What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

[Proteus_MST]

I think there is not a single reason but multiples at once which finally lead to the asttack:

1. Saddam tried to kill Bushs Dad
2. Bush wanted to be known in history as the president who liberated Iraq
3. Oil (as an added benefit)
and of course
4. geostrategical as having the irqui puppet state as a base of operation for actions against various muslim states (and not being dependant for this on Saudi Arabia anymore) is always a nice thing

I don´t think that one of these reasons alone would have lead to the war, but those 4 combined provided enough incentive to wage war.

[Vanguard]

We attacked Iraq because we can't attack Iran.

If we attack Iran, they close the Straits of Hormuz and oil goes to $400 a barrel. And then the world economy comes to an abrupt halt. Subsequently: World War Three, the end of civilization, a new dark age, talking apes take over the planet, etc, etc.

Compared to that, attacking Iraq sounds almost reasonable. First, we could make a decent argument for the legality of invasion; Saddam was unquestionably a bad guy and had technically violated some of the provisions of the cease-fire. So we were pretty sure we could get away with it.

And there seemed to be a number of strategic benefits from taking over Iraq. It would allow us, for instance, to threaten Iran much more effectively. We could also cut the line of supply between them and terrorists in Lebanon and the West Bank, something of great interest to, ahem, a certain lobby.

Installing a new government in Iraq also would allow us to restore the flow of Iraqi oil without the distasteful necessity of appearing to appease Saddam by removing sanctions. And, of course, we could spread democracy and freedom and market transparency, and so forth and so on.

All in all, I'm sure it seemed like great idea at the time. But there was a tiny flaw in the plan. It was bollocks.

Every plan is great if you only look at the potential benefits.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Vanguard

All in all, I'm sure it seemed like great idea at the time. But there was a tiny flaw in the plan. It was bollocks.

Blackadder

[Meticulous Man]

I believe the invasion was primarily meant to be an (foolhardy) attempt to create a more or less "democratic" country & US ally in the Middle East. Though oil and other natural resources are an important factor, I don't personally believe they really played any kind of primary role in the decision, at least directly. It might be that the administration just fell victim to some kind of groupthink and decided to invade in spite of the fact that there was not much of a chance of that leading to a positive outcome...

[East Street Trader]

The USA had large oil deposits which it could exploit in its own territory. That oil was used to provide cheap fuel for motor cars.

Voters in the USA like to hold their politicians accountable for all sorts of things. This suits the politicians as it allows them to exercise ever widening power.

One of the things (bizarrely) that USA voters hold their politicians to account for is the price of oil.

Oil production and price primarily depend upon the middle east.

The political result is that the middle east is the one part of the world where the USA can be guaranteed to take a close interest and to seek (ham fistedly) to keep stable.

The answer is oil.

[Heraclitus]

Saddam wanted to sell oil in EUR instead of USD.

[Arrian]

I believe the invasion was primarily meant to be an (foolhardy) attempt to create a more or less "democratic" country & US ally in the Middle East. Though oil and other natural resources are an important factor, I don't personally believe they really played any kind of primary role in the decision, at least directly.

Yeah, I think that's about right. Oil is the answer insofar as the US is interested in the ME only b/c of the oil in the ME. So, indirectly, any action taken in the ME by the United States can be said to "be about oil." But that's not very deep analysis. There was more to this.

The Bush Administration saw a war that was "doable" (their words, IIRC). They figured they could:

1) Topple a dictator (nobody likes dictators!). A dictator who had defied the mighty US. Make an example.
2) Create a US ally, or at least something resembling it.
3) Swing some nice oil deals with said new ally. Hurt OPEC.
4) Put pressure on other ME states (Iran, Syria), in two ways: a) our military presence next door; and b) the rise of a democratic state next door.

9/11 helped them sell it to the public. They wanted to do it before 9/11, though.

The idea of exporting democracy by force to a country that has no democratic tradition to speak of is dubious at best, especially on a shoe-string. The US didn't commit nearly enough troops to occupy and pacify the country (and the US public was never going to accept the # of troops necessary to do that). The sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq are deep enough to frustrate even a reasonably competent occupation/reconstruction plan... not that we had one.

That's not even discussing the morality of fighting a war because it's "doable." I don't for a moment believe that the administration really thought Saddam Hussein was a credible threat to the national security of the USA.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


how will an invasion of iraq accomplish this even if all plans proceed exactly according to plan?

The only thing an invasion could conceivably have achieved is an increase in the price of oil and/or a drop in production. Why would the bush administration have aimed for an increase in the price of oil? why use an invasion to accomplish this when there are so many cheaper ways to increase the price of oil?

How would the invasion control who gets the oil?

How would the invasion either increase the quantity or decrease the price of oil?

Although the oil companies like high prices for oil, the US is dependent on low prices for oil. Keep in mind the oil shocks of the seventies and the fact that part of the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place was because they were producing more oil than he wanted them too.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, so Saddam's son, NOT Saddam, praised Osama.

Still part of the government.

And a single source said Osama met with Iraqi officials. Was it the same source that claimed Atta met with Iraqis in Prague? Was it the same source that told us where the mobile biological weapons trucks were parked?

No, it wasn't.

Anyway, is it considered naive to believe the words that come out of the people that did it and believe that it was a war undertaken to advance a liberal view of international relations? Especially as all the realist views you guys are trying to advance would tend to argue against the war.

[Patroklos]

If we attack Iran, they close the Gates of Hormuz and oil goes to $400 a barrel. And then the world economy comes to an abrupt halt. Subsequently: World War Three, the end of civilization, a new dark age, talking apes taking over the planet, etc, etc.

Assuming they even had it closed for a day, we could most defninetly have it reopened within the week. Hell, if you don't believe that we could do that from the air and sea alone, there are two MEU's in the area right now that could take the coastline of the straights rather easily (it is rather sparcely populated and well within range of aircraft support from the Gulf of Oman i.e. carriers not within range of Iranian anit-ship missiles).

[BeBMan]

Wasn't there a consensus at poly that the war was actually about sand?

[Riesstiu IV]

To gain a strategic advantage for the US in the 21st century by creating an oil exporting, America friendly Iraq in an era that is experiencing a rapid rise in energy demands and the decline of oil production.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Saras


Blackadder

QFT

[DanS]

There are a number of reasons why the US got into Gulf War II -- probably as many reasons as there were people pushing it (I have my own). It doesn't seem like a fruitful exercise to try to prioritize the reasons after the fact. It's like trying to ascribe certain motives to the market for its daily fluctuations.

[Berzerker]

We're there because of oil.

I watched a docu on the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis and how we got in this mess - Iran elected a gov't headed by Mossadeq (?) which nationalized Iran's oil industry and that pissed off the Brits. But when Mossadeq came to power the Iranians kicked out the British, including their spook division. The Brits then asked us to overthrow the gov't and we used our embassy and assets to do just that. This is why the Iranians took our people hostage in '79, they were sure we had CIA operatives in Iran and they didn't want our guys pulling off another coup.