Finally the reason for the war on Iraq

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/920238.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

as the treads on Iraq have died a slow death, let's conclude what was the real reason for the whole "current occupation" as the war is behind us, and we should have the benefit of the hindsight...

I will quote this:

And that’s also why the British government went to war?
No, but they were madly keen to prove that they were reliable allies of President Bush—and there were those around President Bush who were determined to have a war.

There are those in Washington who now appear to see the weapons issue as irrelevant.
It was their decision to put this at the heart of their case. It cannot be a side issue after the war when they made it a central issue before the war.

Well at least it is clear why the British went to war - well it was pretty clear all along however they had to pretend (a they still do a little) that there were some other "moral" reasons, at least they are trying to come up with some...

But still it is a bit of a mystery to me why did the new Bush administration go against Saddam now?

There must be a several reasons in this case, all holding its own merits (unlike the British with just one overwhelmingly important reason)

My opinion is this:
Causes:

Main:

1. Wanted a more secure power base in ME as opposed to Saudi Arabia.
2. Opportunity to get out of Saudi Arabia all together to a frendlier regime (well more controllabe at least).
3. More control of worlds oil markets and prices, security in case of instabilities in Saudi Arabia
4. Preventing Iraq into becoming Iran #2 after the eventual death of Saddam

Convenient circumstances:
1. Saddam was a "bad man" in the eyes of the American and world public so he was a good target

2. Saddam as a tyrant was very unlikely to be able to rally up the masses behind him in order to oppose the invading armies.

3. Saddams army was very weak after 10 years of sanctions and his army's equipment was old


So all in all there were some compelling reasons to go there, but still the current "western occupation" would not be getting the required support if we were all told the real reasons for the war. So what were they from the US side?

* P.S , please do not let this slide into WOMD or no WOMD discussion - if there were WOMD's in Iraq and the US/UK were not able to find them by now after capturing the most of former Iraqi officials, and scientists... plus having their own troops on the ground for so long + all the possible military intelligence - no matter how large Iraq is, how can anyone benefit from hiding it still if they existed... so move on to real reasons for the war.

just to quote for the end

Energy security policy must take into account both short-term concerns and the longer-term trends and challenges of timely resource development. Policy makers must focus on the political dimension to the timely development of resources instead of assuming that market forces will always bring these resources to bear in an efficient, timely manner. Political considerations have contributed to a slowing in resource development in recent years and have, in several cases throughout the history of the oil patch, brought about market failure. There is no question that political factors could still thwart the full development of oil-production capability needed to meet rapidly growing demand in the years to come.

The Baker Institute and PIRINC recommend that resource development policy be addressed in a more comprehensive and less piecemeal and reactive fashion. A comprehensive policy must take into consideration long-term issues, strategic challenges, and emerging political trends in oil-producing regions. Policy makers need not fear that we are running out of oil, but constructive policies are required to promote supply diversity and timely development of the world’s resource base. Such policies should take into consideration both the economic issues related to energy security and strategic considerations. Both strategic components and economic protection are important considerations when devising a meaningful energy security policy.

http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/studies/bipp_study_14/index.html

hey, lets not forget that the oil ministry building was the first one to protect in the "free" Baghdad

[SlowwHand]

Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point.

[DanS]

In truth, your 1-4 are good reasons (I would quibble with #3, in saying that "control" isn't quite the right word to use, and we are only trying to influence the price in the long run by making sure there is enough supply available), but I do think you need to add:

5) WOMD (despite what you say);
6) Saddam is a bad man, and was destabilizing the region in any number of ways (a reason, not a circumstance);
7) Democratization of the ME and showing the ME that we would support liberal reform, especially in economic and political matters -- there is a group of neocons that are true believers in this;
8) Showing the Arab world we mean business, don't give a fig about Arab street demonstrations, and to get out from under the weakness shown in Somalia '93; and
9) Completing the military encirclement of Iran.

As I continue to think about, I keep editing in more reasons. There really is no shortage of reasons...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
In truth, your 1-4 are good reasons (I would quibble with #3, in saying that "control" isn't quite the right word to use, and we are only trying to influence the price in the long run by making sure there is enough supply available), but I do think you need to add:

5) WOMD (despite what you say);
6) Saddam is a bad man, and was destabilizing the region in any number of ways (a reason, not a circumstance);
7) Democratization of the ME and showing the ME that we would support liberal reform -- there is a group of neocons that are true believers in this;
8) Showing the Arab world we mean business, don't give a fig about Arab street demonstrations, and to get out from under the weakness shown in Somalia '93; and
9) Completing the military encirclement of Iran.

