I couldn't disagree more. Examples of this country acting out in revenge are rare and don't even influence as much as pragmatism. When it was apparent that WMD would not be found in Iraq, the Administration wisely switched gears and resold the war as a war for the freedom of the Iraqi people. They did this for a simple reason...they knew that it would gain traction with the American public. Doesn't sound like a blood-thirsty, vengeful population to me.
I think one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was that we needed a full-scale conventional war to ease our collective psyche. The idea that a bunch of average guys with box cutters could bring down an entire city is very disturbing. We don't know where or when the next attack is coming from. We were scared. Afghanistan provided an easy target. But since we did not capture Osama or destroy any significant military force, it was not easy to declare victory. What we needed was another stationary target. A target substantial enough to seem important, but weak enough to offer little official resistance. Thanks to its troubles with the UN, Iraq was the logical choice. The Iraq war gave us the feeling that we're donig "something" about the war on terror. The real war on terror is being fought with intelligence operations, satellite surveillance, and diplomatic missions--all of which classified, and therefore cannot be shown to the American people. The Bush administration was in a tough situation. They need to calm people's nerves and bring up consumer confidence in the economy. They need something concrete, something we can rally behind. Iraq was a godsend. With Iraq, we can see on CNN that our troops are mobilizing, advancing, conquering, and kicking ass. We also have a villan we might actually catch. We can't beat people with box cutters and powdered envelopes. We can, however, destroy a conventional army. Or so we thought.
Americans want revenge, but, generally speaking, we realize that such feelings should be focused on Al Qaeda and terrorist cells like them who are cowardly enough to attack attack civilians. We don't want revenge on all Arabs.
I think a lot of you have a very low opinion of Americans. I don't know why. I assume that most of you are Americans so this puzzles me. I'm a Chinese YOF so maybe I just don't understand the American psyche. I initially supported the war because of the WMD issue. Almost everyone assumed that Saddam had WMD's. When that did not turn out to be the case, my support for the war waned. If I have known then that there were no WMD's, I would not have supported the war. I think a lot of American's feel the same way I do. The sway in public opinion seems to reflect that. I really don't get the feeling, interacting with you Americans on a daily basis, that you're all a bunch of Arab-hating yahoos.
Well, I agree with Cohen, Droxford and you, langal, so all I can figure is that it's Friday night, and I don't normally drink Belgium beer. (or any beer... I regret it the next day) Kept D&D Civil!!
Geez, let me point out the obvious. Did the notion of fighting a war for the freedom of Iraqi people gain traction with American public? Putting it more bluntly, does American public give a rat's ass about liberating Iraqis had they known there would be at least 1800+ dead, many more wounded, and hundreds of billions $ thrown away with no end in sight? Yes I believe Americans are more pragmatic than idealistic. But how can you call that pragmatism?
I've always known the reason we were fighting the war (see the reason I posted above). Even if we'd found WMD's I would have known the true reason. Would Iraq have been our only enemy with WMD's? No. So why aren't we going after any other enemy countries that have WMD's? Is Iraq the only country that was run by a tryannical leader? No. So why aren't we fighting for democracy and freeing people in all other countries? Isn't it a strange coincidence that we were at war with Iraq just a few years ago in the mid 90's? Hmmm... what was the war about back then? Wasn't it oil? hmmm..... To tell you the truth, I don't know if I do or don't support the war. The war is being fought because of some serious oil issues. I don't really understand those issues. In truth, the only people who truly understand the severity and importance of those issues would be our government leaders (both R and D). It seems that our leaders feel that this oil issue is important enough to sacrifice the lives of a few thousand soldiers. None of us wants to see our soldiers die for a bunch of sand and oil, and especially not when our leaders deceive us. But soldiers follow orders and will die doing so, and for that they will always have my support.Honestly, I don't know enough about the oil situation to be for or against the war. I am a citizen, and I must place my trust into those who have been elected to run this country.
