Is it too simplistic to correlate a solid U.S. Economy with reduced war activity?

Just going back over the past few presidencies, Is there a correlation between reduced war activity and the U.S. economy? 

Most would agree the economy was the healthiest during Bill Clinton's presidency, and for the most part, Bill Clinton stayed away from war other than the final couple of years of his presidency, and ironically, that is when his economy started to show signs of stalling.

Neither George Bush Senior or Jr. led a sustained economic growth other than having economic indicators drop so low that the rebound could be made to look like a solid economic recovery. The only perceived improvement during the Obama years seems to coincide with reduced troop sizes in war zones.

Then we have way too may wall street investment firms coming up with way too many investment schemes that add nothing to the economy but do allow them to take their cut up front. Ironically Wall Street may re-invest their undeserved profit in ways that can actually ruin the prior investment which still has to run its course, oh the irony of that.

What the media calls an improved economy and what I see as an improved economy are two different things. I see the reduction of non-renewable energy in conjunction with sustained economic activity the ideal goal. The media tends to simply view it as how much stuff got consumed and whether or not the numbers can be spun that increased consumer debt is a good thing because it is based on "consumer confidence".

Imagine if all that war money were here at home, being used for excellent health care for veterans, and perhaps several hundred thousand jobs in renewable energy creation, observation (where to place wind energy and solar cells, and installation.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.