Was there a sound, compelling reason for the US to invade Iraq in 2003? If so, what was it? If not, why the invasion?

Well, I'll ring in with the sucker answer: Before the invasion, the U.S. leadership had most Americans convinced that (1) Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who already had a history of genocide against his own people using poison gas; (2) He continued to pursue WMD; and (3) those WMD included nukes that he was on the verge of developing, which he wouldn't hesitate to use.

The denizens of the bible-belt heartland where I live, cut off from reality as they are, still have a perception (judging from the correspondence in the local newspaper) that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. ("They're all 'towel-heads' anyway" )

People will believe what they want to believe, and -- even scarier -- they'll believe what the Bush administration wants them to believe.

Well, it's true that he was a mass-murderer and tyrant. The problem there is how the invasion was an answer to mass-murders a decade and two decades ago. Ther was no indication that another attempted genocide was imminent.

Talking of the boonies, there's a painfully slow and cheesy US 'comic' (it's more a soap in comic form) carried in some papers here; Rex Morgan MD. The current story line involves a wounded GI Rex is treating. (You can tell the GI is horribly wounded because he wears a cool eye patch.) The GI puts the case for war, Rex is the initially sceptical foil (it seems) in the developing storyline. Today the authors had the Gi say that it's a war of ideas, that women arte treated like slaves 'over there' and that 'if we win rights for women, it will be worth it'.

Might some in the US really see this as the justification for the war? Not just 'reshaping the Middle East', but engineering social change at gunpoint.

Interesting.Women treated as slaves and all. Mrs FP is quick to point out that there are fewer women Members of Parliament in good old free,liberated, non-sexist, egalitarian Britain than ever were in many of the 'Parliaments' of repressed, unliberated, sexist, non-egalitarian places like Iraq

it would be a big mistake to confuse Iraq under Saddam with Afghanistan under the Taliban. In Iraq it was not seen as normal for women to hold high government positions but as a society in general the country was remarkably egalitarian, in that, for example, women could freely choose to be in one of the professions and were not inhibited in careers. The regime was distinctly secular in its outlook.

What percentage of members of Congress are women, by the way?

Fred,
The U.S. population is 51 percent female. In Congress, however, 90 percent of the lawmakers are male, 89 percent in the House of Representatives and 93 percent in the Senate.

That's pretty quick Koz: even before I'd edited and added the bit about the society in Iraq ! Somewhere there are figures , certainly in a UN study, for various countries. From memory, and surprisingly to an outsider , the Iraqi women had quite a representation. Something which Iraqi women were seeking as a guarantee was that 40% of the legislature be female post-reconstruction, too. If they get that they'll be way ahead of Britain, where there has been a system in place of all-women shortlists in some constituencies; that is that the Labour Party ruled that only women would be considered for selection as their candidates in them.

PS From Koz's link I see that 45% of the US legislature are lawyers. Nothing wrong with that Where else are lawyers who are not good enough for the outside meant to go to scrape a living?

'I think that there were many reasons for this war, even in the mind of George W. Bush. I think each key player in the Administration had a different reason for wanting this. I tend to think that we went to war because most people thought Saddam was a provably dangerous man who was hiding a W.M.D. program. I tend to think that Bush’s second inaugural—the one in which he called for an end to tyranny—would not have happened had the American military found ten pounds of Iraqi anthrax in a bunker somewhere. This is a roundabout way of saying that democratic reform is the reason we have now for the war, because W.M.D.s weren’t found.' www.newyorker.com

I'm not sure I agree entirely with that.

There are lots of conspiracy theories about the invasion, mostly centred on PNAC, and there are certainly some striking coincidences between the Plan for a New American Century, and the events that unfolded, and also between its authors and members of the administration.

However, I'm coming to favour the idea raised in this thread - that they simply thought it would be easy. They did it because they thought they could. Success was going to be its own justification. Their paradigm was the Berlin Wall falling, or the success of South versus North Korea. They really thought they could quickly create a showcase for capitalism in the Middle East, and solve multiple problems at a stroke.

There's a quote from Rice (I've lost the reference - I think it might in the article which is being discussed in the quote at the top) along the lines of "It's a messy world and someone's got to clean it up." This is what the Bush administration imagined they were doing - cleaning up the place, lancing the boil, draining the swamp... whatever metaphor you prefer.

And they though it would be as straightforward as the metaphors suggest. They used a minimum of troops. (Another quote; Colin Powell, asked, after the first Gulf War, why he sent five carriers, said it was because he didn't have six.) Paul Bremer, for example, spent his time creating a regulation-free zone, trying (unsuccessfully because it was illegal) to sell off Iraq's assets and firing government workers. He cared so little about the security situation that he disbanded the army and sent them all home with their weapons, to start an insurgency.

Basically, the Bush administration thought it was all going to be OK. Of course the Iraqis would welcome Western capitalism. Of course the Iraq economy would subsequently boom. They would free the women, fix up the place, and undermine support for religious extremism all over the world.

Their criminal negligence was in having no Plan B. This may have been because, as shown also by the initial response to Katrina, the Bush administration is actually run by a small cabal, somehwat sheltered from news they don't want to hear. They deliberately ignored intelligence professionals in the run-up to the invasion, for example.

