Semi-Daily Journal

So, all the time we were aiming to build a Shiite democracy show-case in Iraq. We do nation building, a domino falls and the middle east is democratic.

The Domino Democracy theory is the most self-consistant motive outside the "Revenge For Daddy" hypothesis, the "We must invade SOMEBODY to make us appear strong", and the "Help Halliburton" hypothesis.

Since there is a natural dilike for the "Revenge", "Invade" and "Halliburton" hypotheses, the domino democracy one actually is the most attractive, as it presumes only ignorance, rather than malice, as the reason for invasion.

>"...a domino falls and the middle east is democratic."

Ixnay on the ominoesday, lise

>Published on Friday, March 14, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times

>Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'

>A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say...

>by Greg Miller

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-06.htm

As somebody or other once allegedly told another curious sleuth, "Follow the money:"

>Blood Money

>By William Rivers Pitt

>Thursday 27 February 2003

>"...The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.

>PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.

>Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.

>Who is PNAC? Its members include...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

...In THIS case however, it's "strong petrodollars" you need to "follow"...

>BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

>As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil..."

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

...But please lise, DO be careful in there with that magnifying glass of yours.

Because, if you're NOT careful, you COULD get some Likudnik "pickle juice" in your eyes...

>The spies who pushed for war

>Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

>Thursday July 17, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

No, there are two reasons for the invasion:

(1) The US and the UK were facing an impasse on the matter of Iraqi sanctions; the two nations were absorbing all the blame for the huge loss of life, while Saddam's control over the Iraqi state was, if anything, growing; the US/UK risked a loss of face in any conceivable post-sanction world in which Saddam was in power.

(2) There was a desire on the part of the Bush entourage to expropriate the oil rents of Iraq; there has always been a profound ideological antipathy to the concept of national ownership of resources on the part of the US energy industry and their goal is to see this entire sector in private hands.

Brad,

I think you might have missed the point. I think the idea--which was still bonkers--was that a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq would give us oil (oops, I mean room) to move away from the Wahabbist Saudis. Without an alternative, the Saudi's have us over a barrel.

And though I think this hypothesis sounds a little better, it's still as dangerously disconnected from reality as any of the myriad other explanations for the decision to remove Saddam.

The problem with discarding theories such as Cole's on the basis that the administration didn't do the things (such as rapid restoration of order and basic services) that the theory implies is that you're assuming perfectly-informed, rational, competent actors.

Pick any zero.

You write, "An administration that wanted to build a 'secular, democratic' Iraq would have followed up the invasion with a massive reconstruction and rebuilding effort."

But that's only true if the administration was also in the habit of budgeting honestly and facing up realistically ot the consequences of its actions. I think you need to factor in an element of self-delusion and a tendency to distress the truth where dollars are concerned.

Personally I've always thought this war was as much about domestic electoral politics as anything else. After their experience with Afganistan, the Bushies saw war as the means to cement Republican control over all branches of government for a generation. They deluded themselves into thinking Iraq would be another cakewalk like the first Gulf war. Why is it that everyone is afraid to think that Bush might have put soldiers in harm's way for partisan political gain?

Of course I also agree with the previously cited comment to "follow the money".

I also think this war was somewhat like WWI in that the decision to mobilize meant war was inevitable. Once the US started to mobilize its forces on Iraq's borders the US was left with no other option but to go to war. This is a point I never see discussed.

Given what we now know about troop deployments and rotations, we know that the US could not have maintained an invasion force on the Iraqi border indefinitely. So once we ramped up for war, what was the no-war option? Saddam proved that he was perfectly happy to wait us out. Once Bush has an invasion force poised and ready, how does he get them back home without going through Baghdad? If they just pack up and go home without some sort of regime-change concession from Iraq, then Saddam wins. He would have stood-down a superpower and forced Bush to blink.

No, I truly believe that once we had the 3rd infantry positioned in Kuwait and the fleet deployed to the region, war was inevitable because there was no other face-saving option for the US absent voluntary resignation by Saddam.

To me Cole's theory is perhaps the best. especially if you translate "democratic" to be "pro-American". Shaking up the Middle Eastern power structure, putting an American footprint there, putting the Saudis on notice that they're being watched, and letting everyone in the world that our conventional forces can defeat theirs -- these are intelligible and partially-achieved goals. During the debate I tactfully called it a "discretionary proactive" war, which translates to mean a unilateral aggressive war.

During the debate I had the darndest time trying to figure out what the administration was actually proposing, so that I could decide whether to support them or not. The publically proclaimed rationales all were weak, so the way the argument developed in public opinion, anyone who figured out the purpose of the war and told people about it actually **counted as an anti-war spokesman**.

I think that another factor is that the war was adventurist and not completely thought-out by groups with several different agendas, and there was a lot of "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" thinking.

Right now it seems that Sharon is trying to put some "facts on the ground" in Syria and/or Iran which will totally reshuffle the U.S. debate again. I expect the WMD and Plame controversies to be overshadowed soon enough by new events.

There was a narrative that wouldn't require all that troublesome nation-building: The existing Iraqi governing bureaucracy was going to stay in place, Chalabi would come in to head it, and then they would have elections in a few months (to be won by Chalabi). All damage etc. would be paid for by oil revenues. US troops could then pull out and be ready for their next deployment. With Iraq as a shining beacon of (pro-US) democracy, they could play hopscotch and do the same thing in Syria, Iran, Korea etc.

The fact that this was insane, and bound to lead to disaster when executed, isn't a reason to dismiss it as impossible. Following insane policies that lead to predictable disaster is pretty much the administration's standard MO in every field.

As a friend of mine likes to say (usually when referring to a neighbor's dog that won't shut up), if you only do one thing well, you may as well do it all the time.

>"...I think you need to factor in an element of self-delusion..."

"Self" delusion, xian? That sounds "wildly off the mark" to me.

The 'new product'...

>Marketing Iraq: Why now?

>September 12, 2002 Posted: 7:50 PM EDT

>By William Schneider

>CNN Senior Political Analyst

>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There's a big question hanging over President Bush's Iraq policy: Why now? Why, more than 11 years after the Gulf War, is it suddenly so urgent for the U.S. to go after Saddam Hussein now?

>Some people are asking, is President Bush's Iraq offensive being driven by the fall election? An idea the vice president calls ``reprehensible.''...

>...Even the White House has hinted at a political strategy. As long ago as last January, Bush strategist Karl Rove said, "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military and thereby protecting America."

>Why did the Administration wait until September to make its case against Iraq? White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''..."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/

...The "new product" that Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Blair, Berlusconi, Wolfowitz, Perle, & Co. 'SOLD' Congress and the rest of us "naïve" American political "consumers" last year about this time....

>Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy

>By Todd S. Purdum And Patrick E. Tyler

>New York Times | International

>Thursday, 15 August, 2002

>WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 -- Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed....

