# Seriously, why the war in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291 "2005-08-16T17:10:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/21 "2005-08-16T23:32:40Z")
> [@eponymous](#): > > Because if one of the reasons WAS truly to install a (legitimate) democracy, then the administration couldn’t have a worse job. I believe the thinking is (and was): “Eh… It’s worth a shot.” And from a very high level political perspective (partisanship aside), it was. The difference being, one administration thinks it was a risk worth taking, the other does not. Nobody could predict the outcome up front. Because of SH’s Stalinist style of leadership, Iraq was the most secular country of all its neighbours. If deposing SH won the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims, this might have been the start of the revolution against Muslim radicalism. Once again, this was not a certainty but a calculated gamble made by this admistration. They lost because they over estimated the political will and ability of moderates and under estimated the influence and strength of the fundamentalists. The irony of the “liberation”, as far as we can see today, has turned Iraq into a more radicalized state. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/22 "2005-08-17T00:12:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Gee that’s frightening. Tie it in with the Downing Street memo and it is clear that 9/11 was just a pretext for the Iraq war. > > The Clinton administration, in contrast, saw Al Queda as the biggest threat to national security. I have to say (not in relevance to you **DanBlather** in particular) but Goddamn it! Why do more people not know about this? This “liberal media” sucks!. To paraphrase Homer Simpson “it’s the suckiest thing that ever sucked!” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/23 "2005-08-17T00:21:00Z")
> [@eponymous](#): > > Well…here’s where I think your wrong I’m sure there were those in the administration would looked at it from this perspective, but I don’t think it mattered (from a strategic perspective) whether Iraq was democratic or not - just so long as it was compliant. If we could induce some sort of democratization, it caught hold and spread, then so much the better. I think it was part of the philosophy of those around Bush (and probably Bush himself)…i.e. to bring democracy to the world. Some call this the ‘neo-con’ philosophy and I think it WAS a factor. How much of a factor? I’m unsure, but I do believe it was significant in their planning. Obviously if you COULD bring democracy to the ME by planting a seed and then having it grow, that would be a great thing for the US…a region of vital strategic importance would go from being a powder keg to being peaceful partners and…customers for our goods and services, and providers of what we desparately need. > [@eponymous](#): > > Because if one of the reasons WAS truly to install a (legitimate) democracy, then the administration couldn’t have a worse job. Just because they couldn’t bring it off doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of their planning…it just means they screwed the pooch, yes? And the jury is still out for a while longer on just how screwed this pooch is. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Yeah, the same idiots who couldn’t tell the fucking truth about it. You expected truth from a politician? My, you ARE optimistic. -XT ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/24 "2005-08-17T00:33:42Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > …snip… If deposing SH won the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims, this might have been the start of the revolution against Muslim radicalism. Once again, this was not a certainty but a calculated gamble made by this admistration. **They lost because they over estimated the political will and ability of moderates and under estimated the influence and strength of the fundamentalists.** The irony of the “liberation”, as far as we can see today, has turned Iraq into a more radicalized state. Right, and this is something we haven’t seemed to learn our lesson on, too. The Bay of Pigs plan also relied on locals going “Yay, here come the Americans! Let’s drop our arms and join them in overthrowing our tyrannical dictatorship!” And we still pay the idiots who come up with this claptrap. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/25 "2005-08-17T01:54:06Z")
One thing that comes to mind is the old cliche “If all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” The U.S. has a superb military manned by brave competent men and women equipped with awesome tech. Unfortunately our diplomatic and intelligence skills have been faltering, and our counter-terror abilities were all but non-existent prior to 9/11 and have not improved much since. After 9/11 there was a lot of talk in the air about how we were in a new paradigm. 