Of course the genesis of the Charlatan's war of choice was inauspicious from the start. The decision to invade Iraq arose from the unilateralism of a few Pentagon leaders, notably then Secretary Dick "Darth" Cheney, his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby and the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz expressed in their manifesto, "Defense Policy Guidance". Accusing dictator Saddam Hussein of harboring weapons of mass destruction was simply a pretext to justify the invasion. The Desert Storm operation conducted a decade before by the Charlatan's father and former CIA director George H.W. Bush destroyed Iraq's capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and Saddam did not attempt to rebuild it. Even more to the point, Hussein proved himself to be no friend of Al Qaeda which he considered composed of dangerous foreign meddlers. The senior Bush shelved the guidance of the neoconservatives after the manifesto was leaked to the Los Angeles Times.
When his son rose to power, the Charlatan quickly adopted the neoconservative agenda of US hegemony, including the principle of preemptive strike. His defense establishment was dominated by neoconservative zealots like Douglas Feith, Steve Cambone, Richard Perle and the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. A special office, the Office of Special Plans, was created in the Pentagon whose major purpose was to compile a brief for the invasion of Iraq. One lone moderate was in a position of authority within the Charlatan's defense establishment, General Colin Powell, and he was largely circumvented or ignored by the warmongers. Eventually even General Powell was impressed with the task of presenting the United State's largely exaggerated, circumstantial case for war to the United Nations. The failed oilman from Texas was determined to be a "war president" greater than his father even if he had to lie to the world to accomplish his mission¹.
The end of Cold War confrontations with the Soviet Union provided America with an opportunity to readjust its militaristic priorities to domestic programs and return to fiscal responsibility. Instead, under the leadership of an insecure megalomanic, America got a huge expansion of federal spending for fighting two distant wars simultaneously. Overall, the US has spent $767 billion on Iraq since the 2003 invasion according to the Congressional Budget Office. A private research group, National Priorities Project, estimates the war's cost at $811 billion. In his final report to Congress, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said the $90 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction projects was largely misspent: "Not enough was accomplished for the size of the funds expended." An understated assessment echoed by Iraq leaders. A Kurdish leader told auditors, "You think if you throw money at a problem, you can fix it. It [reconstruction] was just not strategic thinking." One might even conclude, X-brand thinking, because the Inspector Generals' report exposes astonishing levels of fraud and waste in Iraq. Some notable examples are:
- the Khan Bani Sa'ad prison began building in 2004 but was abandoned after three years because of increased fighting in Diyala Province. The $40 million project now sits in ruins with no Iraqi plans for completing it;
- a $108 million wastewater treatment facility in Fallujah has taken eight years longer than planned to construct and will only service 9,000 homes. An additional $87million will be needed to hook up the rest of the city;
- rebuilding of a pipeline that was severed during the invasion under the Tigris River was deemed geologically prone to fail. It did, and replacing the pipeline and al-Fatah bridge that carried it cost an additional $29 million;
- a former US Army officer led a ring of corruption at reconstruction headquarters, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, that defrauded the US of tens of millions in kickbacks. Twenty-two criminal convictions were connected to government contracts for bottled water and other supplies.
Such is the senseless profligacy that occurs when a foreign power attempts to rebuild a country it has destroyed in war during an ensuing civil war ignited when the ruthless but unifying national dictator was toppled. Reconstruction in Iraq was poorly organized and even more poorly executed; wags referred to US policy as "ad hocracy". Supposedly run by the State Department, the vast majority of Iraq reconstruction projects were paid for by the Department of Defense. Unfortunately it too controls rebuilding Afghanistan, where taxpayers have spent $90 billion to date². The war bill has come due, and similar to a drunken weekend in Vegas, the bill is enormous. Tell Johnny the wars are why he can't visit the White House anymore.1. Accomplishing his mission including sending in American Special Forces officers with experience in torture gained from advising Central American counterinsurgency forces during that region's "Dirty Wars". They were to advise mostly Shia police paramilitaries attempting to quell a rising Sunni insurgency. The police commandos became infamous for their torture and execution of prisoners at detention centers set up around the country with the help of these American advisors. The Guardian newspaper identifies retired colonels James Steele and James H. Coffman as advisors to Iraqi police commandos. It is the first time American military officers have been directly implicated in human rights abuses by Iraqi security forces. General in Command David Petraeus is said to have been aware of torture of detainees by Iraqi special police, At one point their victims were broadcast on national television in an ultimate reality show of sorts titled, "Terrorism in the Hands of Justice". Petraeus is also said to have personally ordered through an interpreter that television broadcast of tortured detainees stop. Col. Steele was deemed important enough to the administration's efforts in Iraq that Secretary Defense Rumsfeld forwarded his memos directly to Cheney and Bush for "texture". [video]
2. there is no reason to believe that reconstruction will be managed any better in Afghanistan. Waste and fraud is almost certain to be as bad or worse as in the Iraq case because Afghanistan's central government is weaker and native tribalism has a ancient tradition of theft, smuggling and corruption. The United States is faced with the problem of what to do with 750,000 pieces of major military hardware when it withdraws from the country supposedly by 2014. It is unthinkable to leave it behind where some of it will become the property of the Taliban and Al Qaeda almost immediately. To transport trucks, armor and aircraft out of the enemy's reach could cost as much as $5.7 billion. But destroying $36 billion in military equipment seems equally ridiculous.