I've never understood what the real reason we invaded was. I just know it wasn't what we said, or oil.
replies(21):
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
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?
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?
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.