Conspiracies are usually not convincing explanations of events. In real life, no one hatches plots while cackling evily over their own wickedness. These guys maybe thought they were doing the world a favour. The real explanation, as usual, is perhaps incompetence, and in this case a kind of starry-eyed idealism of the right - a deregulated free-market was going to solve everything. There may have been some cynical calculation, too, about electoral boosts or money to be made, but (call me a liberal bed-wetter) I like to think no one could start a war on those grounds and consequently live with themselves.

(Who knows how important a role the religious convictions of some players had, too - both Bush and Rice have said that God guides them. If you feel the Big Guy has your back, you might be more inclined to do something stupid than otherwise.)

Sometimes hubris and a grand gesture pay off; promising to put men on the moon within the decade, for example. But Bush is no Kennedy:

'"The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful," Mr. Scowcroft said. "If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse." www.truthout.org

(The problem with this whole theory is that, if Bush & Co. wanted a country to showcase Western economic and political approaches, they already had Afghanistan. I guess they suspected that Afghanistan will always be a mess. Just about any economic approach would be bound to succeed in Iraq, on the other hand; it all keeps coming back to oil.)

The Rex Morgan commentary on Iraq has attracted a little attention. (Warning! Don't start reading this strip! It's addictive - it's in the "so bad it's good" category.)

Juan Cole has a neat summary of possible individual motivations. They sound lame, but might make some sense if you consider that they must have believed that it would be a short, sharp campaign - a 'cake-walk'.

'Bush himself appears to have had an obsession with restoring family honor by avenging the slight to his father produced by Saddam's remaining in office after the Gulf War. Cheney was interested in the benefits of a war to the oil industry, and to the military-industrial complex in general. It seems likely that the Iraq war, which produced billions in no-bid contracts for the company he headed in the late 1990s, saved Halliburton from bankruptcy. The evangelicals wanted to missionize Iraqis. Karl Rove wanted to turn Bush into a war president to ensure his reelection. The neoconservatives viewed Saddam's Iraq as a short-term danger to Israel, and in the long term, they hoped that overthrowing the Iraqi Baath would transform the entire Middle East, rather as Kamal Ataturk, who abolished the offices of Ottoman emperor and Sunni caliph in the 1920s, had brought into being a relatively democratic Turkey that was allied with Israel. (This fantastic analogy was suggested by Princeton emeritus professor and leading neoconservative ideologue Bernard Lewis.) This transformation would be beneficial to the long-term security of both the United States and Israel.

None of these rationales would have been acceptable across the board, or persuasive with Congress or the American public, so the various factions focused on the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately for them, this rationale was discovered to be a mirage.'
www.salon.com

A more straightforward idea - it was a mistake:

'The answer to this larger issue is clear, even if Congress won't spell it out: A small cabal, centered on Cheney and Libby but with allies in the Defense Department, decided the United States needed to take out Saddam Hussein. They appear not to have cared that their information was weak, so arrogant were they in the rightness of their cause.
When it became clear they had been horribly wrong, they admitted nothing. Instead, they lashed out at their critics. Lewis Libby is charged with going a serious step too far. He may be the only one charged with crossing a legal line, but many in the Bush administration crossed moral ones on Iraq. Indicted or not, they are culpable.' www.commondreams.org

Bush himself has just reiterated the reason that the Whitehouse seems to have settled on:

"Our security at home is directly linked to a Middle East that grows in freedom and peace. The success of the new Iraqi government is critical to winning the war on terror and protecting the American people. Ensuring that success will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve, and it will involve more risk for Iraqis and for American and coalition forces." www.cnn.com

Is this sound, however? What evidence is there that the invasion has helped (or will help) the Middle East grow in freedom and peace? Was it compelling? A decison to bring democracy to a chosen country, as part of a long game to reform the Middle East, would make the war one of choice, not necessity, wouldn't it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname,

If Iraq had beeen a hotbed of religious fanaticism and Islamic fervour and was so a breeding and training ground for fanatical terrorists then, yes, she was a threat to us in the West, to Israel and peace in the region. As it was Saddam suppressed any religious threat, real or imagined, to his regime. So how did removing him by force improve the position ? Better a secular dictatorship that was powerless to attack , and was not creating terrorists for export, than a democracy where Islamic fundamentalists or extremists may have a say and also condone such terrorist behaviour.

This explanation of how the fraud came about rings true for me - again, no real conspiracy, but ordinary, fallible people out of their depth:

'Conspiracies to defraud usually begin with a goal that is not in and of itself illegal. In this instance the goal was to invade Iraq. It is possible that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud - because, as juries are instructed, "no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements."'
www.tomdispatch.com

It still leaves the question of why there was such belief that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. The motivations Juan Cole suggests might have helped tipped the balance, but they were not enough to convince anyone that war was the best option, surely.

In 1812, when the US invaded Canada, there was hubris similar to that possibly surrounding the invasion of Iraq:

'William Eustis, the U.S. Secretary for War declared: "We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard." Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared: I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet." To Jefferson, it was "a mere matter of marching."'
www.mcgill.ca

They did it because they thought it would be easy.