>"...For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today...

>...Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve..."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.17A.gop.no.irq.htm

...THAT "new product", the one those guys "sold" the rest of us schmucks out here in the real world?

It was DEFINITELY an "economy model". Just ask former Chief of the Joint Chiefs Eric Shinseki, if you don't believe me.....

>Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size

>By Eric Schmitt

>New York Times

>February 28, 2003

>In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

>Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward..."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

The point I take from this is not whether Cole is right or wrong. It's this: months after we invaded another country in defiance of world opinion ,and got ourselves bogged down in this incredible mess, people have to speculate as to why we did it. The administration has never offered a coherent or consistent explanation, and even defenders of the invasion offer different reasons. In short, we preemptively attack another country, kill thousands, and no one really knows why. That is the real issue.

"But does that leave us with Juan Cole's theory? I would say, "Probably not." An administration that wanted to build a "secular, democratic" Irak would have followed up the invasion with a massive reconstruction and rebuilding effort. Cole's theory is as bad off as all the other theories."

The only semi-convincing theory I have heard of is that of doing away with the Saudi aliance in terms of long-term oil supply, after having secured Iraki oil fields (assuming this happens in the foreseable future...)

Note first, that this has nothing to do with terrorism per se. Fighting terrorism is not like fighting the Cold War (even assuming that US policy had anything to do with the fall of end of the Soviet Union.) There are still commies in Russia, but who cares since Russia is not a threat to freedom anymore.

Conversely, we can bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, Irak, and the rest of the Middle-East and the Arabic peninsula, that's not going to destroy the source of the threat, i.e. the terrorists themselves. All the contrary it is regenerating them faster than we can ship marines to the hot spots... (Ask the Brittish and the Irish for more details about this phenomenon.)

Second, I have never understood this "securing oil supply" argument. It seems to have a whole lot more to do with oil refining profits than with the purchasing power and living standards of everyday Americans.

P.S. Note that severing US ties with Saudi Arabia is precisely what Ben (who?) Laden has always been fighting for*. So that those who constantly claim that one shouldn't give in to terror are actually working hard at realizing his dreams. And I am not even mentionning the fact that Ben Laden hated the Baatist regime of Saddam Hussein and probably fantasizes about a Shiite-governed Irak.

P.P.S. And, I would add that knowing that Turkish troops are being deployed among the Kurds makes me want to cry... How I miss those no-fly zones now...

* So, what would you have done yourself? I would have exposed the role of Saudi Arabia in 9-11 and put straightforward demands for moral clarity on them. In the world right after 9-11, that would have been enough to have them come clean (especially since everyone was standing behind the US at that point.) But that was obviously not an option considered by this Administration as it was silently flying Mr. Ben Laden's family home. Oddly enough, honesty (and truthfullness) is more often than not the best policy...

Quibbling over Professor Cole's theory obscures the central point. As a democracy, theoretically anyway, we should KNOW why our government chose to invade another country. But, instead, the admin has never offered a coherent, consistent or minimally truthful explanation of its motives. Even defenders of the invasion offer up different rationales, which seem to constantly change as events unfold.

James MacLean makes a good point about the run-up to war. Take that kind of pressure, add to it the other projects and cross-currents discussed here, and the idea of a quick, clean war of "decapitation" might look ideal. Plus you get the ability to strongly influence oil *flows* and thus break OPEC for good and all.

And we need to add one more thing that I think might have been decisive in the neo-con mind. Other governments and publics were clamoring for US action on Israel/Palestine, which the admin had almost totally neglected to that point. But those most insistent on Iraq would rather have chewed carpet tacks before they'd do anything to compromise Sharon.

Iraq then comes up as a neat misdirection. You want a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east besides Israel? Okay, but it won't be the obvious one that everyone else in the world thinks it should be. It'll be -- presto -- Iraq! I don't know if it was even a conscious move.

Like everything else about this mess, the result was supposed to be magical. Don't forget that 1) these people have been very strongly divided among themselves about *why* they needed to do Iraq, which would militate against any coherent planning, and 2) for most of their adult lives they've been executives and not actually responsible for planning and carrying out anything coherent, just for making up slogans like "the world has completely changed since 9-11" and watching everyone else scurry to carry out their mandates.

Even Bill Clinton admits, "We knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. We knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again."

Iraq was a problem and a potentially destabilizing force. The oil in Iraq could not be developed because Saddam would spend the money on weapons, if not now, then in the future if sanctions were lifted enforcement faded. In order for Iraq to make progress and exploit its oil revenue to build its economy, Saddam had to go.

There was a lot of agreement that Iraq would be better off without Saddam. The disagreement was over how to achieve that objective. The administration thought it would be a "cakewalk". They believed they could easily accomplish that goal unilaterally. Therefore, they did not go out of their way to cultivate allies or bring other countries on board. They miscalculated. This is where we must overlook the outcomes and look at the arrogance and unilateralism of the Bush administration. After all, installing a puppet/exile worked in Afghanistan (well sort of). At any rate, that was the Afghan model and it was accomplished in a few months. Why should Iraq take that much longer? The administration does not seem troubled by the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. A relatively low level of rebuilding in Iraq is probably what Bush had in mind. Leave them with lots of infrastructure projects to fund with the oil money and turn a barely functioning state over to the Iraqis to rebuild.

The problem in Iraq is not that Saddam is gone. The problem is the vacuum left behind and the resulting partisan warfare, banditry and social collapse that accompanied his ouster. The problem is not that the US deposed Saddam, it is that our administration misunderestimated the difficulty of the task and failed to adequately prepare the troops, the Iraqis or the American people. The problem is that the administration now lacks the coalition it needs to address the current problems in Iraq.

Cole gives one reason for ousting Saddam, but that is only one of a long list of positives. It is doubtful, given the infighting in this administration that everyone was unified around a single reason. We have more or less been told that different people had their different favorite reasons. Any negatives associated with removing Saddam were ignored or trivialized. This is why the intelligence agencies have been complaining.

If one sees only positive outcomes and negative outcomes are trivial, then there is little left to stop the implementation of the policy. Why expect different from an administration that is both arrogant and naive?

Jean-Philippe, inasmuch I can say Ben Laden is hostile to Chiite Islam. The ayatollahs were hostiles to the Taleban.

BTW how do you pronounce "ij"?
DSW

My suspicion is that we did not go to Iraq for a single reason or as the result of a well reasoned foreign policy philosophy. Our reasoned foreign policy has been replaced with the macho preemptive engagement. We went to Iraq because of a dynamic not a reason.

In the end Iraq makes about as much sense as rowdy vandalism after a late night drinking in the bar. It sure seemed like a good idea or fun at the time, but the consequences after the hangover sets in are less pleasant and difficult to undo.

"We went to Iraq because of a dynamic not a reason."

