I am being honest here, and I am curiously wondering why we decided to start the Iraq War. I will just list a few of the justifications that were emphasized at different points. (1) Middle East House Cleaning
IMHO after 911, Bush decided that he needed to do a little Middle East house cleaning. Lord knows that that area of the world is in a huge mess and something needs to be done about it. I was always against the war, but I wasn’t so against the idea of taking action in such a sense. Had Bush decided to go to war against North Korea I would have considered it. Anyway, thats enough of that, so we have one justification here. This was never overtly stated, of course, but I believe that some variation of this was the real justification for the war. No I don’t believe in Blood for Oil. I think that Bush wanted to show how badass we are and do it on the cheap and prove that we can do it multiple times. If Iraq were stabalized last May then I think we would have gone on to Syria.
Now on to the stated reasons: Here is a webpage containing the justifications coming from the Horse’s Mouth.
(2) Imminent Danger:
Bush stated on January 29, 2002 in the SOTU that Iraq was dangerous and had weapons. This was the famous Axis of Evil speech and it clued us in that maybe he wanted to start a war in Iraq, or at least rachet up the rhetoric a bit. Obviously this was the reason why we went to the UN and this was the whole point of the weapons inspections. This was IMO just a cover to get the world to agree with the war to fulfill justification 1. This was used as the major justification up to the point where it became pretty obvious that they didn’t have any, or at least not in any sort of threatening sense. This is my opinion of course, but the fact that the Bushies don’t use it anymore would be telling.
(3) Humanitarian
This one seemed to be there too, but became much more popular as it became obvious that weapons wouldn’t be found. Obviously Saddam was a bad man, and it is very clear that he did bad things. This was used a lot more later on, IIRC.
There are obviously more little sub-justifications like terrorist connections in Iraq or the fact that we are fighting for Iraqi freedom too, but I have noticed that recently the administration hasn’t been saying much at all about why we started the war to begin with. If we had found WMD, Bush would be mentioning it everytime Iraq came up. If we had found Al-Queda connections, then that would also be in there too. If Iraqis would have been complacent in the “liberation” then we would have a different story there too.
I am just wondering what the current justification for the war is. I am not looking so much for the personal beliefs, but rather the right-wing meme. The reason why I want to know is that there is an emerging “ungrateful” meme. I just can’t see how that jibes anymore.
Fine, but that does not explain anything. We could invade Cuba and be assured of a military victory, but that “just because we can” doesn’t explain why we invaded Iraq and not Cuba.
Folks who have the President’s ear have had an irrational obsession with Saddam for more than a decade. Just like folks who had Reagan’s ear had an irrational obsession with the Sandinistas. And some in the sixties had an obsession with the missile gap.
As far why we started the war one year ago, I think it was 85% because of weather. It reminds me of the historian – was it AJP Taylor? – who argued that World War I started not because of the intent of any of the countries involved, but because of train timetables.
I think the reason that comes closest is (1), along with Ravenman’s irrational obsession idea. I think that the neo-cons have this view of the world where the U.S. has to exercise its muscle and if the other “problem” countries realize its “our way or the highway” (i.e., we’ll overthrow you) then they will fall into line. And, obviously, the strategic need to have a study oil supply and not have actors we don’t like in that very strategic part of the world played into it.
I can’t believe that they really ever thought of Iraq as an imminent danger, even if they did expect to find at least some actual WMDs there.
And, as for the humanitarian reasons, they are just rationalizations mainly. Clearly, we (and in particular, the neo-con types) pick and choose which bad humanitarian actors we care about and which we ignore or even strongly support.
Well, there is that whole matter of losing the support of the Saudi government and feeling the need to maintain a strongly friendly government to establish our presence in the region…
May be something to the irrational obsession too, though. I mean, this administration certainly behaves irrationally (cite: the belief that we are being attacked for no reason other than hatred for freedom).
In the end, it’s all about the oil – or, as the neocons would say it, “securing American interests abroad.”
Just go to the PNAC web site and dig around for their papers, especially the pre-Bush Administration stuff – almost every mention of Saddam is coupled with dire warnings about how a sizable chunk of the world’s oil supply is at stake.
And remember, Dick Cheney is one of those PNAC neocons, so it’s not as if they weren’t thinking about this previously.
“Blood for oil” might be a well-worn catchphrase, but it’s also the answer that explains more points than any others. Everything else – ousting Saddam, cleaning up the Middle East, etc. – are merely beneficial side effects.
I think all of you are missing a really important point.
The conflict that began in 1990, with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, has never ended.
I served in the Navy in the Mediterrenean theater in the mid-90’s. Supposedly, this was several years after the Gulf War. Yet our military was still maintaining a continuous presence in the Persian Gulf, and patrolling the no-fly zones every day.
Saddam Hussein would occasionally fire on the planes in the no-fly zones, which was a direct violation of the cease-fire agreement. Another violation of that agreement was his refusal to let in weapons inspectors. He also plotted to kill the first President Bush, which led, along with the other things, to cruise missile strikes ordered by President Clinton.
I ask you, honestly, does this really sound like a peaceful, normal state of relations we were maintaining with Iraq? It wasn’t. It was a continuous conflict for more than ten years, and all the Bush administration did was push the war to a conclusion.
They did so by pressing Saddam to live up to committments he made to stop the fighting in 1991. When he was unwilling to do so, the end came for him.
It really isn’t much more complex than that. The situation as it existed, with Saddam Hussein flouting the cease fire he had agreed to, wasn’t tenable.
