erence among them on the foreign policy questions. Yet on these
issues of unsurpassed importance, we see the Democrats and Republicans
are all part of the same bloodthirsty gang.

On the superf icial level of presidential politics, Obama and Bush
appeared light-years apart. They play opposites in the DC-approved
off icial culture war between those who pretend to be genuine red-blooded
Americans of the heartland and those who f eign an understanding of the
beleaguered urban minorities and oppressed underclass, when in truth both
perfectly embody the same Wall Street-Pentagon-f riendly power elite.
This is most clearly seen in their virtually identical approach toward
EMPIRE.

After 9-11, Bush could have used his Republican bonaf ides to stress not
pacif ism but at least the humble foreign policy he had promised. We
should not be -an arrogant nation,- he famously said in his October 11,
2000, debate with Al Gore.- One way for us to end up being viewed as the
ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way,
so should you.-

But instead, Bush used 9-11 as an excuse to Expand the Federal
Government more than had happened in decades, gut the Bill of Rights,
and start two major wars to -Democractize- Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe more than a million innocents, were
slaughtered in his wars. He left America in low morale, bankrupted from
his recklessness, bloodied from battle, with thousands of Americans
having returned in lag-draped caskets.

Obama in 2008 gave even more lip service to foreign policy humility than
did Bush in 2000, or at least was perceived this way, and somehow
everyone believed it. He said Bush made a terrible mistake in invading
Iraq. He said we could save a fortune and restore American honor by
withdrawing.

Yet here we are, over two years into his presidency, and the mountain of
corpses continues to rise. In Afghanistan, there were more civilian
deaths last year than any time since the war began. In Pakistan, Obama
has unleashed unspeakable terror with his drone attacks, deploying more
than three times as many last year as Bush did in 2008. This killing
spree has greatly exacerbated a refugee disaster, wherein a million or
two have been displaced from their homes.

But of course, most Americans do not care about the death of foreigners.
Non-Americans are barely human. Yet even by purely U.S.-centric
standards, the Obama model of war has amounted to a continuation of the
Bush trajectory. My new Independent Institute policy report, What Price
War? Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Costs of Conflict, goes into the numbers
and cuts through the rhetorical fog of partisan nonsense.

Last year, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is
ninety more than died in Bushs last full year - 2008 - in off ice. Both
2009 and 2010 were far bloodier for Americans in Afghanistan than any
year under Bush. In 2008, Bushs deadliest year for U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, 155 died there - fewer than half of the 317 who fell in
2009 and f ewer than a third of the 499 who f ell last year.

Even conservative Americans should be alarmed by this, and liberal
peaceniks should be horrif ied that their man has apparently increased
U.S. belligerence from its 2008 levels, by which point U.S. casualties
were winding down from their peak during Bushs most lethal years. All
Americans have to be concerned with the f inancial cost too. Obama
repeatedly promised to save money from the Iraq adventure and devote the
savings to other priorities - which he has, more or less. Yet the U.S.
was going to begin drawing down in Iraq anyway: Bush signed the Status of
Forces Agreement in 2008, setting a timetable for Iraq similar to what
we have seen followed under Obama.

Overall, the heightened violence in Afghanistan has meant a war price tag
rivaling the worst days of war criminal George W. Bush. Even adjusting
for inf lation, in 2006, Bush was spending about $133 billion on his two
wars in 2011 dollars. Last year, the cost was up to $170 billion. Then we
have the record-busting Pentagon budgets that the Democrats have given us.

Obama could have gotten away with a more modest policy than Bush, simply
by continuing on the path set at the beginning of 2009. But he wanted to
show that the Republicans had -neglected- Afghanistan and so he tripled
the U.S. troop presence, from just over 30,000 soldiers at the end of the
Bush era to the 100,000 or so that are there now. This puts aside the
vast increase in contractors, as I discuss in the report.

Obama has also bombed Somalia and Yemen and started a f resh new major
war with Libya, in violation of the War Powers Act, the Constitution,
and all semblance of common sense. So far, according to Defense
Secretary Gates, the cost has been over $750 million. This particular
battle costs about $40 million a month in direct costs, but I am sure
the Republicans are still patting themselves on the back for saving $5
million a year by cutting federal funding for NPR.

All of this ignores the more hidden costs of war: The uncounted thousands
of innocents blown to bits and otherwise slaughtered because Obama does
not want to appear -weak- in Afghanistan; the civil liberties violations
that have only accelerated under this president; the many thousands of
Americans injured and psychologically traumatized; the economic
opportunities vanquished because of the trillions in resources devoted
to and destroyed in these wars.

Concerning all the permanent f ixtures of the American state - the
trillions in entitlements, the national police power, the Fed and the
armies of regulators - Obama has continued and expanded upon nearly
everything we had under Bush, just as Bush ramped up what he inherited
from Clinton and on and on going back decades. Nowhere is the tragic
bipartisan continuity in U.S. policy starker than in the area of war.

Yet as I note in my paper, there was no reason to expect otherwise:
candidate Obama said Iraq was a mistake, but he praised the horrible
surge and voted to continue funding the war, vowing the whole time to
expand operations in Afghanistan.

Millions thought Obama would bring home the troops, wind down the wars,
stop killing so many civilians, and save money while he was at it. Sadly,
the murder rampage continues without interruption, only with a greater
emphasis on picking on some nations rather than others and a diff erent
rhetorical cloak to obscure the evil of the slaughter. Hawks decry Obama
as a pacifist who hates American power and doves often praise him for
being more thoughtful than his reckless warmongering predecessor. The
only real question is which dishonest characterization is the greater
obscenity.

June 1, 2011

Anthony Gregory is research editor at the Independent Institute. He
lives in Oakland, California.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.