Very well put. And from what I know, it's also the case that Bin Laden and the Shia have been oil and water (sorry). Supposedly, extreme enmity between Wahhabis and Shia is one of the things that kept Saddam in power-- each wanted a strong Iraq as a buffer against the other. (So it's only fitting that Iraq turned against both of them.) And I think I remember hearing of vast slaughters of Shiites perpetrated by Wahhabis, though I can't give a reference.

"We went to Iraq because of a dynamic not a reason."

Very well put. And from what I know, it's also the case that Bin Laden and the Shia have been oil and water (sorry). Supposedly, extreme enmity between Wahhabis and Shia is one of the things that kept Saddam in power-- each wanted a strong Iraq as a buffer against the other. (So it's only fitting that Iraq turned against both of them.) And I think I remember hearing of vast slaughters of Shiites perpetrated by Wahhabis, though I can't give a reference.

The brutal Iraqi dictatorship is gone. Iraq is no threat to any other country. So, why not immediately organize elections and leave after the elections? A UN peace keeping force could be invited in as we leave. That might well be an agreeable development for UN members. The Iraqis can build a country they wish from there.

The plan is not a secret.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

If you accept that purpose and competency are not related, Juan Cole's bit looks ok. Certainly, this was the PNACers wet dream - even if they were clueless about the real world. I would say that the Bush administration's actions in Iraq stink of grand plans and dreams accompanied by little willingness to face reality. A recipe for disaster.

"Jean-Philippe, inasmuch I can say Ben Laden is hostile to Chiite Islam. The ayatollahs were hostiles to the Taleban."

It's all relative. I imagine easily that Ben Laden would prefer any Islamic regime, even of a kind he dislikes, to a secular regime like that of Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam was helped into power by the CIA with the explicit aim to confront the rise of Islamism (in Iran - itself a perfect case-study in foreign policy mess-up.) But far from me the idea to characterize the so-called "Arab World" as (religiously) homogeneous. That would have Edward Said flip around in his grave... :-)

The UN is incapable of providing a peace keeping force in Iraq. The UN has been incapable of adequately defending any peoples where there is an organized military resistance. This includes guerilla warfare. Secondly, the US pays for more than 50% of all UN peace keeping forces. US troops would also represent a majority of peace keeping forces. In all likely hood it would end up being a majority of US troops, paid for by the US, with a UN cover.

The idea of Iraqi elections bears merit. Does anyone know if there is a time schedule for general elections?

I second Kent Lind's notion that this war is about domestic politics. Can anyone think of a rational reason for the US to invade Iraq.

Anyone who knew anything about either state-building or democratic theory knew that the endgame in Iraq would not be pretty for U.S. interests. Only a partioned Iraq, a very angry Ba'ath resurgency, or a fundamentalist Shiite regime (quasi-democratic or otherwise) are reasonable probable outcomes.

However, the costs of any of these bad outcomes will largely be borne after the 2004 elections. And the rally round the flag benefits for Bush are experienced immediately.

That's why I don't dismiss the madness of another war front. If Bush's poll numbers continue to slide, and there is no reason to doubt they will, another war front may be on the horizon. Good morning, Syria.

"Why is it that everyone is afraid to think that Bush might have put soldiers in harm's way for partisan political gain?"

Posted by Kent Lind at October 13, 2003 11:23 AM

Because we've been told that Bush is an Honorable Veteran Texan Businessman Entrepreneur Patriotic American Christian.

Therefore, what you suggest is impossible.

It is relative, for sure, but... we are not talking about properly rational individuals. It is a lot more like the wars between Bourbons and Habsbourgs, in with the French were allies with the Turcs.

DSW

Cole's theory is basically how I interpreted the entire period of war build-up (which followed Afghanistan, and included the building of regional bases outside of Saudi Arabia), execution, and follow-on.

I believe James R MacLean is correct that one major reason for this strategy is that we could not stand to leave the sanctions in place indefinitely, nor an Iraq under Saddam with sanctions lifted that could then pursue WMDs.

I also believe that paul ("The problem with ...[that theory is]... assuming perfectly-informed, rational, competent actors") and xian ("an element of self-delusion and a tendency to distress the truth where dollars are concerned") are not far off the mark either. The post-war planning was in error in many ways, and the initial stage was expected to be more self-funding. It would be a serious mistake, however, to think that we could have had any detailed transition plan survive contact with reality. (see http://www.reason.com/rauch/100603.shtml )

Kent Lind rhetorically asks "So once we ramped up for war, what was the no-war option?." I agree that at that point the only no-war option is Saddam's regime surrenders (i.e., they abide by *all* the UN resolutions, including the things about "no torture" and "a free and independent press," meaning no Baathist totalitarianism.) OTOH, I do remember discussion before the war on this very point. The way I remember it cast was that we can't play cat-and-mouse, deploy half our Army for a year to get a year's worth of temporary compliance on WMDs, leave, have Saddam ratchet up again, just to play another round later. *This* time the crisis must end with no Saddam regime able to pursue WMDs.

markg asks "people have to speculate as to why we did it. The administration has never offered a coherent or consistent explanation...." If the purpose was to establish a secular, democratic, oil-producing lodgment in the Mid-east, thus allowing us to pressure the rest of the region to stop supporting violent Wahabbism and radical Islamicism, then pursuing this objective means the President *couldn't* say what we are doing or why, especially in the build-up period.

Jean-Philippe Stijns says "I would have exposed the role of Saudi Arabia in 9-11 and put straightforward demands for moral clarity on them." That may have been the best option. OTOH, it was potentially a higher-risk option. In what ways would you be willing to use force to back-up your demands? How is it actually going to work to employ force, or how is going to work if you won't? What happens more than two moves out?

lise asks "So, why not immediately organize elections and leave after the elections? A UN peace keeping force could be invited in as we leave." *If* we believe Cole's theory is correct (or should be correct), then the problem with immediate national elections is that Iraq is screwed (by its demographics) if it has a top-down highly centralized national government, so it needs some hand-holding time and supervision to build up indigenous democratic players and a decentralized, Federal structure. An ideal transition would put Iraqi's in effective control of metropolitan authorities, then areas, then regions, then the internal Iraqi democrats (now with some experience in democracy) would negotiate a Constitution, under which then national elections would be held. That takes time. The obvious problem with an intermediate UN-dominated phase is that the UN appears too corrupt, too beholden to dictators, and too beholden to local powers that would want Iraqi democracy to fail. It is a mistake to think that, because the UN holds votes, that the UN is a democracy.

Finally, preventing Iraq from becoming a more secular, free, successful country (as opposed to, say, despotic, anti-American, and easily bribable) still seems to motivate important segments of the opposition to the war, and to a US-administered (i.e., non-sabatogeable) transition. Certainly it is easy to point to many actors (e.g., local countries, previous corrupt beneficiaries), for whom a successful, more secular, democratic and free Iraq would be bad news.

