<gross overstatement. You have no basis for it>
I could say the same thing, about "giving 50 million people freedom". What 50 million?
By my count, the last 30 years of U.S. military action in the Middle East has bestowed freedom on one person (the Emir of Kuwait). I can't find the other 49,999,999.
Iraq: not "free", not until the Iraqi people choose their own government. In an election that isn't "managed", to ensure that "responsible" (i.e. pro-American) people win. So far, we've held a meeting at Nasariyah, and all the participants were picked by US Central Command, none by the Iraqi people. Freedom? Replacing a home-grown dictator with a foreign occupation and a military government, doesn't meet my definition of "free".
Afghanistan: The warlords hold the ground. Karzai, the colonial mayor of Kabul, protected by a palace guard of our soldiers, chosen by the U.S. early in the war, "legitimized" by the non-elected Loya Jurga, has never won an election. Same with all the warlords. The Afghan people are as terrorized and unfree today, as they were before our army swept through.
Who else? Kuwait (the people, I mean, not the Emir)? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Any of our other "friendly regimes"? Where are these 50 million free people? The only free people anywhere in the region, are the Jews in Israel, the Kurds in Iraq, and the Turks, and all 3 groups paid with their own blood for their own freedom; we had little to do with "making freedom", in all 3 cases.
And, yes, when you add up all the costs, it's going to be 100B$. At least. |
