The Bush regime has quagmired America into a
sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of
these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official U.S. combat casualties stand
at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq.
On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND
Corporation concludes that "some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from
major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries."
On April 21, 2008, OpEdNews.com reported that an internal e-mail from Gen.
Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration,
to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper
report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides
are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported
combat fatalities each month.
Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead
Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their
country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.
Afghan casualties are unknown.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and
damage to housing, infrastructure, and environment. Iraq is afflicted with
depleted uranium and open sewers.
Then there are the economic costs to the U.S. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz
estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to
be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline
have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining
dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars
of aggression, one U.S. dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only
worth 30 baht.
The U.S. cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, U.S.
Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities
of the U.S. government total $53 trillion. The U.S. government cannot cover
these liabilities. The Bush regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners
to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to
bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as world reserve currency.
The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the deaths, injuries, and
economic costs to the U.S. and its victims are due entirely to lies told by
the president and vice president of the U.S., by the secretary of defense,
the national security adviser, the secretary of state, and, of course, by the
media, including the "liberal" New York Times. All of these
lies were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. "Our" government
has still not told "we the people" the real reasons "our"
government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a succession of transparent lies:
weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaeda connections and complicity in the 9/11
attack, overthrowing a dictator and "bringing democracy" to Iraqis.
The great, moral American people would rather believe government lies than
to acknowledge the government's crimes and to hold the government accountable.
There are many effective ways in which a moral people could protest. Consider
investors, for example. Clearly Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning
up. Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in the rise in value
from booming profits. But what would a moral people do? Wouldn't they boycott
the stocks of the companies that are profiting from the Bush regime's war crimes?
If the U.S. invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush regime
has given, why would the U.S. have spent $750 million on a fortress "embassy"
with anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water systems spread
over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or heard of such an embassy before. Clearly,
this "embassy" is constructed as the headquarters of an occupying
The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of turning Iraq into an
American colony. The so-called government of Maliki is not a government. Maliki
is the well paid front man for U.S. colonial rule. Maliki's government does
not exist outside the protected Green Zone, the headquarters of the American
If colonial rule were not the intent, the U.S. would not be going out of its
way to force Sadr's 60,000-man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi'ite who
is a real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end the sectarian
conflict and restore some unity to Iraq. As such he is regarded by the Bush
regime as a danger to the American puppet Maliki. Unless the U.S. is able to
purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is likely to emerge as the
dominant figure. This would be a highly unfavorable development for the Bush
regime's hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the facade of a Maliki
fake democracy. Rather than work with Sadr in order to extract themselves from
a quagmire, the Americans will be doing everything possible to assassinate
Why does the Bush regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter
of "peak oil." Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand
for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this
argument, the U.S. decided to seize Iraq to ensure its own oil supply.
This explanation is problematic. Most U.S. oil comes from Canada, Mexico,
and Venezuela. The best way for the U.S. to ensure its oil supplies would be
to protect the dollar's role as world reserve currency. Moreover, $3-5 trillion
would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the U.S. invasions,
the U.S. oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even
in 2006 total U.S. imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the U.S.
trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could
have paid for U.S. oil imports for 30 years; $5 trillion could pay the U.S.
oil bill for a half century had the Bush regime preserved a sound dollar.
The more likely explanation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative
Bush regime's commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There
is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel
hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial
expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from
attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran not to support the Palestinians
and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans
are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush's "war on
terror" is a hoax that serves to cover U.S. intervention in the Middle
East on behalf of "greater Israel."