"The brutal Iraqi dictatorship is gone."

And who accomplished that? The U.N.? France? Germany? Russia? China? Saudi Arabia? Iran?

"Iraq is no threat to any other country."

And how do we know that? The Clinton Adminstration told us for 8 years that Iraq WAS a threat to other countries! How do we know the Clinton Adminstration was wrong?

"So, why not immediately organize elections and leave after the elections?"

For several reasons:

1) Iraq has no constitution. With no constitution, there is no written law that prevents tyranny of the majority, i.e., the Shia over the Sunnis, Kurds, Turks, Christians, etc. There is also nothing to prevent the central government from again ruling over the rest of the country with an iron fist.

2) Iraq has NO democratic neighbors. And it's apparent that most, if not ALL, of Iraq's neighbors do not want Iraq to be a democracy. Therefore, it's necessary for the U.S. military to assist the Iraqis in attempting to secure their borders from Iraq's neighbors (i.e., keeping those who want to prevent a democracy not to be built from coming into Iraq).

3) Iraq has NO military, and had NO police force. (Or worse, it had Saddam Hussein's military and police force.) With no established military or police force, there is no entity for a newly-elected Iraqi government to turn to, to keep the Rule of Law, and to keep people safe. Therefore, it's important to first establish police forces and a military, prior to elections.

"A UN peace keeping force could be invited in as we leave. That might well be an agreeable development for UN members."

Ho, ho, ho! U.N. members such as France, Germany, and Russia, who all benefitted greatly from Saddam Hussein's tyranny? Or perhaps U.N. members such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Kuwait...who are all NOT democracies themselves?

The U.N. does not now--nor has it ever--advocated for democracy. And it even more certainly has never advocated for FREEDOM! A simple look at member countries of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights would show you that!

The "U.N. members" were "agreeable" to leaving Saddam Hussein (and no doubt later his sons) in for as long as Saddam Hussein and his sons were agreeable to ruling Iraq. Which was forever. Why should the U.S. government now care what the "U.N. members" find "agreeable?"

"The Iraqis can build a country they wish from there."

If, by "the Iraqis" you mean a majority tyrannizing a minority, I would hope that that's NOT an acceptable outcome for the U.S. government. But perhaps for Democrats, it is...

I haven't read all the posts but I have my own pet theory as to why we are in Iraq. It is the Cheney Powell grudge match theory. Last round Powell won convincing George I not to press on to Baghdad. Cheney was determined to win this one. Not just against Saddam but also against the real insidious enemy Colin Powell.

Utterly insane ? well yes that's why I like it.

Seriously folks, I think that a group of ambitous people who see each other as rivals can make a worse mess of things than any but the worst insane idiot can while acting alone (I was writing any insane idiot but then I thought of Saddam Hussein himself). Here I think an underbriefed and very stubborn president makes the problem much worse but it's a problem with every administration, every government, everything.

there was a lot of self deception withing the administration because the administration is not a person but a group of people who were lying to each other.

The other explanation making the rounds is that it's really all about the post-Saudi world. The story goes like this:

1. Saudi Arabia has only a few years left. Civil war will tear it apart.
2. The world needs someone to buy oil from.
3. With more exploration, and the judicious seizure of sources following anarchy in Saudi Arabia, Iraq could keep the world going.

Of course the left always said it was all about oil, but this probably wasn't the exact scenario they were thinking of.

"Iraq has NO democratic neighbors"

If you don't count Turkey, Iran, or Pakistan . . .

Actually when the history of this war is finally written, I suspect historians will conclude that this war was caused by a convergence of reasons with the tipping point being domestic politics.

The Bush Administration is basically composed of two groups: The Neocons who were enamored with their ideas of hopscotching around the middle east projecting US power and making the world safe for Israel, and the crony capitalists who think the role of government is to benefit corporate America. To some extent this administration is in a tug of war between these two groups. But in the case of Iraq, they both had powerful reasons to promote war

Add to that the military industrial complex which needs a new war every few years to keep the profits up. Sand is hard on equipment and those divisions currently in Iraq are going to have to be rebuilt from the ground up with new machinery. And of course Rumsfeld and his followers who wanted to test their new theories of military reorganization while at the same time spreading "fear and awe" to all their enemies, both foreign and domestic.

All of these forces have always been out there but they've never been so close to the center of power as under this administration.

Add to that we have 9-11 and the discovery by the Bush Administration that there's nothing like a quick spectacular military victory to pump the approval ratings up to 90% as they found out in Afganistan.

In a normal administration and under normal circumstances there would usually be enough adults around to put a stop to this sort of adventurism. But in the fall of 2002 the only adults we had left in the Administration were a few lonely souls in the State Dept and CIA who found themselves completely marginalized.

Finally we had Rove and the political branch of the White House looking at the 2002 mid-terms and farther ahead to the 2004 elections and thinking that there's nothing better than a good war to bang the Democrats over the head with and cement Republican control over all 3 branches of government for a generation. It's frankly the same sort of thinking that lead the military dictatorship in Argentina to invade the Faulkland Islands. Nothing like a good war to rally the population around you.

So aside from *perhaps* Colin Powell and George Tennent, who else was left in the Administration to urge caution and sanity? Certainly no one else who had Bush's ear.

So when all of these various factors and arguments for war converged in the fall of 2002, what was the single tipping point that lead this adminstration beyond the point of no return? I would argue that it was domestic politics and the timing of the 2002 mid-term elections that lead them to begin saber rattling in earnest and start positioning an invasion force in the fall of 2002. They needed the Senate back to complete their takeover of government, and to prevent the constant scandal wars that plagued the Clinton Administration through endless Congressional investigations. And once that invasion force was in position, war was inevitable. They had no other way out, and frankly they didn't want one.

So in a sense, perhaps you are all right. Various individuals both in and close to the Administration may have had all of the reasons cited in this thread for promoting the war. But I would argue that it was domestic politics and the influence of Rove that was the tipping point and made this war into an urgent undertaking in the fall of 2002.

Everyone in the Administration had their own good reasons for wanting this war at that time. And there were just no adults left with enough clout to tell the President "what in God's name are you thinking!?"

Come on! We invaded Iraq because we had to git Saddam Hussein! You people need to stop using yer intellects... damn smarty pants.

I think Kent Lind's synthesis of the way into war is excellent. But this whole thread is a superlative illustration of the human need to construct meaningful narratives out of rational motivations.

I do not believe that there *ever* was *anything* remotely resembling a plan about the day after Saddam's fall. There were hopes, but we've all heard that hope is not a plan.

Now that Iraq is broken-- and the degree of breakage caused by sanctions, wars, and mismanagement exposed-- my own view is that the odds favor a friendly strongman who will rule things the way the admin wants, at least for a time, and cover some degree of withdrawal in time for fall 2004. My candidate is the general who was treated with such ceremony a couple of weeks ago. BTW, this is democracy on the Pakistan model.

