Why?

[carnide_]

CNN - Casualties

Is this the way to win the global war on terrorism?

Can someone explain to me the * REAL * reasons to attack Iraq? Terrorism was not one of them, for sure.

Why was Iraq attacked? Afghanistan was a real target for the war on terror, but Iraq?

Because WMD? What WMD?

[BeBMan]

It was all about sand

[Elok]

I wondered that myself a while ago. There aren't even any plausible ulterior-motive theories; the Bush administration would have had to be cosmically stupid (on a level far beyond what it's usually accused of) to think it could pump out sufficient oil to recoup its losses anytime soon, as some suggest. He could have been playing Wag the Dog but that's a very risky game. Probably nobody knows the real reason except administration higher-ups.

[Az]

a ZOG operation to protect the main hive core.

[The Mad Monk]

Because it puts us in a position where we can credibly threaten Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

[Spiffor]

There were many motivations to go to Iraq. None would have been enough to go to war by itself, but the combination of them were a good incentive:

- Oil. More precisely: the ability to get a strong oil producer (a "swing producer" who can supply oil when demand rises drastically) that is not Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have funded terrorism bigtime and will continue to do so until they sufeer from a significant pressure from washington. However, until GulfWar2, the US were tied because they needed Saudi oil; and Saddam would have probably been a very insensitive supplier.
To establish a puppet regime in Iraq allowed not to be dependent on the Saudis anymore, and to actually take real steps in the war on terrorism by acting against the House of Saud.

- With several 'rogue countries' (read: countries that do not follow the rules of the New World Order as they have been defined by the US and their friends) beginning to near completion of their WMD programmes, the US had to show its muscle. Since North Korea is already too dangerous to attack, Saddam was the target of choice.
He was the easiest to attack: his army was weakened by the previous war and 12 years of embargo; his population would love to see him gone; his WMD program was stalled for long; and he was already pictured as the big villain in the American public opinion; his country is mostly desert, and it is much easier to do an airborne assault on such terrain than on Iranian mountains. I don't know if the top US officials at the time knew how much the military leaders would suck, but that may enter the equation too.

- All the ruckus about Iraq begun shortly before midterm elections, at a time when Americans wondered why Bin Laden hadn't been founded yet. For a long time, the threat to Iraq (and then the actual war) was a Wag the Dog operation. I personally expect them to "discover" damning evidence of Saddam's HorribleHorribleOMGOMG WMD during the campaign.

- I think the Neoconservative belief of changing the Middle East so that it becomes democratic had something to do with it too. Iraq was weak, and its atrocious regime wouldn't be missed. Besides, Iraq has the potential of being rich, with its sea of oil and with a possibly strong agriculture. Iraq may have been dreamt as the playground of the neoconservative democracy.

- It also was a power play. The New World Order is being discussed more and more, the USA are losing of their relative strength to emerging powers like the EU or China. Doing this war helped showing who's the boss. It went unexpectedly badly on the diplomatic side, when France, Germany, Russia and China kept being opposed. These countries were expected to follow Washington's lead in the end (such expectations were held for every country on Earth). The mere 40ish membership of the "coalition of the willing" shows that DJ Bush Jr. can't have everybody dance on his music anymore. Such diplomatic failure was unexpected.

- Saddam's WMD may possibly have been part of the reasons. US intelligence in Iraq seems to have sucked very much, and we should not rule out the possibility that the White House actually believed Saddam was developing WMDs seriously, and had to be taken out before being too dangerous to topple.

[Az]

Personally, If Saddam didn't have any WMD, he's the biggest ******* in the world ever, for interfering with weapons' inspectors for the entire 90s, and keeping the sanctions on. He should've let them do their work, as fast as possible, and then he could've got out of the inspections regime, and become very powerful once again.

[Spiffor]

The Iraqis feared Saddam chemicals. The Iranians feared Saddam chemicals. Saddam had to play the difficult game of appearing threatening to his populace and neighbour, and of appearing harmless to the US and west. Things were not exactly too simple for him.

Besides, there is little doubt there were still one or two labs developing chems in the country. Had the inspectors found them out, the US may have spinned its way into declaring an internationally-backed war against Iraq.

