Leauki,

   I appreciate the question, but I have to tell you that I, as a proud liberal, have never thought Bush should be tried for war crimes. The people who push that gagenda are sooooo far left they are coming up on the rights arse. Look, I  know there are going to be civilian casualties in any military action, and I think for the most part we have done a pretty good job of minimizing those in Iraq. The key here is if someone could actually verify that 1 million innocent civilians were killed by the US military, we would ahve to look at some sort of action. I don't beleive that 1 million innocents were killed in Iraq, I beleive that is a narrow view pushed by someone with a very explicit agenda. BTW, I do agree with the Preident wholly in that Afghanistan IS the central front of the war on terror. Good for him for having enough balls to stick with a good sense move that might piss off some of his liberal base. I haev to say that I have been impressed with the President's pragmatism so far. Congress is another thing altogether...

Putting aside our VERY big differences of opinion on other matters, here is my answer to this-

On a purely technical note, most major American leaders,  (and heck, most of the G8) could be tried in one capacity or another for war crimes.

Technically, the bombing of a pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan (which was NOT a terrorist den in any way shape or form) authorized by president Clinton is indeed grounds for trying him for war crimes.

So, too, are the many actions carried out in Afghanistan in which wedding parties and village gatherings have been bombed resulting in many civillian casualties (I'll get to this in a minute) be grounds for trying Bush.

It's also interesting to note that there are several nations in the world that Henry Kissinger will never travel to because it's been made very clear he's considered a war criminal by them and would be tried as such should he ever (not that he ever would) touch foot on their soil.

So, in answer to your question of the scenario yes that could indeed be grounds for trying Obama for war crimes, provided that the study could be independently verified!

You didn't happen to go to Fallujah when you were in Iraq did you? Arguing numbers is also missing the point- no matter which way you want to cut it, many thousands died in Iraq needlessly.

The truth is that if the American political leadership (namely Rumsfeld, Bush and ESPECIALLY Bremer) had listened to the military commanders on the ground at the time, much of the insurgency could have been totally avoided.

Instead, they thought that within six months of the invasion they would be down to a garrison of 30,000 troops and everything would be peachy. They had no plan for post-invasion security or reconstruction, aside from a fanciful belief that the free market would flourish and take care of it, and they didn't want to invest the time and money in having a large enough security force and rapid reconstruction.

In short, they thought they could get away with doing it on the cheap, yet the commander of the U.S Army told them point blank that it wouldn't work and require a lot more resources than they were willing to commit.

He was right, they were wrong, but they fired him and went in with no concrete plan for what to do after. They nearly succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and have created a situation that is going to cost the U.S well over a trillion dollars at minimum.

So, no, the U.S didn't do a great job in Iraq. They had the opportunity to completely avoid the worst of the insurgency and yet they fumbled the ball badly, turning what could have been a one or two year deployment into a six year bloodbath! Way to go!!!

Now to Afghanistan-

There's some really big challenges here-

1) The current government is very hostile to the U.S, meaning that Obama may decide it's time for the puppet Karzai to go- he's turning out to be very similar to the nationalist south vietnamese leader Diem, meaning that they may decide he's outlived his usefulness and try to get rid of him for a more compliant leader who won't complain as much when U.S bombers wipe out 60-70 civillians in one shot

2) No foreign power has ever fared very well in Afghanistan for a long time. The Brits learned this lesson before in the 1800's when one of their entire garrisons was wiped out. The Russians learned this, and now the Brits want to get out of dodge again as they see the same cycles repeating themselves.

I see that Obama -may- have the ability to turn Afghanistan around, but the solution won't be military it will be political. This is the same thing that was carried out in Iraq by Petraeus- what allowed for things to improve there was the fact that Petraeus actually sat down with the folks shooting at U.S troops and cut deals, hence the whole "awakening council" thing in which the U.S started to employ and equip the same folks who used to be called "terrorists" that previously had shot at them.

IF Obama pursues the maximum force ideology of shock and awe, it will be dooming the operation in Afghanistan to failure and may even draw Pakistan into a wider conflict (or be good fuel for radical elements in Pakistan to recruit and take over the country leading to an even bigger problem)

There's a very good reason why Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires.

Hopefully we can learn from history!