←back to thread

93 points nabla9 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stormfather ◴[] No.44088898[source]
I've never understood what the real reason we invaded was. I just know it wasn't what we said, or oil.
replies(21): >>44088923 #>>44088932 #>>44088946 #>>44089002 #>>44089003 #>>44089018 #>>44089021 #>>44089058 #>>44089081 #>>44089124 #>>44089165 #>>44089259 #>>44089287 #>>44089572 #>>44091946 #>>44091963 #>>44092172 #>>44094240 #>>44094718 #>>44094727 #>>44098577 #
arp242 ◴[] No.44089124[source]
There was the notion in certain (neo)conservative circles throughout the 90s that toppling Saddam really would be the trigger for a democratic wave throughout the middle east, kind of like an "Arab spring". This would benefit everyone in a kind of win-win situation: the US would have fewer enemies, and the people living there would benefit because freedom and democracy is good.

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).

replies(3): >>44089158 #>>44089173 #>>44089178 #
moomin ◴[] No.44089178[source]
But you see, this was a bigger crime than the invasion. Because it was ideologically driven on faith, no-one was looking at the actual facts. The US military could knock over Hussein, no problem, but no-one had any plan for what happened next. No state-building, not even a plan for how the civil service was going to work. Absolutely no plan to win over hearts and minds and not create the next generation of extremists. No-one checking prisoners were treated with respect.

The Iraq invasion was wrong, but the occupation was worse.

replies(2): >>44089205 #>>44089363 #
1. arp242 ◴[] No.44089205[source]
I'm just explaining what the thought process was that lead up to the invasion.

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.

replies(3): >>44089369 #>>44091840 #>>44093562 #
2. moomin ◴[] No.44089369[source]
I think your scepticism is justified. Reading about Germany invasion the 1950s suggests it didn’t go massively well there. But they didn’t even try.
3. throw310822 ◴[] No.44091840[source]
> I'm just explaining what the thought process was that lead up to the invasion

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.

4. const_cast ◴[] No.44093562[source]
The way you do it is covertly and from afar. You need the people to think they wanted their own revolution. It's what we do today and in the past across Africa. Soft-colonialism just works better.

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.