Now that 10 years have passed, I noticed that this question never crossed my mind. It’s like I’ve been convinced all the time that there was a rationale behind the invasion. But now that I tried to remember what the rationale was, I failed to find any convincing reason. Help me revive my memory.
Control of the oil reserves in the area.
As I recall it was because Iraq was supposedly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. There were some claims that Saddam also supported terrorist groups. i.e. He did give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers but I don’t remember any official claims that he had ties to Al-Qaeda. Though there were and still are plenty of Americans who believe he had connections to Al-Qaeda I think the consensus among experts is that this is a ludicrous idea.
This is why.
I don’t think they ever said why. I remember thinking they must have some reasons, not necessarily good reasons, at the time. Maybe even discreditable reasons. Still, reasons.
Maybe training.
Bush had to go with it cause “Saddam tried to kill my daddy.”
The reasons given were:
Saddam has WMDs and was crazy enough to use them.
Saddam was a evil SOB.
Saddam supported terrorism.
- Has truth but was mostly outdated by 2003. Certainly, before Operation Desert Storm Saddam had accumulated a very large stock of chemical weapons, and had used nerve gas on the Kurds. He had been trying to develop nukes too. After OSD, many many chemical weapons went missing. Saddam never accounted for them as required by the UN. SH kept bragging he was rebuilding his WMD armory. He was certainly buying stuff that he claimed was legit but was being used for weapons, which was illegal for him. SH kicked the UN inspectors out and refused to let them back in.
However, after a well deserved THREAT of invasion by the USA, SH let Blix and the UN back in. They couldn’t find anything. Now, right before SH let Blix in, several large mysterious trucks went to Syria (oddly there have been reports of the Syrian government recently using nerve gas). Was there nothing to find or was SH stonewalling him? Still, all those missing chemical warheads, where did they go? SH claimed “he lost them” which no one believed.
Later- turns out- he lost them. We found- old, useless and dangerous only to the environment and hazmat teams- piles of warheads in the desert. It looks like he sent some stuff to Syria, but it couldn’t have been much.
So, in hindsight, this wasn’t a good reason. Blix should have been given more time.
2.Yes, we discovered after the invasion he was even more evil than anyone thought. Still, is that a reason to invade?
3.SH was known to give support to anti-Israeli terrorists. His “support” of Anti-USA terrorists seems to have been almost entirely morale, perhaps some funding. Nothing material or proven other than “Yay, they Bombed the Twin Towers!” .
In the end, in hindsight, all the public reasons were bogus. Did GWB know?
Why did the Shrub want war so badly? We’ll never know. I don’t think he knows. Maybe it was to make him look like a hero. Maybe to avenge SH attempt on Bush the elder. Maybe it was for oil. Maybe he had some deep plan to show the rest of the world that the USA could kick ass.
My personal guess? Rove and Cheny wanted to funnel trillions to their buddies. The Shrub was but a tool.
Because GWB had to attack sombody after 9/11, and it sure as shit wasn’t going to be Saudi Arabia or Afganistan.
Dude? Unless this is the most feeble attempt at a whoosh in the history of the SDMB- we did invade Afganistan after 9/11.
Spent a while reading that, the link to the BBC from post #3 is pretty telling.
I almost had to vomit
If even a tiny part of that is true, we as Americans deserve the hate, scorn and vengeance we shall surely reap from the rest of the World. There will be a reckoning for this, or in a decent World there would be.
Capt
As noted, we did attack Afghanistan. But finding bin Laden wasn’t as easy as Little Boots thought it would be (especially after boasting about how we were tracking him :smack: ), so he did what Saddam Hussein did in South Park: 'What? Hey, no… look over there! :eek: ’
And it was only going to cost a total of about $1.7 billion, so why not?
The article to which BrainGlutton linked provides one view of the motives.
However, there is more to the “Plan B” than that post describes. The Neo-Cons mentioned in the article were part of a larger group of people who had formed the think tank, Project for the New American Century. (The 20th Century was the old American Century.)
They believed that the U.S. had the right and obligation to shape the world in the manner that it deemed most appropriate. One of its key concepts was the need to establish an “American” style democracy in the Middle east that would, through its social and economic successes, become a beacon to all the other Middle Eastern nations to switch over to a similar form of government and economic system. It had to be a country that was sufficiently populous with sufficient wealth to actually provide influence in the region. Syria was populous, but lacking in wealth. Jordan was neither wealthy nor populous. Lebanon was shattered and had become a Syrian puppet and Israeli military playground. Iran would have been ideal, had it not had an overwhelming hostility against the U.S. after suffering under a U.S. imposed dictator for decades. And so it went with Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. Saudi Arabia and Egypt had their own problems, not least being that they were nominal allies of the U.S., making a hostile takeover problematic from the perspective of imposing “democracy.” Iraq was chosen as the best prospect for such an activity. It did not hurt that Iraq was already mistrusted by all its neighbors (save Syria), and had significant oil reserves.