9/11 was an act of war and we must respond militarily. The old “law-enforcement” paradigm hadn’t worked, and the new “war” paradigm was what was needed. You heard a lot of this from various conservative commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer and the late Micheal Kelly. The problem is that there really isn’t that much the military can do against Al Qaeda, or any other terror group. The only role it had was the Afghan invasion. Once the Taliban was destroyed, it was just down to some difficult, dreary nation-building. (Although I think we let an opportunity slip by in Tora Bora.) After Afghanistan, what could we do? The only real task would have been to pursue AQ and Taliban fighters into Pakistan, but this was politically impossible, for various reasons. (At least on a large scale.) So once the Afghan war ceased major operations, there really wasn’t anything for the military to do. Counter-terror would return to the realm of law-enforcement, diplomacy, and intelligence. The conservative commentators were simply, and obviously wrong. There is no real war on terror. The military would serve a vital role in going after AQ supporting states, but the only real one was Afghanistan, and we already did that. AQ is a loosely ordered criminal gang, not a nation that can be attacked and defeated in battle. So we had to keep the war paradigm going. Where to attack? North Korea has Nukes, Iran is mountainous and huge, Pakistan is our ally more or less, so that leaves Iraq. In short one of the motives in attacking Iraq, IMO, was simply to keep the military part of the War on Terror going, because that’s what we know how to do. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/26 "2005-08-17T07:03:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think it was part of the philosophy of those around Bush (and probably Bush himself)…i.e. to bring democracy to the world. Some call this the ‘neo-con’ philosophy and I think it WAS a factor. I’m not saying it wasn’t a component in the administration’s thinking. But it makes more sense (to me at least) that, from a strategic perspective (and one in which the military would play a vital role) whether or not Iraq was a democracy or not wasn’t as important as 1) getting rid of Saddam and 2) having a compliant Iraqi government in place in order to establish a presence in country. Which is why Chalabi was getting a lot of support from the DoD (and others) in the run up to the war. The thought was that we would be able to influence the new government with Chalabi in place. That certainly didn’t go as expected. Plus, if democratization was such an important component, surely the administration foresaw the possibility that the people (via their elected representatives in a new democracy) might not be as compliant as hoped for (from a strategic perspective). Without a compliant Iraq, then the possibility of establishing a permanent presence in Iraq is lessened. Which therefore lessens the chance of achieving a strategic goal. The only kind of democratization I can see in the administration’s planning was more along the lines of a democracy compliant to the wishes of the US (Chalabi, et al. in place in a newly formed democracy to our liking). In essence, an imposed democracy in name only. > [@](#): > > Just because they couldn’t bring it off doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of their planning…it just means they screwed the pooch, yes? And the jury is still out for a while longer on just how screwed this pooch is. Well…Fido may not have “shot his load” just yet, but he’s been pumping Fifi for quite a while, though 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/27 "2005-08-17T09:52:39Z")
They invaded Iraq [because they could](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283398). It worked: they won. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/28 "2005-08-17T16:18:39Z")
> [@sixball](#): > > Seriously, why the war in Iraq? Facetiously, it was time to make Great Strides. > [@sixball](#): > > I don’t know everything the US government is privy to, but I couldn’t convince myself to feel threatened by Saddam. There is logical fallacy in there somewhere… ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/29 "2005-08-17T16:43:07Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think it was part of the philosophy of those around Bush (and probably Bush himself)…i.e. to bring democracy to the world. > -XT I suspect that the a great many Iraqi’s would give up the right to vote just to have reliable water and sewer service, electricity for more than a couple hours and day, and freedom from the fear that they’re going to be blown into many, many little pieces. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/30 "2005-08-17T17:19:26Z")
[Bush’s economic invasion of Iraq](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-juhasz14aug14,0,11886.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) > [@](#): > > \*\*Laws governing banking, investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media and trade have all been changed according to U.S. goals, with little real participation from the Iraqi people. (The TAL can be changed, but only with a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly, and with the approval of the prime minister, the president and both vice presidents.) The constitutional drafting committee has, in turn, left each of these laws in place. > > A central component of the Bush economic agenda is foreign corporate access to, and privatization of, Iraq’s once state-run economy. Thus, an early Bremer order allowed foreign investment in and the privatization of all 192 government-owned industries (excluding oil extraction). > > After the election of the transitional government, the Ministry of Industry and Minerals fell right in line, announcing plans to partially privatize most of its 46 state-owned companies and open them to foreign investment as part of a plan to establish a “liberal, free-market economy.” > > Oil is, of course, at the heart of the agenda. In 2004, U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi submitted guidelines to Iraq’s Supreme Council for Oil Policy suggesting that the “Iraqi government disengage from running the oil sector … and that the [Iraq National Oil Company] be partly privatized in the future” and opened to international foreign investment, according to International Oil Daily. (U.S oil imports from Iraq increased by more than 86% between 2003 and 2004 alone.) > > Plans for a new Iraqi oil law were made public last December at a news conference in Washington hosted by the U.S. government. The U.S.