very convenient, yes. There are posts I've read saying that Bush knew that there was an economic downturn coming, and that it was going to scuttle his election pledges on tax etc, when all of a sudden the biggest distraction going comes along (cf, bush snr - gulf, thatcher - falklands, clinton/blair - kosovo).
Who ends up getting all the contracts to rebuild essential infrastructure after these campaigns? Why the very same countries that made the weapons that blew the country up in the first place...
You just have to imagine those boardroom conversations:
IMF: So, mr-newly-elected-post-dictatorship-president, we've just successfully bombed your country back into the dark ages, and you say your having a bit of difficulty getting things started again?
mr nepdp: yes, most of the young men in my country are now traumatised, injured or dead, we've spent our entire budget on (whoops) US / french weaponry, and our children and elderly are about to face a very cold winter with no supplies, no heating and reduced hospital services.
IMF: well, funnily enough a few of my good freinds, mr balfourBreaty, and mr AMEC are available, and for a small fee we can also provide you with a kick start for your economy (repayable in blood over a hundred years). How does that sound?
mr nepdp: hmm, what's the other option?
IMF: starvation, an overthrow of your fragile coalition, and a return to power for the old regime (who are very fond of our new range of helicopters, apparently).
ad infinitum.
The only way any of these 'wars' (most of which are the fabricationof the military-industrial comlex) will be ended is if complacent governments whip themselves into shape, ban the export of arms to countries with human rights records and /or military regimes. But seeing as both the US and UK are military regimes, it seems unlikely for this to happen. 'Ethical foregin policy' anyone?