I think the war was fought for several reasons. I don't think control of oil, per se, is the reason. Nor, do I think that there was any great fear about Sadaam's WMD capability. The major decision makers in the Bush administration, except for Powell, wanted to take out Sadaam in the late 90's. 9-11 had nothing to do with this war. Here's what I think this war was about: -Preserving the petrodollar- There was great concern that Saddam was going to eventually be able to sell oil based on the euro, rather than in US petrodollars. The thinking is that once the second largest oil producer changes the currency of oil transactions the other OPEC nations could follow suit and the US economy would be severely damaged. Basing all oil transactions on the US dollar has give the American economy endless adavantages for years. -Strategic reasons- The US was hoping that Iraq would be a quick victory and could pave the way for other action in the region, especially in Syria and Iran. I also think Rumsfield was hoping to use Iraq as a test-case to transform the military to be a more smaller and more rapid force capable of enforcing US policy more frequently around the world. -2004 Elections- The promise of an easy victory in Iraq had obvious political appeal to the Mission Accomplished crowd. You don't have to be Tom Paine, or Nostradamus to figure this out. -Domestic political reasons- W. has oftent lamented the fact that his father didn't use the political capital of winning the first gulf war. Bush looked for victory in Iraq and eventually the 2004 election as an opportunity to do this. His big goal is clear- Bush wants redistribute wealth upwards and put the final nails on the coffin of the New Deal government programs. -Keep his friends happy- The military industrial complex, particularly the new breed of private contractors were going to be taken care of and that has always been a major priority with Bush. The conflicts of interest by the people in all branches of governement who pushed for this war are staggering. They saw Iraq has a great opportunity to make a lot of cash for themselves and their pioneer donors and they sure have.
Honestly I think the are a variety of answers as to why the war was fought. I think somewhere in all the answers are the feelings that it was for a good cause, but I also believe that some members of the adminstration are severely misguided in what a good cause actually is. Cheney - Is in this primarily for oil. Though it isn't just oil greed that is driving his desire. I think he believes that if energy men were running things and could have their way with resources, and no restrictions what so ever holding them back, it would help the U.S. economy, keep us safe from foreign entanglements in the middle east to a large part. Afterall his background his big energy, and it looks to him like they can do a lot of good, or at least somewhere in his life long ago it did, and it forged his philosophy. Once that core philosophy was forged Cheney found govt. regulations, and inability to have energy be the single most important determining factor in governmental policy, he began breaking the law, and becoming ruthless in his pursuit of that philosophy. Over time the ruthless pursuit of his goals consumed him, and he started taking for granted the idea that having an energy oligarchy running the country would actually do good. Soon the mere pursuit of getting the oligarchy running the country became more important than what they would do once they were in charge. It didn't help that Saddam was a bad guy, and this was his chance to win another victory for the oligarchy and extend and increase their power. Somewhere in the back of his mind was the idea that overall good would be done with that power, even if people didn't understand that or wouldn't except it. He believed he knew better. But again that was in the back of his mind, just getting the power had long become his primary concern, and that was all he was focused on. Perl, Wolfowitz, - Believed that it was important to the U.S. to keep its influence active throughout the world. They believed more power for the U.S. couldn't help be a good thing. Discussing things with China they were easily convinced that energy would be a part of that, but it wasn't their main focus like it was that of Cheney. They just wanted power, not for themselves as much as for the U.S. as long as the U.S. was under the control of like minded people. Bush - Knew that Saddam was a bad person and wanted him out. He never much liked details, but he was pretty sure that he couldn't just go in there and kick Saddam out for no reason. Despite his hatred for Saddam he knew that probably wasn't the right thing to do. However his predisposition to hate Saddam made Bush prety to voices like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perl's. They played on his desire to be a tough cowboy who does the right thing even when 'weaker' people tell him he can't. Like the hero he wants to be it will end in triumph and they will all see later that he was right. This is why Cheney was gathering his own intel. He was going to influence the president. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perl and the others convinced Bush that it was necessary to invade, and that it was for the greater good. He did explain that people needed some reasons other than the truth in order to support this grand idea. But it would work out in the end. Besides they all were pretty sure there were some WMD's there. Cheney probably also showed Bush how good taxes, and oil interests would be for the U.S. if they were allowed more freedom to what was right for the nation without those pesky bureaucrats meddling and holding them back. But they warned Bush that yes there would be some sacrifices, and some of the smaller people would be hurt or tossed aside in the process, but all great endeavors required those kinds of sacrifices and as long as those with an understanding of power were allowed enough free reign, thank how glorious America's rise to power under a leader like Bush who had the guts to take the bold moves. Think what history will say, and don't get caught up in the small details of the common man's everyday worries. Bush bought that line of reasoning hook line and sinker. He became firmly convinced that it would be a great unertaking of the U.S. and he wasn't going to be dissuaded by anyone or anything. He would do whatever was necessary, and he wouldn't be afraid to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette. With constant encouragement by others in his administration Bush would toss any rules that got in his way out the window, and make sure this great opportunity for the U.S. didn't slip away. Condi Rice - Was nuetral and her ability to sound reasonable and come up with nice sounding well reasoned lies on the spot made her a valuable asset to the folks mentioned above. She was brought on board, and did her part. She just liked being around the big boys and their big decision making. It was a dream come true.