Turkish-style democracy could happen if the major groups in Iraq wanted it. But there does seem much centrifugal energy, especially in the north which has had de facto independence under US and British protection for a decade; and its development would depend on a quick end to occupation. Realistically it's hard to see.

Nothing like running full speed down a blind alley, is there?

I'm of the belief, as are a few above, that the reasons for war differ greatly depending on whom in the administration you are talking about. And now that those administration members' interests have diverged (Rove is busy trying to get Bush reelected, while Rummy et al are still trying to cement the American empire), things have gotten nasty.

But one of the arguments I've seen made to explain the war has always intrigued me. But I'm an econ ninny, so I'm wondering if folks can help me out on this.

I've heard one of the real "crimes" Iraq committed was switching their oil trade to the euro. The administration needed to send a message to other oil producing nations--like Iran--that that would not be acceptable in order to stem a possible change in the role of the dollar internationally.

If so, this article seems to suggest the strategy, like many related to Iraq, may have backfired (although I doubt Putin is really serious, yet; it seems like a shot over the bow).

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/10/10/001.html

Anyway, I'm curious about how much there is to this argument?

Why is the domino theory considered so idiotic? I seem to remember another stupid cowboy president who brought down another evil ideology like a bunch of dominoes. Oh, I remember why its idiotic: its advocated by stupid mean-spirited republicans. I should have realized that right that right from the start. Reducio ad republican: if the republicans advocate something it must be mean-spirited, stupid or both. Damn, I forgot to put my blind ideology hat on today.

BTW, what makes De Long think there isn't massive reconstruction going on in Iraq? For instance look at this article http://www.reason.com/rauch/100603.shtml
Just because the media does not report any reconstruction does not mean its not going on. After all the media is opportunistic and sensationalistic. It tends to report on killings and car bombings more than boring reconstruction efforts.

First off, we invaded Iraq -- because we could. We could because -- we were still "at war" from 91, and the fact, recorded in 17 UNSC resolutions, that Saddam had violated his cease-fire agreement.
Notice that Japan and Germany, after WW II, both surrendered, unconditionally. Not Korea, and it was never even considered in Vietnam; and many feel Bush I made a mistake in Gulf I by not requiring it. (The fact that Saddam hasn't surrendered is also still a bit significant.)

We could attack Iraq also because our military-industrial crony capitalism has produced the finest military in history, almost unbelievably superior in qualitative terms to any other on Earth today.

We could because it was good to boot out Saddam -- and everything negative will, in history, be outweighed by that positive. UNLESS Iraq descends into any of the likely, non-secular democratic alternatives; like Liberia might, Zimbabwe did, Afghan maybe will, Kosovo has not yet really avoided, Haiti certainly suffers from, etc. (Lise, WHERE on Earth has the UN done a good job? In 6 months or 12 months???)

Post war reconstruction of Iraq is almost certainly being driven by US domestic requirements to insure that a "showcase" democracy develops in Iraq. When it does, Bush will use it to get reelected -- helped by Dems who are silly opponents of him doing good work there. Imagine Bush on a week long inspection of Iraq in Sept or Oct 2004 -- going to hospitals, schools, new buildings, new housing, etc; all rebuilt and hopeful, most underreported by the liberal-biased anti-Bush press (but now forced to follow the Great Man on his recon triumph). Bush bloggers finding pro-US real Iraqi bloggers & English speakers who can be interviewed with gratitude, etc., etc.

In fact, that's how incumbents are supposed to get re-elected in a democracy, they do good things with the tax dollars and show the good things. (Never mind the fat cat cronies behind the curtain where 50% of the money goes as profit)

As to the budget deficit ... sacrifices must be made! (Clinton left Saddam; Bush II can leave deficits.)

"Post war reconstruction of Iraq is almost certainly being driven by US domestic requirements to insure that a "showcase" democracy develops in Iraq. When it does, Bush will use it to get reelected -- helped by Dems who are silly opponents of him doing good work there. Imagine Bush on a week long inspection of Iraq in Sept or Oct 2004 -- going to hospitals, schools, new buildings, new housing, etc; all rebuilt and hopeful, most underreported by the liberal-biased anti-Bush press (but now forced to follow the Great Man on his recon triumph). Bush bloggers finding pro-US real Iraqi bloggers & English speakers who can be interviewed with gratitude, etc., etc."

If it were driven by these needs, it would have been pushed hard from back in April, and resources would have been in place to deal with a far worse situation than actually occured (i.e., urban warfare in Baghdad; use of 'vast stockpiles' of WMD's). Crony capitalism politics would not have been allowed to interfere with reconstruction - if some middle eastern entrepreneur was setting up cell phone towers, the occupation would have monitored and regulated him; it wouldn't have torn down the towers).

People who actually knew what they were doing (i.e., the UN, the State Department, USAID, NGO's) would have been brought in up to just before the point where operational security would
have been threatened, and not left in the dark.

Arrangements for the power and water situation would have been made beforehand, not afterwards; the power would have been restored in Baghdad *faster* than Saddam did after Gulf War I.

"As to the budget deficit ... sacrifices must be made! (Clinton left Saddam; Bush II can leave deficits.)"

You really, really need to brush up on your history, Tom. Hint: Bush I.

Most of these analyses are way too conspiratorial for me. And they depict much too rational a decisionmaking process.

That we fought the war is to a great degree a testimony to the power of a few strong personalities (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney) with access to the President, combined with W's almost religious zeal to wage a successful war on terrorism in the wake of 9/11. Emotions played a bigger role than cold foreign policy calculation or domestic politics.

"Why is the domino theory considered so idiotic? I seem to remember another stupid cowboy president who brought down another evil ideology like a bunch of dominoes. "

Right-wing propaganda unsupported by facts.

Iraq trading oil in Euros instead of Dollars was not a reason for war. It was a smart move by Saddam, because he got more for his oil.

Democracy requires respect for the law. Without respect there can be no democracy. Look at the US Civil War. A lack of respect for the law/ unilateral reinterpretation of the law was the ultimate cause of the Civil War. The Southern states refused to obey the law, attacked Federal installations and were in rebellion. Disrespect for the law is not conducive to a national democracy. Iraq needs to establish law and have acceptance by a large majority of the population that has the ability to enforce that law.

There is almost a consensus that there are a multitude of "reasons" for going to Iraq, not one of those accepted by everyone. When no one reason explains the action, then it is appropriate to step back and survey the dynamic that led to invading Iraq.

In many areas of policy, this administration is carried by dynamic considerations often ignoring reasoned arguments or long standing philosophical positions. (Steel tariffs, huge budget deficits, tax cuts, educational testing with no funding, environmental policy, etc. etc.) This administration truly is the triumph of politics over reason, philosophy and policy.

