I've never understood what the real reason we invaded was. I just know it wasn't what we said, or oil.
replies(21):
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary.
The "weapons of mass destruction" was kind of used as a pretext because they didn't believe such an argument would win popular support. It's somewhat abstract and rooted in a kind of ideology rather than pragmatism. They also genuinely believed that Saddam did have weapons of mass destructions, but just couldn't prove it. They would be found after invasion. Just a little white lie in the meanwhile.
That's really all there's to it. People get all cynical about "freedom and democracy", but that really was the goal, as a kind of "enlightened self-interest". After 9/11 this only became more acute: with the middle east part of the liberal hegemony, there would be no more Al-Qaeda (or they would be severely weakened).
Because they lied about the pretext, there was little to no broad discussion about any of this so they just operated in their ideological echo chamber. There was no one to really point out this entire notion was perhaps well-intentioned but also rather misguided and ignorant (to say nothing of the execution, which was profoundly misguided and ignorant).
The Iraq invasion was wrong, but the occupation was worse.
But yes, I broadly agree with you. Although I'm somewhat sceptical you can do this kind of state-building imposed from the outside in the first place though. But if you must do it, then the way the US went about it was clearly the wrong way.
If you prefer to live in the psychological simplicity and safety of "neocons do evil because they're {evil,greedy,powerhungry,...}" or whatever then you're free to do so. But at that point you've also disqualified yourself from serious discussion.
It's not easy to give cliff notes, because there's too much to say. But in general, this was at the time when the USSR had still only relatively recently fallen and the US was not only essentially the king of the world, but had 0 meaningful competition for said claim. The goal of PNAC, and of the US political establishment, was to take this scenario, expand it, and perpetuate it. So the primary point was to prevent the rise of any other power and to essentially dominate the world primarily through being seen as the unquestioned premier military power, which would entail dramatic increases in military spending, regular demonstrations of power including preemptive and unilateral attacks on other countries if necessary, and so forth, wrapped in a tidy package of 'spreading democracy and freedom.'
Most famously they acknowledged that all of their goals would be quite difficult without, in their own words, something like a new Pearl Harbor: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor." 9/11 happened less than a year later, and everything went into overdrive, a trend that continued long after Bush was but a fading memory.
[1] - https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses
Project 2025 is this generation's equivalent and will be equally as successful.
Just another example of hubris. Then he got re-elected, which still blows my mind.
So maybe the reason was just the desire to clip those wings?
Is there any historical, legal, or strategic precedent that would make this even remotely feasible? And given the likely short political shelf life of the current U.S. administration, would any of this outlast the next four years anyway?
Are you sure you explained the thought process, or you just explained the justifications and the propaganda in support for a plan that had different purposes? Because of course if you need to convince an entire country (including its politicians and intelligentsia) to start a war, handwaving things such as "democracy", "domino effect" and spreading fears about WMDs is an obvious strategy.
He was both a horror and a blight on a long spanning intelligence effort that intersected with the storied history of Anglo interaction with the "Musselmen" empire.
Long story short, you can't without a Muslim perspective.
I'm not sure I understand this. If mass murder, propaganda, war crimes, atrocities, torture, money laundering, drug & people trafficking, etc aren't literally evil - just 'normal Western capital' stuff - then what do you call evil?
Turns out, if you come in with guns and start making demands the people will hate you. And you need the people. The people aren't just the dudes living in a country - they are the country.
It effectively eliminated Israel’s most significant regional threat and dismantled a key unifying figure for the Sunni Arab world.
Unlike other Sunni regimes that had largely aligned with American and Israeli interests, Saddam remained defiant.
The publicly stated reasons for the invasion—WMDs, democracy promotion, and anti-terrorism—were largely smokescreens meant to pacify public opinion, obscure the true motives, and keep people distracted and divided.
Then again, certain governments continue to act like we were still in the XIX century so "might makes right" (Russia, Israel, China, Morocco, Turkey...). If one is not ashamed to be in such an esteemed company, everything is possible.
> Develop and deploy global MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
> Control the new “international commons” of space and “cyberspace,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.
They really just kept at it, huh. Although this part is interesting:
> The Joint Strike Fighter, with limited capabilities and significant technical risk, is a roadblock to future transformation and a sink-hole for needed defense funds.
Wonder why it wasn't cancelled then? Change of mind, or just too many greased palms?
The us was not going to invade Iran or Saudi Arabia. Fighting militias is difficult.
Having troops there allowed to get the enemy (jihadists) where it was, so troops would serve as a lightning rod.
Iraq was probably the place that was the easiest to invade without to many consequences, where nobody would cry about Saddam going away.
I'm trying to see what strategy it was, of course geopolitics are ugly.
Both of them knew how to work the DC machine, but neither of them were ever bothered by little things like "facts". I don't think we'll ever know what they really believed.
They've tried twice already, the second time the Canadians (/British at the time) burned down the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
And Bush still destroyed it with ease. The idea that the USA couldn't annex Canada by force is just silly.
We'd fight, and slit your throats in the dark. But there are some of us who'd just roll over, or welcome you with open arms. Just look at the morons in Alberta talking USA annexation -- they're probably 10% of the population. That's enough for a Quisling regime.
I was in the offices of WNET/Channel 13 in Manhattan the day the news began moving among insiders that an invasion of Iraq was imminent. All these middle aged producers were stoked. If that was PBS you can only imagine what the vibe was like everywhere else.
Of course within a week people like this and their reporters were basically competing to get “embedded” with invading troops and tell an approved story. Wild times.