Hey man - I'm a Chinese guy with a job and a kid and not as smart as you Americans. I don't have time to study everything. Yes I had doubts that WMD's were there. But since the UN was inspecting and Saddam was purportedly giving the inspectors a hard time (such as throwing them out in 1998?), I thought that there were WMD's. Before giving people like me admit they were wrong a hard time - maybe you should take note that those demigods - Kerry, Clinton, et.al. all voted to authorize the war.
Let me point out the obvious to you. I said that the administration pushed the 'Iraqi freedom' concept to the fore AFTER it was apparent that WMD would not be found. They needed to hang their war hat on something that would have resonance with the American public. And although I don't necessarily disagree, I did not claim that Americans were more pragmatic than idealistic. I said they were more pragmatic than vengeful. Last I checked, revenge <> idealism.
No worries there, langal. Many of us non-Chinese have also been called stupid for believing in the existence of saddam's WMDs.
I'll admit I thought Saddam was hiding something from us whether it be WMDs or biological weapons. However, I also believed: 1). Saddam was not an immediate threat 2). NK was more of a threat and also admitted to be building WMDs 3). Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not linked. For 5 years before the invasion of Iraq, everything was the same. US accused Iraq of developing WMDs. Iraq denied it. No proof was found. But after 9/11, not only did the administration point out Iraq was developing WMDs, but ALSO that Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda AND it was an immediate threat. Nevermind, the fact that North Korea ADMITTED to be developing WMDs or the FACT that MOST of the terrorists involved with 9/11 were SAUDIS! Why did we invade Iraq again? WMDs? Iraq-9/11 connection? Immediate threat? Liberation? Oil? Freedom? Uh...yea. If you wanted to get rid of a country developing WMDs, get rid of NK. If you want to attack a country tied with terrorism, attack Saudi Arabia. If you want to bring freedom to oppressed people, there's africa, nk, many other countries in the middle east. Face it, the justification for the Iraq war is weak and a blatant sham.
I say it again, very few Americans supported the war because they are blood thirsty. There are those that do, but most do it because they trust the government and the media too much.
A lot of the reasons that the invasion happened have already been stated. I especially agree with VWiggin's reasons regarding the political need to have a more tangible target and victory in the war on terror than a prolonged hunt for OBL or tracking down Al Qaeda in shadowy battles. Shock and Awe IMO wasn't just meant to cow Iraqis but was also meant to provide a very visible image of the US military actively taking on foes with the unbelievable might at our disposal. That has a much greater psychological affect than seeing special forces crawling through cave after cave or Pakistani police staking out safe houses in Karachi. I also believe there were much more specific political aims involved in the invasion and specifically in the timing of the buildup. I firmly believe that the Bush Admin along with Republican leadership intended to use it as leverage to recapture the Senate in the 2002 election. Admin officials admitted as much when they said "You don't start a campaign, in reference to the lead up to war, before Labor Day." Further the timing of the vote for the war was done before the election and before a UN vote, unlike GH Bush who specifically asked that the Congressional vote for Gulf War I take place after the 1990 election to remove it from politics. Finally there are memos from the RNC stating that Republican candidates should use the invasion of Iraq as an issue in 2002 and also the RNC helped produce ads portraying Dem. candidates that didn't vote for the invasion as being weak on defense or outright traitorous. Unlike many of the anti-war opponents though I do believe that part of the motivation was a belief that invading Iraq was a good thing for US security and that the Admin. honestly believed there were WMD's. In those respects though I think the Admin. got caught up in its own hype and fears and allowed speculation to overrule sober judgement. That combined with the tangential political and economic benefits that they saw out of invading Iraq convinced them that it not only was the right course but one that would be a "slam dunk" success. As for Cindy Sheehan I sympathize for her loss. I believe her son died for a speculative war that was poorly planned. I understand her son was a volunteer and death is a very real consequence of volunteering for that duty but at the minimum we should expect the leadership that sent him into harms way would have done it with much greater consideration of both the case for war and its execution.