>Iraq trading oil in Euros instead of Dollars was not a reason for war. It was a smart move by Saddam, because he got more for his oil.

Bakko, can you please explain this point. How does trading in Euros make the slightest bit of difference?

In case you have not noticed, the Dollar has been declining in relation to the Euro. It is just the exchange rate. A dollar today buys less in Europe than it did 2 years ago. A Euro today buys much more in the US than it did 2 years ago. A lag between selling the oil and purchasing the goods will be reflected in greater purchasing power with the Euro. A Euro declining against the dollar would give the opposite effect.

Brad DeLong writes, "George W. Bush may have thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States, but nobody else did."

Bwahahahaha! Good one! I guess you need to tell your former boss, assistant boss, and various high ranking members of the Democratic Party (e.g., current Democratic presidential candidates):

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

Note from Editor: Perhaps President Bush was MISLED into thinking that Saddam Hussein had WMD that could threaten the United States, by this letter from Bob Graham and others? What do you think, Dr. DeLong?

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

How about it Dr. DeLong? Do your analysis and these quotes mean that John Kerry, Bob Graham, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. etc., are all "nobodies"?

Or were they all lying, as part of one vast left-wing conspiracy?

Bakho, Kent, Altoid, and others have pretty much hit the nail on the head. There were several camps within the administration, all to whom an Iraq adventure seemed an excellent idea.

Frankly, I’m disappointed with Brad for, apparently, looking for one simplistic motivation for the war. Perhaps this is an example of why Type M arguments are usually more convenient than they are useful.

I think the necons were the constant motivating force pre- and post-election and post-9/11. They are not a majority within the administration (though perhaps a plurality), but they are zealous and Iraq’s long been the focus of their reconceived US foreign policy. So in this way, they were crucial.

But without a convergence of other interests and accidents of history, the Iraq invasion might not have happened. First among these is 9/11, of course, and the desire to continue the response started in Afghanistan. Iraq was an “easy” target, even if it was not particularly justified. Second were those in the administration (and there’s overlap with the neocons here) who felt that Hussein was “unfinished business” who had long overstayed his welcome. I don’t think Bush is a neocon, but I do think these other two concerns motivated him.

A distant third on the list is the political calculation of a wartime approval rating boost. I think this force was weak—otherwise the war would have been delayed, and it was anything but.

Fourth are strategic concerns regarding Iraq’s oil. I’m skeptical that this played much of a role; and even more skeptical that personal (or cronyist) energy interests were much of a factor. But I include them for completeness, particularly because much of the left is certain these is the true reasons for the war.

Rumsfeld straddles the neocon and the other adventurist interests. Really, he may have been an important force and point of view all by himself. In particular, while he is enthusiastic about the projection of American military power, he’s not enthusiastic about “nation-building” (only the neocons could be said to find nation-building acceptable). And his own obsession is his pet theories about the efficient structure and deployment of the modern US military: leaner, faster, cheaper, better. His own desire to use Afghanistan and Iraq as proving grounds for his theories required planning that was in many cases hostile to the post-occupation goals of the necons. Given the fact that much of the non-neocons want quick and easy military actions, and being that Rumsfeld is the Sec. Defense....well, that’s why a war in accordance with the neocon goals wasn’t actually waged.

Bush, like I said, was probably chiefly motivated by his animosity against Iraq, 9/11 anger, and the influence of the other camps.

I don’t see Cheney as being zealous about any one rationale, but the sum total of all the arguments probably persuaded him. And, perhaps, his own personal interests.

Rice....well, I don’t know. I speculate that perhaps she was influenced by the same things Bush was, along with a desire to secure her bona fides (intestinal fortitude?) against the challenge of the neocon wonks and others.

That leaves the dovish—Powell, State, and others. I think they saw which way the wind was blowing and tried to moderate it, not fight it. They were persuaded, at least, by the fact that the US had the legal right to invade as underscored by Hussein’s noncompliance. They could rationalize that some or most of the expected benefits would be realized, and hope that the negative diplomatic fallout would eventually be washed away by a positive outcome.

Everyone involved feared that Iraq’s WMD might be significant (though most knew that this was unlikely), and they hoped for some sort of smoking gun which would justify the invasion all by itself.

The problem with all this is that arguably none of the objectives of any of the various camps has been achieved, in no small part because they’ve interfered with each other. No smoking gun, no real tangible gain in the fight against 9/11, no neocon nation-building of a democratic Iraq, only a partial and uncertain validation of Rumsfeld’s doctrine (along with strong specific refutations where post-war planning is concerned), little political benefit (and increasing cost).

My guess is that all the factions were afraid something like this would happen as they were no doubt aware that the Iraq invasion was not being executed completely in accordance with their specific goals. The only person who probably had no clue the whole thing was potentially a house of cards was Bush. Everyone else is finger-pointing at each other. Bush is probably confused about why he’s not the triumphant leader he expected to be.

markg’s point is undeniable. Why don’t we know why we are there? There are still questions about how we got into WWII, but there is little question (to my knowledge) as to why. Perhaps if the achievements of WWII were more dubious, questions about motives would be more pressing in that case as well. (There I go, bringing up motives again.)

I wonder if we are all expecting something that isn’t there. Remember when Wolfowitz admitted that the illicit weapons argument was adopted simply because it was the one on which all interested parties could agree? When faced with a number of problems – and good solutions to none – you might just decide that holding the right piece of real estate will come in handy, once you have hit upon some solutions you like. (This is rather in line with what Jim Harris has to say, I think.) Rather like a chess opening - grab advantageous board position and see what develops.

The fact that bin Laden wasn’t happy to have us in Saudi Arabia may seem like a reason to stay, but having the Saudis decide they didn’t want us there anymore was a real problem. The fact that Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (Turkey for other reasons) all are adjacent to Iraq makes holding that territory worth considering. We have, in fact, begun shifting assets out of Saudi Arabia to Iraq. So what if all the arguments were really just drummed up to match the interests of various constituencies? What if this was just the easiest to justify opportunity to put the Bush doctrine to work? What if a bunch of chicken hawks just thought this is what great administrations do? Some day, when Bush has his memoirs ghost written, he’ll say “we had a lot of reasons, and they were good ones” and that is all we will ever know.

Fatalities

American soldiers 193
British soldiers 18
Coalition soldiers 4
---
215 Since May 2

American 332
British 51
Coalition 4
---
387 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~1833 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

Fatalities

American soldiers 193
British soldiers 18
Coalition soldiers 4
---
215 Since May 2

American 332
British 51
Coalition 4
---
387 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~1833 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

Fatalities (U.S. only)

Vietnam:
Hostile: 47,359
Non-hostile: 10,797
Total: 58,202

Korea:
Hostile: 33,741
Non-hostile: 2,835
Total: 36,576

"markg’s point is undeniable. Why don’t we know why we are there? There are still questions about how we got into WWII, but there is little question (to my knowledge) as to why."

