[This posting is a bit long, but at the bottom I've posted links to back up claims made. I'd appreciate any reasoned response or counter-argument.]
The invasion of Iraq was first presented to the public as necessary because the Ba'athist regime was supporting Al-Queda [1]. This was subsequently stated (by Colin Powell [2.1])to be a claim completely without foundation, and in fact the opposite may be true [2.2].
It was then justified as necessary in order to eliminate the threat from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" [3]. WMD of any significance have not been found in Iraq, despite over a year of searching [4]. Initial claims that Iraq was building a nuclear bomb have also been proven false [5]. After a decade of UN sanctions, only the intellectually dishonest could claim that Iraq posed a military threat to any nation.
On March 23rd 2003, the invasion commenced, and was predictably successful from a military perspective.
The justifications given before the war had however been proven by facts to be untenable, so the story changed again. The invasion of Iraq was now presented as necessary to remove a tyrant who oppressed his own people. But this repositioning leaves us with the troubling question - with all the oppressive regimes out there (North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, etc) why was Iraq in particular chosen? Why did the US support Saddam before the first Gulf War, when his atrocities were well known?[6] And why in the Spring of 2003, when a significant majority of the world's nations were pleading for restraint and a multilateral solution, did the US and the UK decide to press ahead with their invasion regardless?
And so today, in the Spring of 2004, we see the unsurprising result - a country on the verge of civil war, atrocity after atrocity, and US and British soldiers being killed on the streets of Iraq.
So, what has happened? Some facts are clear - the invasion of Iraq had been a goal of several members of the Republican Administration long before the election of George W Bush [7]. Their agenda (the U.S. being the relatively open society that it is) is not secret - it had been public for several years in a series of open and signed letters from the political pressure group "Project for the New American Century" [8]. Members included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagen, Kristol – much of the current US Administration effectively [9]. There's no conspiracy – the signatures are there, out in the open - these people are intelligent, reasoned, and believe their politics best serve the interests of their country.
In the hours and days after 9/11 both Bush and Cheney [10] were searching for ways to link the attacks to Iraq, despite knowing that the most likely perpetrators were Al-Queda.
What motivates this political class in Washington? Why would they take these actions? What do they wish to gain?
Several things - principally a stable alternative source of Middle East oil as leverage against the Saudis [11]. Also insurance in the event the Saudi royal family should be toppled and whatever fundamentalist regime takes over attempts to replay the oil crisis of the late 70s. A motivation to protect the state of Israel, and also provide it with a source of water [12]. Mostly however, they just believe in a more muscular US foreign policy - with military might a factor greater than any other on the globe, why should they not use military force to further their national interest? It’s a war-mongering view we’re no longer used to hearing from western politicians, but it’s clear and open.
One thing must be clear, however, the invasion of Iraq had:
+ Nothing to do with links to Al-Queda - there was no link of any consequence.
+ Nothing to do with WMD - there weren't any of consequence.
+ Nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people - who could seriously claim the invasion was a humanitarian intervention?
Partisans from the left claim Bush is stupid, evil, or both. This is patently false - despite his stutters he's not a stupid man, and he believes his actions best serve his country. Partisans from the right claim that the invasion of Iraq was morally justified as it removed Saddam. Most fail to see the real reasons behind the invasion – it’s easier and simpler to trust the government, believe we are the superior heroes, and think that a bad man is now in jail. Saddam's removal was a welcome result, but the real consequences of the decision to invade - thousands of civilian deaths, an increase in terrorism, international political division - have far outweighed any positives from this immoral invasion.
The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell. I just pray that this group is voted out in November – these are dark, dark days.
-- James
[1]
Remarks to the United Nations Security Council Secretary Colin L. Powell. New York City February 5, 2003
[2.1]
Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda
[2.2]
BBC - Saddam 'wary of jihad fighters'
[3] [broken link removed]
[4] [broken link removed]
[5]
CNN March 14, 2003
[6]
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
[7]
PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defenses – 1997
[8]
Project for the New American Century
[9]
PNAC Membership
[10] Ron Suskind “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill”
[11] [broken link removed]
[12]
BBC Report on Middle East Water scarcity 