Michael S. Rozeff
The war on terror is an unbelievably huge waste of money. That is documented in this web site that seeks to quiet irrational fears and place in perspective the money spent by governments led by Bush and Obama versus the benefits gotten by the American public.
This site writes in its conclusion
“By invoking terrorism, the government has justified wholesale invasions of other countries, a massive stripping away of our basic liberties, and shifting money to military contractors and away from things that threaten human life on a huge scale.”
What this means is that Bush created and Obama continued a war for their own purposes, which are those of the State they lead. And those purposes are not those of the American public. We Americans do not benefit from expensive invasions of other countries. Indeed, if anything, they incite retaliations against Americans. We do not benefit from losing liberties and living in a police state. We do not benefit from wasting money on the military when we could be spending it on goods that really matter to us.
This is why we can say that the war on terror is a private war of Bush and Obama, or a private war of the State, and not a war of the American public fought to defend itself against terrorism. Americans have paid for the war. They have been told time and again that it is a war being waged for them, but the facts strongly contradict this. If it is true that the U.S. government has made the war on terror for our benefit, then the stupidity and ineptness of the war itself and the management of this war have to be understood. The fact that the costs of the war on terror vastly exceed its benefits is the strongest possible evidence that Bush and Obama did not act in the interests of the American public.
If the war on terror has not been for the interests of American citizens, then how explain it? Who would spend trillions and sacrifice thousands of American lives, not to mention the lives of foreigners, who would destabilize whole countries and huge regions for the sake of saving a trivial number of American lives? Bush and Obama would and they did. It is perfectly conceivable that Bush and Obama would do this for their own private reasons and motivations. It is perfectly conceivable that they could do this because of their power and because they do not bear any of these costs personally.
One can look deeper into these men and their positions in an attempt to find their motivations and thinking. If they thought the war on terror was worth it, they could not have been more wrong. Presidents are not immune to personal vendettas, as against Saddam Hussein. They are not immune to monumental error. They almost invariably support the State, no matter what the costs. They almost invariably over-estimate their power and that of the State. They always are mere mortals whose ignorance in the face of immense complexities is huge. Their power combined with their ignorance makes big errors highly probable. Wanting to exercise power goes with the turf of wanting to be president, becoming president and being president. In defending Obamacare, Obama has just said “If you’ve got good ideas, bring them to me.” He sees himself as the health care executive, when really he is the health care enforcer. He believes that if only all ideas are filtered through his mind for his decision, then the results will be rational and beneficial.
Americans who vote and elect their officials then begin to think that the acts of these officials are also their acts, or that these acts are of the people, for the people and by the people, or that these acts are public acts. Even government officials may believe this. They surely repeat it often enough in order to generate support, but their acts are not driven by public interests. The acts of government officials are their own. They are privately motivated, even if publicly financed. The war on terror has been privately motivated. It is a private war in that sense, like a war fought by some king of old in order to extend his dominion.