When did he refuse to let in weapons inspectors? They were there until like 1998 when they were withdrawn (not thrown out) because it was felt that Saddam was not cooperating with them. He refused to cooperate because he argued that there was spying for the U.S. going on within the UNSCOM group…charges that were later argued to be true in investigated reports by a few major U.S. newspapers, citing both U.N. and U.S. sources. (See here.)
And, he let inspectors back in during the months leading up to the current war.
Was Saddam a bad guy? No doubt.
Was it necessary and wise (or even within the bounds of international law) to go in and overthrow him? The case so far has not been made…Or the case that has been made has pretty much fallen apart under the weight of lies, deception, and poor intelligence.
Except that it hasn’t concluded. In addition, we’re expected to keep an even larger number of troops committed there for the next few years. Also, we’ve got plans to put in permanent military bases and the world’s largest US embassy.
Our relationship with, and presence in Iraq will expend considerably more resource intensive than before. This would mean that we upped the levels of resource commitment for the purpose of upping the levels of resource commitment.
This does benefit those who hold interests in “defense industries” (Trireme Partners etc).
What benefits accrue to the American electorate from this large increase in the levels of resource commitment?
Mea culpa. Change that to a refusal to allow unfettered inspections.
SimonX, you’re asking what benefits accrue to America for fighting a war and then staging an occupation and reconstruction? I’m not sure I understand why you frame things in quite that way.
The war that began in 1990 was not started by America. It was started by Saddam Hussein.
Now that it has been taken to the occupation and reconstruction phase, there is an obligation on America to the prople of Iraq that has nothing to do with the benefits to the American electorate.
The inspections just before the war were far less fettered than the pre-98 inspections. The UN inspectors were entering the palaces. Hans Blix said on Fresh Air that they were able to check out the sites where US intelligence said there were weapons. They didn’t find any. Blix said he thought Saddam had WMDs until none of the US intelligence checked out. Which I think was one reason for the timing - it was becoming increasingly clear that the WMD claim was a load of crap, and Bush had to start the war before it became totally discredited. The weather certainly had something to do with it.
The no-fly zone argument is bogus. We managed to probe and be probed by the Russians for over 40 years without starting a war. You are probably too young to remember the Pueblo incident, we didn’t start a war then either. You don’t go starting a war on such feeble pretenses, unless you want to anyway. Anyhow, do you have a cite for a claim by the Adminstration that this was justification? I think this was too weak an argument even for them.
…after American President George H. W. Bush (Sr.) told Saddam Hussein that America had no interest in Iraq’s “territorial disputes” with Kuwait. And, after Iraq invaded, Bush Sr. began a hard sell for the Iraq war, including the use of imaginary stories of Kuwaiti babies ripped from incubators by Iraqi soldiers to rally the citizenry – a tactic his son used in 2003, with fabricated stories of Iraqis fed into giant plastic shredders.
But the real benefit of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was that it allowed Bush Sr. to scare the Saudis with fake satellite photos showing Iraqi troop buildup on the Iraq/Saudi Arabia border. Thus spooked, the Saudis allowed the United States to build military bases in their country for protection – an act that ended up pissing off a nutjob named Osama bin Laden.
Amazing how these lies end up circling to bite us in the ass, ainnit?
That is not for you or even for the USA to say. It was a conflict between Iraq and the UN and it is up to the UN to decide if it has ended or not.
I am going to need a cite for that. Because AFAIK the no fly zones were not UN authorised but were unilaterally imposed by the USA. So I expect your cite to correct my misunderstanding.
Again, this was UN business and it was for the UN to decide what was enough to comply or to be in default. Not for the USA.
I thought this had been debunked but even if you believe this it is a lousy excuse for this war. Lousy.
The belligerent USA was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The USA arrogantly told the UN what the UN should accept and when the UN had other views the USA, like a spoiled brat, went alone.
It is quite a bit more complex than that. Simple analysis may have the advantage of their simplicity but have the disadvantage of being wrong.
I’ve an old-fashioned notion about war being the “greatest affair of state.” An undertaking that shouldn’t be begun lightly. Before a state engages in warfare, there should be serious considerations. The primary and penultimate question that must be answered is how does this conflict benefit the state. If you can’t answer that one, none of the rest are relevant.
I hope that explains why I “frame things in quite that way.”
Actually, that was a seperate war. If it were still the same war, there’d’ve been no reason for the Congress to approve the use of military force in 2002 as they’d already done so in 1991.
That war was fought at the behest of the UN.
Actually, we undertook those responsibilities long before we reached “the occupation and reconstruction phase.” We took on those responsibilities when it was decided that we go to war.
It’s absolutely-no-way-around-it imperitive that before a nation decides to go to war, the question of what benefits the nation will derive from the massive expense of blood and treasure be adequately answered.
What do you mean “cite”? To use the infamous phrase: “My post is my cite”. I am saying that whether it is true or not that Saddam tried to have Bush the elder killed, it is a lousy excuse for invading Iraq ten years later. What do you want? A sworn affidavit affirming I really do believe it is a lousy excuse for killing many thousands of Iraqis and invading their country? I promise I really do believe it is a lousy excuse. Lousy.
Regarding the justification of an incoming Summer, I don´t buy that at all; I haven´t heard one word saying how the effectiveness of the occupation forces was negatively affected during the past Summer or would be in the incoming hot season. After all, this days tanks, bombers and attack helicopters have A/C, is not as if the invasion plan consisted of crossing the desert on mules. :rolleyes:
I have only found one reference so far that claims the “Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush” story is false:
To be honest, unless there’s more information to corroborate this, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the notion that Saddam did make plans to try and assassinate ol’ #41.