On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:

"We 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 program."

That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators, one a probable Democratic nominee for president, who are now slamming George Bush for acting on the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200402/02052004.html

Many people tend to forget or conviently overlook how far back the WMD issue goes. Because it certainly didn't start with President Bush.

And some people tend to conveniently overlook: Clinton did not launch a pre-emptive war solely on that faulty intelligence. George W. did, and eventually proved that the intelligence had, indeed, been WRONG! Thousands dead and billions in debt is too great a price to pay for the inability to countenance dissenting opinions.

The fact that others had suspected Hussein had WMD is not a sound, compelling reason for the war. They were also wrong. As Frankvan points out, they weren't so wrong that they launched a botched war over it, but they were wrong.

Giving the administration the benefit of the doubt (although it seems that they did 'cherry-pick' the information that suited them and 'fix it around the decision'), they may have believed the war was necessary. But it would still be an awful mistake, with hindsight, and I don't see any apologies forthcoming.

"...if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites..."

Is that the part you think "Many people tend to forget or conviently overlook"? If so, I certainly agree with you. Further, please inform us as to the actual WMDs sites that we hit during Bush's war. I, and, I suspect, others, will gladly praise Bush for doing so if you provide those sites.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
And some people tend to conveniently overlook: Clinton did not launch a pre-emptive war solely on that faulty intelligence. George W. did, and eventually proved that the intelligence had, indeed, been WRONG! Thousands dead and billions in debt is too great a price to pay for the inability to countenance dissenting opinions.

I am not convinced the intelligence was all that faulty. I am pointing out that in 1998, WMD's were a concern. We had Democrats in the Senate urging Bill Clinton to take serious action in Iraq. Had he done so, he would have had the backing by his own party. I dare say many Republicans would have given their blessing as well.

Now on the lives sacrificed & the cost. I don't think any of us here like seeing our soldiers & loved ones killed in war. And I also realize you know from your first hand experience, the ugliness of battle.

As for the billion$ spent. In past wars we spent what it took to win. I feel that as long as there is a threat to our National Security, spend what we need to get the job done.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
The fact that others had suspected Hussein had WMD is not a sound, compelling reason for the war. They were also wrong. As Frankvan points out, they weren't so wrong that they launched a botched war over it, but they were wrong.

Giving the administration the benefit of the doubt (although it seems that they did 'cherry-pick' the information that suited them and 'fix it around the decision'), they may have believed the war was necessary. But it would still be an awful mistake, with hindsight, and I don't see any apologies forthcoming.

NNN-"The fact that others had suspected Hussein had WMD is not a sound, compelling reason for the war."

LR-I have to whole-heartedly disagree. The intelligence we had at the time strongly suggested he was in possesion of WMD's that he was in violation with his U.N. resolution. So what are we suppose to do, lethim build up & make the first move???

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
"...if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites..."

Is that the part you think "Many people tend to forget or conviently overlook"? If so, I certainly agree with you. Further, please inform us as to the actual WMDs sites that we hit during Bush's war. I, and, I suspect, others, will gladly praise Bush for doing so if you provide those sites.

Tell you what I'll do. When I run across a report of any overlooked stockpiles of WMD's, that didn't get sent to Syria, I'll post it.

quote:

As for the billion$ spent. In past wars we spent what it took to win. I feel that as long as there is a threat to our National Security, spend what we need to get the job done.LR

I agree with that, but like General Shinseki, I believe that should be done before the war is launched, not as an afterthought, or an "oops!" The first Bush & Co, got it right, Bush Jr. screwed up big time.

quote:

The intelligence we had at the time strongly suggested he was in possesion of WMD's that he was in violation with his U.N. resolution...

The intelligence was wrong. There was other intelligence - particularly from the UN weapons inspectors, who were in a position to know and who were right - that told us war was not necessary.

Hussein's suspected possession of WMD is not a sound, compelling reason for the invasion. We know now that his WMD programs had been wound up by the mid-90's. Sent to Syria?

The faulty intelligence about WMD is, at best, an excuse for having made a tragic mistake. However (as the Plame affair and the 'Downing Street Memo' show), it seems that the Bush administration was so gung-ho for war that they ignored intelligence that suggested caution, and inflated the importance of doubtful intelligence (for example that supplied by Ahmed Chalabi) that could justify invasion.

The WMD story still doesn't really tell us why Iraq was invaded. It was one of the 'facts fixed around the decision'.

quote:

...So what are we suppose to do, lethim build up & make the first move???

The choices, as has often been said, were not between allowing Hussein to do what he liked or war. Aside from the financial scandals, and the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, the various sanctions against him were effective in limiting Hussein's military ambitions. He had very little miltary potential, even inside Iraq.

North Korea, to pick one example, does have WMD and an unstable tyrant in charge, yet war is not seen as the answer there. No one in the administration has ever seemed quite so keen to invade. Possibly this is because North Korea does have WMD and delivery systems. Seoul would inevitably be shelled as soon as hostilities started.

That leads us back (I think) to the idea that Iraq was invaded because it was thought it would be an easy little war, relatively light on casualties, and success would be its own justification.