-appointed interim Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi explained that the new law would be “very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.” > > A few weeks later, Mehdi became one of Iraq’s two vice presidents and Allawi was elected to the National Assembly. Iraq’s new oil law is on track for implementation in 2006. > > Finally, consider Iraq’s reconstruction, which also remains firmly under U.S. control. One of Bremer’s orders denied the Iraqi government the ability to give preference to Iraqis in the reconstruction effort. Instead, more than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts totaling more than $50 billion, more than twice the GDP of Iraq. Halliburton has the largest, worth more than $11 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies are earning more than $1.5 billion each. > > These contractors answer to the U.S. government not the Iraqi people, several thousand of whom in the last few days have protested the failure of U.S. companies to provide accessible water, sanitation and electricity at pre-war levels. Iraqis argue that they have the knowledge, skill and experience to conduct the reconstruction themselves; what they need is the money and decision-making control that they are being denied.\*\* I can see why the Iraqis are thilled democracy has arrived. Well, _some_ of them anyway…like the ones inside The Green Zone making a killing working for American and personal interests. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/31 "2005-08-17T17:29:05Z")
As for the answer to the OP, how about the abridged version? The point was to install a nice little pro-western faux-democracy which would offer salutary oil deals to the US, leave Israel alone and rubber-stamp the establishment of US military bases right-smack in the bullseye of the Middle east. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/32 "2005-08-17T17:47:52Z")
The London Review of Books featured an essay on this topic (among others) [Blood for Oil?](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n08/reto01_.html): > [@](#): > > what the Iraq adventure represents is less a war for oil than a radical, punitive restructuring of the conditions necessary for expanded profitability – it paves the way, in short, for new rounds of American-led dispossession and capital accumulation. This was a neo-liberal putsch, made in the name of globalisation and free-market democracy. It was intended as the prototype of a new form of military neo-liberalism. Oil was especially visible at this moment of extra-economic imposition because, as it turned out, oil revenues were key to the planning and financing of the military exercise itself, and to the reconstruction of the Iraqi ‘emerging market’. > … > This is the proper frame for understanding what has happened in Iraq. It is only as part of this neo-liberal firmament, in which a dominant capitalist core has begun to find it harder and harder to benefit from ‘consensual’ market expansion or corporate mergers and asset transfers, that the preference for the military option makes sense. Worth a full read. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/33 "2005-08-17T18:38:44Z")
Another interesting [article](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html), along the lines of oil and strategic interests. Too bad they fucked it up and handed that interest to Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/34 "2005-08-17T19:01:21Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > strategic interests. You know, if they _really_ want those permanent bases out in the Iraqi desert, sooner or later they’re going to have to grow the balls needed to mention them in public. Are these sites preconditions to the US accepting a new sovereign government or not? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/35 "2005-08-17T19:41:01Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Are these sites preconditions to the US accepting a new sovereign government or not? Not that I’m aware. But think about it, **Squink** , how much of stretch is it to say that the current ‘sovereign’ government’s very existance is contingent on the continuing presence of American forces on their soil? Bases simply mean a way of trying to fade into the background while remaining very much in charge - a monetary compromise good for both ruling sides. Beyond that, do you really believe that after investing so much blood and treasure in Iraq, the US is simply going to walk away? Hell, for that matter, that’s not even an _option_ being tabled by the only _significant_ political opposition in the US. About the only way