But during WWII there was. Even after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor there were a lot of questions among the public regarding why we were fighting in Europe (remember that FDR explicity promised that we wouldn't during his 1940 election campaign).

E.g. even with vastly greater press and media et. al. support for the war and demonization of the enemy such as would be unimaginable today, the polls of the era indicated that 50% (IIRC) of the American people wanted a negotiated settlement with the Germans that would have left the Nazis in place governing Germany, and that lasted until the troops found the death camps and FDR made his "unconditional surrender" demand.

After all, Hitler hardly posed any "imminent threat" to the US.

Jim, Jim, Jim. Didn't W warn you about revisionist history?

We're all talking about the dynamics of getting in, and seem to be concluding that lots of different groups supported going in and busting the place up for lots of different reasons.

But how you're going to pick up the pieces depends on what reasons you have for starting it in the first place. Having so many different reasons in play, with no over-riding one enunciated by the person in charge, is a recipe for exactly what we're seeing.

What the aftermath proves is not what Brad asserts. What the aftermath proves is, as Lugar said, that the president isn't presiding.

Whenever someone says that some act of government was done for a reason, he will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

I would like to thank Jim Harris for offering the clearest overt expression so far of this principle, which is latent in many arguments:

"Most of these analyses are way too conspiratorial for me. And they depict much too rational a decisionmaking process."

Zizka Ltd.

Specializing in Sensible Conspiracy Theories and Refutations of Godwin's Law since 2002

The warriors among us from the safety of home, tell us that Korea and Vietnam and either World War were so much more dangerous than Iraq for our soldiers. Tell that to the soldiers who are daily casualties in Iraq, you whining war mongers. Tell that to those who worry every moment of every day for a loved one in Iraq. Yeah, casualties matter in Iraq you rotters.

Mark Bahner the message was meant for the likes of war mongers as you evidently are. Thanks for telling us how many soldiers died in Vietnam and Korea, you rotter.

I don't have time to read the 54 comments that preceded me, so my points may have been made by some people already. What I find astonishing about Brad's note is his incredulousness, the sense the policy is so insane, its motivations must be a mystery. Whether you agree with the war or not, there was bipartisan and indeed, international agreement that Saddam was a continuing security threat, hence 12 years of sanctions, inspections, bombings, etc, mostly under the Clinton administration. But the containment policy was slowly breaking down, was itself something of a quagmire. I think 9/11 provided the Bush administration with an opportunity to use the terrorism issue to gain support for overthrowing Saddam, something Clinton was unable to do. Why is this hard to understand? That's not to say that concerns about Saddam giving WMD to terrorists might not have been sincerely held. Saddam was capable of reckless acts out of sheer vindictiveness, such as attempting to assasinate Bush 41, and blowing up the Kuwaiti oil fields.

"But the containment policy was slowly breaking down, was itself something of a quagmire."

Nonsense. Iraq was contained, American soldiers were not dying, there were no WMDs, Iraq was a weak and weakening country of no threat to any other country. We and Britain did the fighting, not other countries, and our soldiers have suffered, and we have borne the costs of 150 billion dollars and counting. Well, we won. Now leave.

I have to agree with Phil P and a much earlier post that containment was breaking down before the war drums began beating. There was much international outcry over the effects of sanctions on civilians, and much over the continued no-fly-zone patrolling because of attacks on Iraqi ground installations (that seemed to be stepping up in tempo). The no-fly zone itself was compromised by increased civilian air traffic within Iraq.

Why, in a rational world involving rational actors, this breakdown should be solved by invasion and occupation of Iraq is not immediately apparent.

There's one good reason no American administration can just up and leave Iraq now, setting aside all consideration of what we owe Iraq for breaking their country. Supppose we just pull out. Suppose that the day after our last ship leaves, Saddam emerges.

No administration, least of all this one, can leave without the head of Saddam Hussein in its trophy case.

Hitler did declare war on the US before the US officially entered WWII in Europe. The US and Britain were in against Japan because both had been attacked. Whether or not the US declared war on Germany, the German Uboats would be attacking American shipping.

Often the role of the US in WWII in Europe is overstated. The most important US contribution to the war in Europe was equipment and supplies, not man-power. Running down the casualty list (military and excluding civilian) the US obviously did not supply the majority of troop in Europe. US had under 300000 casualties in WWII including the Pacific and Euro-Mediterranean theaters. Our important allies had many more:
Soviets- 13.6 million
China 1.3 million
France 340,000
Great Britain, 326,000

It is clear that the Russians did the bulk of the WWII fighting in Europe against the Germans and their axis. That is where most of the casualties are. Until late in the war (1944) the US was confined to the fringes of the conflict in North Africa and Italy.

If one looks at WWII and why we fought, there are numerous reasons. The overriding justification is that we were attacked. That subordinates the numerous other reasons. In Iraq, we were preemptive and not attacked. Thus, all the other reasons surface and none dominate.

"Supppose we just pull out. Suppose that the day after our last ship leaves, Saddam emerges."

Hey! We won the war. If Saddam emerges, he will be killed immediately.

There appear to be 2 distinct questions with different answers.

1) Why did we go into Iraq.

2) Why are we still in Iraq.

It is bad for this administration that the public does not know the answer to these questions.

If wars are ever justifiable, then 200 fatalities drawn from a population of 280 million cannot by themselves invalidate a war. Whether those 200 deaths are commensurate with any goals achieved by the war is another matter. But with all due respect to those 200 who've died, their families, and the rest of those who are serving (and their families), 200 deaths in the context of modern warfare is a *very small number*. I don't know what, if any, foreign policy goals are worth 200 lives....I don't know what foreign policy goals are worth a single life. But I do know that the majority of the American public believes that the US should maintain a large fighting force, and that we should use it. If we are unwilling to suffer casualties numbered in three digits, then I can't imagine why we'd maintain a military force of this size and readiness. Now, it may be that I personally would be perfectly willing for the US to be essentially a pacifist nation. But most Americans are not. And so, I say, they'd better not whine about 200 deaths. This is a volunteer military—this was their choice to put themselves into harm's way. The 3,000 people killed on 9/11, in contrast, did not make that choice. Nor, for that matter, did the majority of the thousand or more Iraqi civilians who have died in this war. And many of the half-million people who died in Rwanda in 1994 might have wondered where was the American concern for the value of an individual human life. The US has probably killed at least 200 women and children in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Excuse me if I don't agree that 200 US military deaths in Iraq is the end of the fucking world. Because it's not.

Brad DeLong wrote, "George W. Bush may have thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States, but nobody else did."

