While conceding that he might have to wait for history books to give him the answers, Steve Berg, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, says that the question “gnaws at me night and day.”
Why are we in Iraq?
It kind of hangs in the air, doesn’t it? But every time another American kid gets killed or another 20 Iraqis get shredded into bloody pieces, the question returns with a bit more urgency.
Below, Berg’s list of possible answers:
A. To remove the chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons that Saddam Hussein was about to hand over to the terrorists, posing an imminent threat to U.S. security.
A. To sever the link between the 9/11 terrorists and the Iraqi dictator.
A. To remove a brutal and despotic menace to stability in the Middle East.
A. To establish an Iraqi democracy as a model for change in the Islamic world.
A. To make the world safer.
A. To “finish the job” that Bush’s father started in the Gulf War, and to avenge Saddam’s apparent attempt to assassinate the elder Bush.
A. To secure Iraq’s oil supply, thus perpetuating America’s dependence on petroleum rather than launching a major drive toward energy independence.
A. To divert attention from the fact that we were unlikely to find Osama bin Laden and to concentrate instead on an enemy we could easily defeat on the open battlefield.
A. To attract terrorists from around the world to fight a consolidated war against the United States at a remote site, far from American soil.
A. To create a bigger, more telegenic war than the one in Afghanistan in order to appeal to the rising conservative tide at home — especially after 9/11 — and to win back the Senate for Republicans.
A. To slap down a dictator that the United States had helped in the past, especially in his war against Iran, but who then turned on his American benefactors.
A. To launch a latter-day crusade against Islam.
A. To do a favor for Israel.
A. To demonstrate that the United States is the world’s only superpower and that it’s willing to act in defiance of allies and apart from the United Nations.
A. None, some or all of the above.
The first two possibilities — the one about weapons of mass destruction and the one about a Saddam-Al Qaida alliance — have been pretty much disproved. As for the others, who knows? As I said, the question hangs in the air.
The related question about why we must remain in Iraq is easier to answer, and that’s that things would be even worse if we left. But that fails to address the original question about why we invaded in the first place and leaves the mystery dangling. Years from now the history books may tell us the answers, but I’m hoping to find out sooner.
I can already hear McClellan’s answer,
“Well, you must not have been paying attention because the President has made his reasons very clear and on many occasions so I see no reason to go into this further since the reasons are many and obvious and often repeated.”
Filled in with lots of
“You’re taking that out of context.”
“That’s not what I said.”
“The President’s stance is…known…”
We are in Iraq because it was unpatriotic to question Bush and his administration, and because the media agreed with this as well.
This is what I think, and probably what Berg is AFRAID of admitting:
But I think that this pales beyond this:
I’m sure you get my drift.
Somone posted this yesterday over on dkos, and I think we should all keep it in our portfolio of Downing Street Memo/Minutes evidence:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/
special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11809605.htm
Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2002
Bush has decided to overthrow Hussein
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
WASHINGTON – President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power and ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday.
No military strike is imminent, but Bush has concluded that Saddam and his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs are such a threat to U.S. security that the Iraqi dictator must be removed, even if U.S. allies do not help, said the officials, who all spoke on condition of anonymity.
“This is not an argument about whether to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That debate is over. This is … how you do it,” a senior administration official said in an interview with Knight Ridder.
The president’s decision has launched the United States on a course that will have major ramifications for the U.S. military, the Middle East’s future political alignment, international oil flows and Bush’s own war on terrorism. Russia and most of America’s European allies have expressed alarm about the administration’s escalating rhetoric on Iraq.
…more
Someone (i.e., the authors of this article) need to follow up with the sources on this story. Will any of these individuals confirm what they said in 2002 – that Bush had already decided on military action?
I heard the end of an interview (on Air America) with one of our Dem congresscritters . . . the upshot was that it was all a horrible mistake, but now that we’re there we cannot just pull out, we have to “finish the job”.
What’s “the job”?
To create a bigger, more telegenic war than the one in Afghanistan in order to appeal to the rising conservative tide at home — especially after 9/11 — and to win back the Senate for Republicans.
That’s my favorite candidate for a definition of “the job.” Only now the job will be extended past the 2006 elections… you know, just in case.
The folks behind this war had and have major imperial ambitions. This is not just about winning a few elections (though doing so certainly helped their cause).
A question that won’t be asked, let alone answered.
I came across an essay written by Chris Hedges at antiwar.com, through a link at James Wolcott’s site. I love James Wolcott and the Rude Pundit. Sometimes I think they’re two versions of the same person.
Hedges full essay is stunning. It covers a lot of ground in not a lot of paragraphs. Here’s his conclusion. It doesn’t address Berg’s hypothetical question, because it’s an answer to an even more disturbing one.
Thucydides wrote of Athens’ expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others, it finally imposed on itself.
If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.
Isn’t he the most remarkable person. I cherish every chance I have to listen to him and have luckily seen him on Charlie Rose, on Nightline, on NOW, and on CSPAN.
If you go here, you can watch/listen to a panel in which Chris Hedges participated at the L.A. Times Festival of Books at the end of April.