[Az]

The Iraqis feared Saddam chemicals. The Iranians feared Saddam chemicals.

No, not really.

[Drake Tungsten]

All the ruckus about Iraq begun shortly before midterm elections, at a time when Americans wondered why Bin Laden hadn't been founded yet. For a long time, the threat to Iraq (and then the actual war) was a Wag the Dog operation. I personally expect them to "discover" damning evidence of Saddam's HorribleHorribleOMGOMG WMD during the campaign.

Get rid of this paragraph and you have a pretty insightful post there, Spiff. I agree with you on a lot of it, particularly the general point about the war in Iraq being fought for a variety of reasons that added up to a convincing case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel

The Iraqis feared Saddam chemicals. The Iranians feared Saddam chemicals.

No, not really.

If Saddam admitted to not having any BCN weapons, what would stop Iranians from storming across the border?

Don't forget, the Iraqi army was already weakened, and there's probably no hope of outside help.

[Drake Tungsten]

You think the U.S. would've just stood by and allowed the Iranians to overrun Iraq?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You think the U.S. would've just stood by and allowed the Iranians to overrun Iraq?

I doubt they would have joined up with the Iraqis. I suppose they could have taken on both sides at once in a three way!!

Seriously, this possibility would have been disaster. This may, in fact, be another reason for us taking Iraq when we did. We sure couldn't let Iran have it.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by BeBro
It was all about sand

[Dis]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There were many motivations to go to Iraq. None would have been enough to go to war by itself, but the combination of them were a good incentive:

- Oil. More precisely: the ability to get a strong oil producer (a "swing producer" who can supply oil when demand rises drastically) that is not Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have funded terrorism bigtime and will continue to do so until they sufeer from a significant pressure from washington. However, until GulfWar2, the US were tied because they needed Saudi oil; and Saddam would have probably been a very insensitive supplier.
To establish a puppet regime in Iraq allowed not to be dependent on the Saudis anymore, and to actually take real steps in the war on terrorism by acting against the House of Saud.

- With several 'rogue countries' (read: countries that do not follow the rules of the New World Order as they have been defined by the US and their friends) beginning to near completion of their WMD programmes, the US had to show its muscle. Since North Korea is already too dangerous to attack, Saddam was the target of choice.
He was the easiest to attack: his army was weakened by the previous war and 12 years of embargo; his population would love to see him gone; his WMD program was stalled for long; and he was already pictured as the big villain in the American public opinion; his country is mostly desert, and it is much easier to do an airborne assault on such terrain than on Iranian mountains. I don't know if the top US officials at the time knew how much the military leaders would suck, but that may enter the equation too.

- All the ruckus about Iraq begun shortly before midterm elections, at a time when Americans wondered why Bin Laden hadn't been founded yet. For a long time, the threat to Iraq (and then the actual war) was a Wag the Dog operation. I personally expect them to "discover" damning evidence of Saddam's HorribleHorribleOMGOMG WMD during the campaign.

- I think the Neoconservative belief of changing the Middle East so that it becomes democratic had something to do with it too. Iraq was weak, and its atrocious regime wouldn't be missed. Besides, Iraq has the potential of being rich, with its sea of oil and with a possibly strong agriculture. Iraq may have been dreamt as the playground of the neoconservative democracy.

- It also was a power play. The New World Order is being discussed more and more, the USA are losing of their relative strength to emerging powers like the EU or China. Doing this war helped showing who's the boss. It went unexpectedly badly on the diplomatic side, when France, Germany, Russia and China kept being opposed. These countries were expected to follow Washington's lead in the end (such expectations were held for every country on Earth). The mere 40ish membership of the "coalition of the willing" shows that DJ Bush Jr. can't have everybody dance on his music anymore. Such diplomatic failure was unexpected.

- Saddam's WMD may possibly have been part of the reasons. US intelligence in Iraq seems to have sucked very much, and we should not rule out the possibility that the White House actually believed Saddam was developing WMDs seriously, and had to be taken out before being too dangerous to topple.

good post. That about sums it up. It was a combination of all those reasons.