The Real Reason for the Iraqi Invasion

[Charlie Monoxide]

I was just reading another thread about how a large number (14,000) of weapons have gone missing or are unaccounted for. It seems Every day there's some new revelation regarding the Bush whitehouse and the Iraqi war.

I just finished Frank Rich's book "The Greatest Story Ever Sold".
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781594200984,00.html

The book is a litany of the Bush mistakes, distortions, cover-ups, incompetence, and basic distain that this administation has for the American people. This is just one of the many books that are out there now.

I found the epilogue is the most poignant section of the book. Although I'm paraphrasing from memory, Frank Rich is saying that the driving force to invade Iraq was to secure a 2nd term for Bush in the whitehouse. I guess this was successful.

Was this the real reason for the Iraqi invasion?

I look forward to the Democrats taking the lower houses in the upcoming election. What I really look forward to is not necessarily an impeachment of Bush and Co, but hopefully some unspun truth.

I really can't fathom throwing all those lives and injuries away just for a poorly planned tactic to retain power. Yes, I know that sounds like a strawman, but forgive me. It's not a debating point but a personal observation.

Is Frank Rich wrong? If so, what other "theories" do we have?

Charlie (exit strategy for bed) Monoxide

 

[a_unique_person]

It would be best if Bush just told us.

 

[Cello Man]

Well, Bush gave several reasons for doing it...

"Saddam tried to kill my dad"
"Establish democracy in Mid-East", or giving Iraq a fast track to a theocracy, because who else is there to vote for?
The oh-so infamous "WMD", which has been shown to be utter crap
"We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here", as if terrorists targeting American soil are obligated to collect $200 in Iraq and pass go.

And the single most frightening reason Bush has given to date, "God told me invade Iraq".

In my opinion, in his heart of hearts Bush had his sights set on Iraq from the get-go, and it's simply been an exercise in finding reasons to back it up ever since. Not to mention that all the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton made all his insanely rich buddies very happy.

For the record, while I hate Bush, I don't do so blindly. I was totally behind the Afghanistan campaign before we pretty much gave up on it. Bush had a real opportunity to rally the country after we were attacked, but he picked the most cynical and divisive way possible. I can't listen to the guy talk anymore. He talks to the American public like we're children, and he really seems to believe that the more he says something, the more true it becomes.

 

[Cylinder]

"God told me invade Iraq".

Cite?

 

[Mycroft]

Is Frank Rich wrong? If so, what other "theories" do we have?

Charlie (exit strategy for bed) Monoxide

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

1) They really did think Saddam had WMDs.

2) They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region.

 

[Just thinking]

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

1) They really did think Saddam had WMDs.

2) They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region.

It would seem to pass Occam's test.

 

[RandFan]

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

1) They really did think Saddam had WMDs.

2) They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region.

Agreed. Of course that isn't very satisfying ideologically so let's go with Frank Rich.

 

[a_unique_person]

I was just reading another thread about how a large number (14,000) of weapons have gone missing or are unaccounted for. It seems Every day there's some new revelation regarding the Bush whitehouse and the Iraqi war.

I just finished Frank Rich's book "The Greatest Story Ever Sold".
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781594200984,00.html

The book is a litany of the Bush mistakes, distortions, cover-ups, incompetence, and basic distain that this administation has for the American people. This is just one of the many books that are out there now.

I found the epilogue is the most poignant section of the book. Although I'm paraphrasing from memory, Frank Rich is saying that the driving force to invade Iraq was to secure a 2nd term for Bush in the whitehouse. I guess this was successful.

Was this the real reason for the Iraqi invasion?

I look forward to the Democrats taking the lower houses in the upcoming election. What I really look forward to is not necessarily an impeachment of Bush and Co, but hopefully some unspun truth.

I really can't fathom throwing all those lives and injuries away just for a poorly planned tactic to retain power. Yes, I know that sounds like a strawman, but forgive me. It's not a debating point but a personal observation.

Is Frank Rich wrong? If so, what other "theories" do we have?

Charlie (exit strategy for bed) Monoxide

According to Andrew Wilkie, the Australian intelligence office who resigned in protest at the war, there were four main reasons.

Imposition of American of authority and influence in the region after 9/11.
Oil.
Israel.
Somewhere to put troops who were stationed in Saudi Arabia.

 

[specious_reasons]

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

1) They really did think Saddam had WMDs.

2) They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region.

I'd agree with that, with one quibble:

In my opinion, #1 should also say, "The really did believe..." Since the WMD issue also seemed to be a matter of faith for this Bush administration.

 

[RandFan]

I'd agree with that, with one quibble:

In my opinion, #1 should also say, "The really did believe..." Since the WMD issue also seemed to be a matter of faith for this Bush administration.

I agree (damn I sound wishy washy).

I think that they went with the data that fit their thesis.

Now I've got to go find a backbone.

 

[specious_reasons]

I agree (damn I sound wishy washy).

I think that they went with the data that fit their thesis.

Now I've got to go find a backbone.

Where argument might still be found is discussing what was meant by:

"They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region."

I'm probably a bit more cynical in that regard than you. Things like a reliable oil supply, getting American bases off of Saudi soil, and increased American influence in the region were the expected happy side effects of increased stability.

The goal was to get rid of Hussein and put a secular democracy in place, but Bush and Cheney expected and believed America and its business interests would benefit directly from the war. That's how it was sold to us, too. I personally don't think they were lying to us, I think they bought (retail!) their own propaganda.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'd agree with that, with one quibble:

In my opinion, #1 should also say, "The really did believe..." Since the WMD issue also seemed to be a matter of faith for this Bush administration.