Yes I agree with "control" being a too strong word - more influence is more correct.

7 - is interesting, and it is interesting that there are people in the government neo-cons, that are true believers, we will see what happens with them when 60% shia majority choose a pro-Iranian government... but I believe that was a + in the administration for going after Saddam, after all this would be really "nice" if it was the main reason...
8, 9 make sense too, and they are probably just pluses, with 9 being a bigger plus combined with my reason #4...

Well 5, and 6 in my opinion more or less, as they might have been a + in some "decision makers" eyes but surely they cannot be convincing enough for US or other western countries to start"policing" the world in the case of severe abuse in obvious cases as Sudan, Burma, Congo or Zimbabve where there is no other issues to address (apart from evil dictators, or civil unrests)... anyway , not saying this was not important at all, but I wouldn't believe that was the reason to give the go ahead, as we were lead to believe.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point.

[Lord Merciless]

I always thought that the WMD is only an ruse used to pass the bureaucratic tests at UNSC. The notion that sovereignty of a state trumps every other rights is too dominant at UN.

[DanS]

Re #7 -- You will never find "the reason", but rather "the reasons". There are realist neocons and then there are "idealist" neocons. Most neocons are idealists, including Wolfowitz and Pearl. I think Paul Bremer, the head honcho of Iraq right now, is a realist neocon. That's why he was OK for the State Department, which is made up of a bunch of realists (not neocon). Rumsfeld is not a neocon, more of a free thinker, but uses the neocons towards his ends. Confused yet?

I don't think there will be a pro-Iranian Iraq. There are a lot of Iraq/Iraq religious rivalries over the separation of religious and temporal authority. The US can promote Najaf over Qom, since Najaf is now home turf. Najaf appears to be the real center of Shiite learning, but had fallen on tough times the last couple of decades.

Re #8, it is definitely not just a plus. Al Qaeda was promoting the idea that the US is weak, and our dealings with Saddam fed that impression. We showed that we are not weak in pretty spectacular fashion. We kicked a lot of pan-Arab jihadist ass and made it clear that we were one big martyr machine.

Re #9, it could be just a plus for most. But there are a lot of people with different pet reasons.

Re #5 & #6, please remember that we were "policing" the area for the last 12 years with constant warplane and sea patrols, and frequent engagements.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point.

Then, US army should already have invaded half of African countries...

[DanS]

Here's a short description of neoconservativism. This author puts Cheney as a neoconservative. I wouldn't label him that--he has been very coy about his real beliefs--but there you go.

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East -- a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again.

The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President **** Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as "neoconservatism," though a more accurate term might be "hard Wilsonianism." Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ("Soft Wilsonians," a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.

The author doesn't go into a third group of peole I would label realist neo-cons. They are more like the glue that holds the realist/neo-con alliance together.

[Lord Merciless]

That's just imperialism.

[Victor Galis]

10) Bush's approval rating hit 54% on the eve of the war and his domestic policies weren't helping this figure. Probably not the main reason, but I hardly doubt this contributed.

[Jaguar]

You forgot the simple reason that Bush doesn't like Saddam.

[Agathon]

Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now.

Proof? Source? Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded?

[Whaleboy]

"Just whittle it down to the mere statement that Hussein was a murdering scum, who lied and never did what he said he would to comply with anything.
Short, to the point"

Got more in common with Bush than most would admit! *cough*kyoto*cough*

You, me, and most from a Western perspective would view Saddam as a "bad", "evil" man, but surely we all know that such things dont exist! We only view him as such because our culture and our arguments are based on certain assumptions that are specific to our culture.

In a different culture, he may not have been viewed as such. Some Iraqi friends of mine who live in Britain said once that though they didnt like him as a leader (just as some Britons dont like Blair), he was a fellow Arab and thus infinitely preferable to the Americans. That reaction is making itself ever more clear in Iraq, as the people are becoming more and more violent and outspoken against the Americans. Even the crowd near the statue of Saddam as it fell was tiny compared to what could have been fielded, even more if they were not scared about going outside.

"Well I won't speak about Bush, but Blair has absolutely zero credibility now"

He'll probably win the next election, but by a vastly reduced amount. That will be good for democracy, as itll force him to become accountable and dependent on the house of commons.