Striking in that panel discussion: Hedges is in stark contrast to Mark Bowden, who wrote Blackhawk Down. Hedges clearly has the deeper understanding.
I’ll check that out when i get home (I’m at work and can’t stream stuff).
OT – didn’t you get a Deadwood thread going once? That was before I saw the first season on DVD. I was floored. I also caught up on season 2 at the HBO site – those DVD’s come out sometime next year, I guess.
(and the widow stayed firm in the face of the thunder)
I supported the decision to go to war, I regret that now but there it is. My reasons, however, were only peripherally related to national security. I didn’t see any credible evidence for meaningful cooperation with Al Qaeda. And while I was pretty sure Saddam must have kept a little bit of his old CW stockpile hidden away, I didn’t see how that threatened US security. As for nuclear – nothing, biological – very doubtful. I did believe that given the chance Saddam might well reconstitute his programs but that was something that IMO could be dealt with if and when it did happen.
So why did I support it – to get rid of an exceptionally brutal and despotic regime. It should have been clear to me that the chances of this admin succeeding in a nation-building enterprise were slim to none, but it wasn’t.
As for the admin’s motives – I strongly suspect that there were multiple ones often overlapping but of different weight depending on the specific person. I am also virtually certain that many of them believed in both the WMD’s and the al Qaeda argument. For them the lack of evidence was only proof of the incompetence of the intelligence agencies and Saddam’s skill in covering his tracks. These are true believers – surely you don’t think that a little thing like evidence would affect their faith?
…I also think that there are still plenty of candidates for the position as head of an “exceptionally brutal and despotic regime.”
Sadly, it’s a very long list. I have to wonder – why this one?
We should ask one of the White House Correspondents to ask that question in the daily briefing. I think a question like that being asked in a White House briefing may even hit the corporate press.
Because the USA wanted blood after 9/11, and because they could get it there:
Because, after being smacked in the face (as a country) on 9/11, the USA needed to kick some ass, and ideally some Arab ass, and that one Arab ass was the easiest to kick (already down, already under military operations) and was the easiest to justify (long time grudge, nasty dictator, etc…).
It was also the fact that it was the only “enemy” that the US had a realistic chance of actually beating – can you imagine an invasion of North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia?
(It was an acknowledgement of weakness not strength, and the fact that the USA could not even carry it off has sent a loud message out there)
Jerome,
Your point that the people of the US wanted blood in exchange for 911 may not be too far off the mark.
However, it would appear they may have just a little hasty in their cravings for revenge from the nearest and easiest Arab.
It amazes me, that the issue of 911 can be relegated to the history books so easily by citizens of the US.
Particularly when there are many issues of that dreadful that are still not expalined satisfactorily.
Despite the wishes of the Administration, many people refuse to let the issue be relegated to the history books, and are carrying out their own investigations of the event.
A disquietening result is more questions arising from the ashes then anyone is prepared to deal with, and these questions ridicule the Official version of events, findings that citizens of America should be frothing at the mouth about, especially when the implicate the very Administration that refuses to study the matter as it should.
As these things progress, many things will become self evident, and eventually people will become aware that it was NOT OBL that was responsabile, but their very own Government, in the murder of 2,500 of their own people simply to gain the people’s support in persuing their agenda in the M.E.
I wonder, who will then be the recipients of the people’s anger then ??????????????????????????????????
See for the latest developments on 911;
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
————
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=551
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
————–
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent
————
The related question about why we must remain in Iraq is easier to answer, and that’s that things would be even worse if we left.
He’s on the right track, but he still has a way to go.
Things will only get worse, no matter what, but the longer we stay the longer they will take to get better.
That is absolutely correct.
The sooner the US pulls out their troops, the sooner Iraq can begin progressing through the stages of healing.
Besides the Steve Berg column, today’s Star Tribune has a strong editorial titled “Fig Leaf for War,” which cites “the latest British document leaked to the press” and says “both the British and American people were grossly misled.”
The editorial mentions Bolton and the ouster of Jose Bustani and says the “conclusion of many observers is that the United States did not want inspectors in Iraq because it undercut the U.S. case for an invasion.”
I’m sorry that I don’t know how to do a link. I subscribe to the Star Tribune, and I’m quoting from the paper version.
Today’s Star Tribune also has as a front page story (bottom of the page) a Los Angeles times article by John Daniszewski headlined “New British memos indicate Bush considered war in ’02.”
to copy a link, go to the top where it says address when you’ve opened the page of the tribune, then left click on it to highlight it, once this is done, right click on it and you’ll get a message saying copy, cut, click on copy, then go to where you’re typing your post for this board, left click on the page, a message will comeup with paste written on it, click on that and bingo you’ve copied the URL and tranfered it to you message for all to see.
Of course, it wasn’t just about oil. MarekNYC is absolutely correct that there were multiple overlapping reasons within the Bush and Blair administrations.
But IMO the single most important reason involved the control of the world’s most important strategic resource and, just as importantly, the control over the profits from that resource.
I know this is an old lefty saw, but just ’cause it is doesn’t mean it isn’t true.