Really did believe that there were WMD, as an excuse. It was not the reason as it was well known that what WMD were left were not much use, out of date, etc. The UN inspections had verified that.

 

[RandFan]

Really did believe that there were WMD, as an excuse. It was not the reason as it was well known that what WMD were left were not much use, out of date, etc. The UN inspections had verified that.

No. There was conflicting data and Saddam was in breach. If you look at the rhetoric from the UN and many others at the time it is clear that this was not the prevailing view.

 

[SezMe]

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

1) They really did think Saddam had WMDs.

Mycroft, I think the devil is in the details here. Who do you mean by "They"? If you mean Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, then I would agree with you. But, as other posts have noted, it was not a "think" but a "belief".

Others did not think Saddam had WMDs. Or, more accurately, others did not think the case had been made. By "others" I mean the full nuanced views of the CIA, British Intelligence, the Germans, etc. These, and other, agencies had expressed doubts...doubts that were NOT included in the Bush adminstrartion's final assessment and, more importantly, were not conveyed to Congress and to the American people.

In short, I think the "they [who] really did think Saddam had WMDs" was a very small but influential portion of the Bush Administration.

Your response?

 

[SezMe]

I think the most likely explanation is the most straighforward.

2) They really did believe taking Saddam out would bring stability to the region.

But was this belief based in reality? Could the CIA, the DOD, or any of the other numerous intelligence agencies cite an example where taking out a dictator lead to regional stability? Especially in conditions analogous to those in the middle east?

I don't think so. If you disagree, cite an example.

 

[SezMe]

It would seem to pass Occam's test.

I don't think so. I would be interested in your response to my two previous posts using Occam's razor.

 

[RandFan]

Or, more accurately, others did not think the case had been made.

I'm not Mycroft but I accept this.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, I think the devil is in the details here. Who do you mean by "They"? If you mean Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, then I would agree with you. But, as other posts have noted, it was not a "think" but a "belief".

Yeah, sure. Those guys.

Others did not think Saddam had WMDs. Or, more accurately, others did not think the case had been made. By "others" I mean the full nuanced views of the CIA, British Intelligence, the Germans, etc. These, and other, agencies had expressed doubts...doubts that were NOT included in the Bush adminstrartion's final assessment and, more importantly, were not conveyed to Congress and to the American people.

In short, I think the "they [who] really did think Saddam had WMDs" was a very small but influential portion of the Bush Administration.

Your response?

At the time I believed Saddam had WMD’s. Why? It was a no-brainer. He had used them in the past, and he was being slippery with the inspectors about verifying they had been destroyed.

Of course, I also believed that going to war over them was idiotic. I believed the argument that he might pass them along to terrorists was just plain stupid. Saddam was a nut-case maniacal dictator, but he didn’t traffic with the religious nuts.

So yeah, my opinion at the time was that Saddam had WMD’s, but that wasn’t reason enough to go to war with Iraq.

But was this belief based in reality? Could the CIA, the DOD, or any of the other numerous intelligence agencies cite an example where taking out a dictator lead to regional stability? Especially in conditions analogous to those in the middle east?

I don't think so. If you disagree, cite an example.

I think it’s a reasonable thing to have believed. I don’t know that there has ever been a study of what happens with dictatorships that have been overthrown, but if anyone finds such a piece I’d love to read it. You also have to keep in mind that Saddam wasn’t really stable. He started a war with Iran back in the 80’s, Kuwait in the 90’s, funded Palestinian terrorism (which isn’t so much a religious thing as it is a pan-Arab thing) and was busy grinding Iraq and its people into the ground. The position of keeping Saddam in power for the sake of stability is the position of keeping 25 million people in oppression.

 

[a_unique_person]

No. There was conflicting data and Saddam was in breach. If you look at the rhetoric from the UN and many others at the time it is clear that this was not the prevailing view.

Sure, Andrew Wilkie thought Saddam had WMD. It's just that the only proof the UN was presented with was enough to make intelligence officers around the world choke on their wheaties. It was laughable. A fire truck was suddenly a mobile decontamination unit. The UN suspected, with good reason, Saddam had something tucked away, somewhere. It turned out, he didn't.

There was suspicion he had something, but no evidence.

WMD was no more than a plausible excuse.

 

[RandFan]

Sure, Andrew Wilkie thought Saddam had WMD. It's just that the only proof the UN was presented with was enough to make intelligence officers around the world choke on their wheaties. It was laughable. A fire truck was suddenly a mobile decontamination unit. The UN suspected, with good reason, Saddam had something tucked away, somewhere. It turned out, he didn't.

There was suspicion he had something, but no evidence.

WMD was no more than a plausible excuse.

Your not making sense. "Good reason"? "Laughable"? They don't quite square. Saddam spent 12 years playing games and was never found to be in compliance. Many believed that Saddam had WMD. Now you sit here with hindsight and say that the intelligence was laughable. If it was the rhetoric wouldn't have been what it was. Looking back we can say that we should have known better. Looking back one can make an argument that the administration went with the evidence that fit their agenda. More than that? No. I see no reason to come to your conclusion, unless of course one takes an ideological perspective that sees only the worst in America and England. I understand the perspective from a purely political and self serving standpoint but I don't see it as a basis for drawing objective conclusions.