I've already supplied a good dozen quotes from the Democratic Party LEADERSHIP that demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Brad DeLong is slinging some serious BS with that disingenuous (to put it mildly) laugher. But here is yet another quote that's appropriate:

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know."--Bill Clinton (aka, "Nobody Else").

By the way, the DATE for that quote by Bill Clinton is July 22...2003!

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10288

I don't think there's really a lot of mystery about the Bush administration's motives. It was an adventurist, aggressive attempt to totally rearrange the world order, especially in the Middle East. Seemingly they miscalculated a few things, but adventurists will do that. Right now they're almost certainly trying to figure out how to pull a rabbit out of a hat to regain the initiative; I suspect that Sharon is helping out with his Syrian attacks.

Trial balloons have been floated for a much larger military, a draft, and greatly increased military spending. In order to do make this work there would also have to be an enormous media blitz, some sort of terrifying threat, and crackdowns on domestic opposition.

The various factions of Bush's war party (neo-conservatives, Armageddon Christians, the Carlyle types, and some in the energy biz) have various different overlapping motives for wanting to go to war, which leads to various sorts of confusion, but is nothing new to the pages of history.

Apropos of this thread, I was at a conference hosted by the Air Force Academy not so long ago but before the Iraq war. Local arrangements were completely pitiful-- no transportation, no food provisions, etc. But by the last day they'd figured out the transportation stuff pretty well. Must have been all that howling by participants.

This episode taught me a lot about military planning, at least on the Air Force side: You start with a half-assed plan and fix it as you go.

Not to be too complacent, being a mere civilian. But the thought does occur that maybe, if you know you're going to be changing things on the fly (sorry), as they've all been saying they have to do, you won't be quite so thorough in the initial planning.

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"US Army's 'fake' letters cause stir

A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.
[...]"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.stm

How nice of them.

DSW

"George W. Bush may have thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States, but nobody else did."

Mark, I think you're being at least a little disingenuous yourself in ignoring Brad's "threatened the United States" clause. It's arguably a weasel clause, but still.

Pretty much everyone figured that Iraq had some chemical and biological weapons stocks, and likely had at least a minimal ongoing development program. But very few thought that Iraq had an active nuclear program, or was likely to realize one under the present conditions. Furthermore, and more to the point of Brad's weasel clause, very few people thought that Iraq had the means or even the plans to deploy chemical or biological weapons against the US directly or even indirectly. Few thought they even had the capability of reaching Israel anymore (which is proven to be correct). So there is a *long*, *long* distance between most people thinking Iraq had some WMDs and WMD capability and WMDs being a threat to the US. You're deliberately ignoring that gulf, and that's at least as disingenuous as what you're acussing Brad of doing.

(Finally, I skimmed the beginning and end of your post, but as I wrote before to Mike--lengthy quotes are unnecessary and, especially without original content that provides an information-rich context, perilously close to spam. It's wasting our time, really.)

Good thread, but I must disagree that US interests must be harmed if Saddam eventually resumes a leadership position.

IF Saddam could be appropriately muzzled I think this is the best possible solution to the current prediment we find ourselves in. "Appropriately muzzled" might be defined as "large UN military presence" along with decentralized political power.

Under this scenario 1) Order is quickly restored, 2) Iraq stays together (we don't want irredentist or secessionist movements), 3) we don't have a fundamentalist Shiite dictator (you know, Osama's best friends), and 4) we don't have ethnic and tribal cleansing in the aftermath.

Boban, isn't that "status quo ante bellum"?

I wrote that Brad DeLong was being "disingenuous (to put it mildly)" when he wrote that, "George W. Bush may have thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States, but nobody else did."

Keith Ellis writes, "Mark, I think you're being at least a little disingenuous yourself in ignoring Brad's 'threatened the United States' clause."

No, I did *not* ignore Brad's "threatened the United States" clause. Look at just a few of the quotes I used (capitalization added for emphasis:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL AND GRAVE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY."

-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

(Editor's note: Presumably, John Kerry was talking about the U.S.--rather than say, Israel--when he said, "our security.")

"In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is DOUBTLESS using the cover of a licit missile program to DEVELOP LONGER-RANGE MISSILES THAT WILL THREATEN THE UNITED STATES and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but WHAT HAPPENS THERE MATTERS A GREAT DEAL HERE. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons AGAINST US or our allies is THE GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE."

-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Keith Ellis continues, "Furthermore, and more to the point of Brad's weasel clause, very few people thought that Iraq had the means or even the plans to deploy chemical or biological weapons against the US directly or even indirectly."

I'm assuming that your use of the word "directly" means as a warhead in a missile...while "indirectly" means bringing the weapon (biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological) into the U.S. and releasing it?

Well, if "very few" people thought that Saddam Hussein could get a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological weapon into the United States indirectly, that simply means that VERY MANY many people are amazingly ignorant!

According to former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a 5 pound bag of anthrax powder could be used to kill up to half of the population of Washington, DC:

http://www.tacda.org/resources/ptw/AnthraxFaqSheet-8.html

Now...do you REALLY think that "very few" people are aware that it's relatively easy to sneak a 5 pound bag of powder into the United States (by boat, train, plane, or automobile)?

Similarly, "binary" chemical weapons are specifically designed such that the two agents are not deadly until combined:

http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf/homelandsecurity/BinaryChemWeapons

From that website, the binary agents for VX gas are: 1) O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (QL), and 2) elemental sulfur.

Elemental sulfur is already available in essentially unlimited quantities in the U.S. If you think it would be hard to smuggle in, say, 50 pounds of QL (especially in multiple 10-pound shipments) you're incredibly naive. Were the resultant VX gas to be released in a carefully designed attack on...say, a subway system...literally thousands of people would die. (The lethal dose of VX gas is 10 milligrams...that's 0.00035 of an ounce.)

In short, only people who are amazingly ignorant think that the U.S. is safe, simply because few countries have *missiles* that can reach the U.S. with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. (In fact, missiles are likely to be the *least* likely method of delivery for WMD.)

Let's see if Brad DeLong falls into that category of being "amazingly ignorant" (i.e., not aware that WMD can be fairly easily smuggled into the U.S.)...or whether he was merely being dishonest.

On June 7, 2003, Brad DeLong wrote a bold headline: "We should be proud! We've locked the barn door!"

www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ 2003_archives/001597.html

Then he proceeded to bitch, moan, and smirk about how military incompetence had potentially endangered us all, from failure to properly secure the Al Tuwaitha nuclear facility in Iraq.

BUT, Brad DeLong, there obviously was NO DANGER, because, according to YOU, EVERYONE KNEW that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S.

In summary, Keith, this isn't even close. Brad DeLong's assertion that, "George W. Bush may have thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States, but nobody else did"...

...is a blatant and pathetic lie.

In his errors a man is true to type. Observe the errors and you will know the man.

Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy.

Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.

Only when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all.