Paul Wolfowitz wrote a naive paper in the late 1990s that was pretty much a masterpiece of ignorance, in which he expressed the idea that the Iraqi people would be delighted to simply fall in line with “American” ideals in the fashion of Germany and Japan following WWII, completely ignoring the artificial nature of the nation of Iraq: the ethnic and religious conflicts that already governed most of its internal politics. (Hussein and the Ba’ath party were already spending significant resources suppressing the nationalist impulses of the Kurds and religious infighting among Sunni and Shi’a.) He also claimed that the oil reserves in Iraq could be used to “repay” any effort the U.S. expended to “liberate” that country, totally ignoring the fact that Iraq was massively indebted to a number of Gulf region nations following the the Iraq-Iran War and the First Gulf War and could not hope to “repay” the U.S. under its existing debt load.
The members of the PNAC loved his paper and began pushing it in Washington whenever they could. At some point, they picked up George W. Bush as a member and he, in turn, heavily populated his administration with PNAC members.
Prior to the 2000 election, (at least as early as 1999), GWB publicly expressed an interest in carrying out something similar to the Wolfowitz plan.
There has been speculation that GWB felt that his father had made a serious mistake by not taking out Hussein in the First Gulf War and was further angered at Hussein for the clumsy assassination attempt on his father in Yemen in 1993. Those motives remain speculative. Whatever else he thought, GWB definitely had bought in to the PNAC rhetoric and expressed a desire to overthrow Hussein and, probably, impose an “American” style democracy long before he took office as president.
He did not make any overt moves to carry out such a plan in the first eight months in office, but when the WTC/Pentagon attack occurred, he saw that as the opening he needed to overthrow Hussein and, beginning September 12, 2001, he was quite vocal within the White House that the WTC/Pentagon attack provided the perfect opportunity to carry out the PNAC goals.
And ultimately because it could and its people let it.
Naval Aviator, Ambassador to the United Nations, envoy to China, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Vice President of the United States, President of the United States…
Yeah, I can see how Duh-bya could think he knew the dynamics of diplomacy and war-making, better than his father.
The links by Brain Glutton are very interesting. Of course one can read about similar cynicism and greed in our leadership’s dealings with other newly liberated countries.
But other key advisers had different motives. Kissinger (a key GWB adviser despite that he never swallowed the Friedmanist nor Gog-and-Magog Kool-Aid) is quoted by Woodward as supporting the invasion because he wanted “to humiliate radical Islam.” Invading just Afghanistan wouldn’t humiliate them enough. And Rumsfeld? Frankly, I think he just needed a big war as a final bullet for his résumé.
And of course Iraq was picked as a target not because it was a threat, but because it wasn’t! Iran and North Korea were much more significant long-term threats but would have been much harder to defeat.
So Iraq was devastated, suffering hundreds of thousands of deaths and other bad consequences. The U.S. wasted a trillion dollars or two in the adventure, but that was just taxpayer money – people who matter were enriched. The very existence of an SDMB thread “Who deserves/deserved more hatred: Bush or Obama?” is too mind-boggling for words.
(This last comment is not directed against you, Mr. Glutton. I think you know the answer to your own question. 
)
ETA: “Yeah, I can see how Duh-bya could think he knew the dynamics of diplomacy and war-making, better than his father.”
I’ve read hints that GWB’s refusal to accept advice from one of the most logical sources was psychological.
Seriously? You never asked the question, or encountered anyone else asking it? How old were you back then? Did you spend all these years hiding under . . . “Iraq”?
Because of 9/11, and the fear that created.
The most powerful nation on the planet sucker punched while its intelligence services were looking the other way.
It created the opportunity for the neo-cons to take charge of a war budget.
$1Trillion of public funds fed into the defense and oil companies that they control.
For this they dealt with uninvolved foreign powers that were out of favour, like Iraq, by devastating them, letting them fall into civil war and rendering that part of the Middle East dangerous and unstable. A pointless war.
Was this more to do with internal US politics that anything else?
Huh. And here I thought it was because W wanted to catch Saddam, when his daddy didn’t.
Just a peeing contest between Pop and Junior?
Follow the money…who got richer?
I thought Naomi Klien nailed the neo-con ideology in a 2004 article for Harpers. Extract: