| | To understand the reasons we invaded Iraq, it is best to look at the policy advisors who influenced Bush, rather than Bush himself. Doing so would reveal centers of influence like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, etc., in other words neoconservatives. The neocons have had plans and ambitions to invade Iraq long before 9-11, as is documented in the policy papers of the Project for the New American Century which many of them signed on to. Reading these papers (and other related writings) makes it clear to me that the neocons would have invaded Iraq even with solid intelligence showing Iraq did NOT posess WMD's because:
1. They knew that there was a perception amongst Islamic terrorists that America is a "paper tiger," and if you cause Americans a little pain and suffering, they will eventually withdraw, just like we did in Vietnam, Somalia, etc. Invading Iraq and setting up a new puppet regime would show that the US has both the capability and the will to go in on the ground and succeed. It was in many ways a show of strength (shock and awe). The theory is that doing so will force changes in behavior amongst other regimes that support islamic extremism, for they might then be next.
2. Having Iraq as a new base of operations in the Middle East would be a good point for follow on operations against other Arab regimes, given its proximity to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so forth.
3. Control of Iraqi oil would give them leverage against the Saudis and OPEC's strong influence on the world oil markets.
4. Iraq was seen as being the most likely country to convert to a Western style democracy (a la Turkey perhaps) given that they were already under secular rule, had oil wealth to use for rebuilding, had a decent middle class compared to other Arab countries, and there was an organized opposition movement of exiles that promised to help out with the transitional government (some help Chalabi turned out to be for that, huh?)
9-11 , combined with the relatively easy overthrow of the Taliban, was all that the necons needed to believe that Iraq was the next logical step in their program. However, Bush chose to sell the war on arguments that he thought would garner the most public support: WMD's, alleged Iraq-Al Quaeda ties, Sadam is evil, enforcing UN Resolutions (I find it funny that most of the people who used the UN argument were people that don't even believe the UN should exist), and so on.
What they didn't realize is that the Iraq took a cue from the Taliban, and most likely dispersed their loyalists into the populace immediately prior to US takeover so as to engage the US in a long, drawn out terrorist/geurilla conflict, which of course continues to this day in both Iraq and Afghansitan. They also disregarded the middle east foreign policy truism that an Islamic country will never accept Western values imposed on them by force.
Today, our president continues to say that we need to promote "democracy" in the middle east. This annoys me because democracy in and of itself simply means either elections or majority rule. Perhaps nowhere in the world is 'tyranny of the majority' more likely than in the Middle East. What the president (hopefully) really means when he says 'democracy' is constitutional liberalism, that is a gov't whose goal is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Included among the many reforms that would help the Islamic world catch up are freedom of speech, right to private property, separation of church and state, elections as the means of choosing leaders and so on. This approach would be problematic for Bush, however. For one thing, his declaring of secularism as a universal value would anger his support base in the religious Right, and would probably even clash with his own religious views.
My own opinion is that time will ultimately tell whether the cost of going to war was worth the gains. However, I am already convinced that Bush is one of the worst possible individuals to lead such a war. This war requires a leader who can level with the American people, engage those who make well reasoned arguments that the costs of this war don't exceed the benefits, and most importantly someone who can clarify the specific values and principles that America stands for.
Bush is not that man.
|
|