I see the US out of Iraq is by way of Vietnam – lots of further bloodshed, significant amounts of it, _your own_, and a swelling grassroots opposition to the occupation that leads to a politically untenable stand vis-a-vis continuation of same. In that sense, I think you’ve only just begun, for the loosely labelled ‘anti-war movement’ lacks any sort of unifying stand and/or cohesive goals, and, worst of all, _real_ leadership. In the current climate is still too risky for the Big Guns to get involved for fear of losing political capital, or even worse, being labelled as anti-Americans, Extreme Left, undermining the troops, etc. But surely you realize that it’s going to take someone other than a Michael Moore, a Cincy Sheehan or even a Senator Byrd or Kennedy. Doesn’t matter that they might be right in most of their pronouncements, too “out there” is the current concensus. It’s in your – collective – hands to make the necessary changes. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/36 "2005-08-17T19:45:48Z")
Completely seriously, the goal of US invasion was to pre-empt the fall of Saddam. Saddam was old, ill and no longer capable to run Iraq. Most likely, the country was run in his name for a few years before the invasion. Such things are common in MIddle East (Saddam himself was a shadow ruler for few years, before openly assuming powers in late 1970-s). Saddam fall was considered imminent and decision was made to put US troops in Iraq before it happens. All the evidence we have points in that direction. Saddam was found abandoned and totally disoriented, his life was spared. His sons were killed, because they still presented a threat. Really powerful people either escaped or were eliminated quietly. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/37 "2005-08-17T19:49:33Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > You know, if they _really_ want those permanent bases out in the Iraqi desert, sooner or later they’re going to have to grow the balls needed to mention them in public. > > Are these sites preconditions to the US accepting a new sovereign government or not? To be honest, I never questioned their inevitability. That there will be bases allways seemed to go without saying. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/38 "2005-08-17T20:04:21Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I understood the OP quite well. And I also know the poster I was responding to was/is an avowed backer of this Administration in the Iraq matter. > > Thus I responded to the royal “we” used in his very first sentence: Ok, I understand your point about the royal “we.” > [@](#): > > Beyond that, this is GD. So even if someone is making the case “from the perspective of” the Administration, it’s not really a green light for posting nonsense. Here I would disagree with you. If you are trying to step back and, without personal bias regarding the issue, determine what someone else’s motives were, then you will potentially end up with reasons some might consider non-sense. As for your most recent post, I personally think most (not all) of the reasons you posted are basically accurate. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/39 "2005-08-18T16:31:36Z")
Another factor in the oil game is that the modern military runs on oil. When (not if) the House of Saud loses control of Saudi Arabia, the new rulers would effectively be able to cripple our war machine by embargoing oil. Before the invasion, that would have meant that we would be beholden to a presumable revolutionary Islamic theocracy on the one hand and Sadaam Hussein on the other hand in order to keep the planes flying and the tanks rolling. The idea was that after the invasion, we would be militarily in control of the second-largest oil reserve in the world and would not therefore be beholden to an Islamicist government in Saudi Arabia in order to keep the military functioning. Now, IMHO, that’s probably pretty good strategic thinking in a game-of-Risk sort of way, but morally it boils down to a war for resources. That’s the thing we fought against in the World Wars of the 20th Century, that’s the sort of thing we set up the United Nations to prevent, and that’s the sort of thing that has no place in the civilized world. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291/40 "2005-08-18T23:59:39Z")
The real reasons for going into this war were quite credible. I guess that the Bush administration was just so used to lying that at this point they just simply forgot how to tell the truth. But why? If they would have just said that the only way to stop radical Islamic philosophy from spreading was to set up a working democracy in the heart of the middle east, would anyone disagree with them? Are Americans that dumb not to see radical Islam as a threat? Usually, after digging through the bullshit that Bush puts up as reasons for his policy one finds motives of political gain or greed. In this case, the policy was a good one, but might have gotten a lot of Muslims upset and therefor is no good for the never ending campaign Bush is running. The hidden motives of an administration that can’t fathom what it means to be truthful might never be reveled. If anyone is going to judge this war it should be based on the way it was carried out and its results. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-why-the-war-in-iraq/317291.md?page=3)