cuba

I do believe that oil was definitely a priority (even though this may seem naive to you). Now with all due respect i don't think the War in Iraq was for national security purposes like Afghanistan was. Even though Saddam was a terrible person (of course that's an understatement) I doubt that he posed direct a threat to the US security at the time.

(And i'm only first year econ so give me a chance.)

__________________
Collins Class rule!

JAD_333

That's a problem for everybody. The pretext didn't hold up. Once it evaporated, people who supported going into Iraq from the gitgo divided into those who felt cheated and showed their anger by joining the opposition and those who pretty much knew from the start that the pretext was...well, just a pretext. Still, it was a problem even for those who continued to support the war, because now to keep going it was not only necessary to carry on a military/recontruction effort, but to fend off opponents at home. In a way, it's been 2 wars for the past 3 years, political and military.

I don't know how to get this across to you, but I'll try. The thinkers who pressed Bush to go into Iraq were way beyond WMD, Saddam and Baath party butchery. These were convenient symbols to them, the elements of a pretext. Pretexts are important because leaders need public support to launch a war, especially when not in response to a direct attack. Weinberger affirmed this principle in the 1980s, but it has been around since ancient times. The public responds immediately to a direct attack, but when the threat is well hidden except to those who are in tune with complex geopolitical currents, it is very difficult to awaken people to it.

Observers who had been watching the ME for years, many of them in think tanks, universities, and in the intelligence community became convinced even before 9/11 that the US should insert itself militarily into the ME. They believed that secular governments in the region were imperiled by a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism that in time would take over enough countries in the ME to join with with Iran in creating a formidable anti-western block. If this were to come about, the US would in time be forced to go to war to protect its vital interests in the region and to defend Israel. The neocons bought into this thinking well before 9/11 and tried for a long time to get the US to act. But the stars didn't line up until 9/11. And it just so happened at that time that there was a corrupt, sword-rattling, egomaniacal leader who was in violation of all sorts of international agreements who just happend to rule a piece of land in a perfect place for the US to insert itself into the ME.

We'll go in, topple the evil leader, free the people, run things awhile, set up a democratic government a la post WWII Japan and Germany, keep some troops there, delink Iran and Syria and now cover both their flanks, and generally throw a monkey wrench into the fundamentalists' plans. Enter the insurgency. (Translation: the fundamentalists fight back; they exploit Sunni resentment, religious devisions...and do whatever they can to force the US out.) The rise of the insurgency is in a sense a vindication of the assessment of those who urged the US to establish a military presense in the ME. The question we will never be able to answer is, has the decision to confront the fundamentalists now rather than later paid off? I think it will if we stick with it.

Like OoE I struggled with the question of going into Iraq; I expected them to have caches of WMD, but I never for a moment believed that that was the real reason for going in. I still have shakey moments, usually when another soldier dies or a bunch of Iraqi women and kids are splattered over the pavement by a suicide bomber. Is this the price of freedom or the punishment for human imperfection? Who knows?

I notice you have a tendency to put a lot of importance on details to the exclusion of the big picture. It's like you're in a situation where someone has a gun to your head and you want to debate what kind of gun it is or fret about whether the gunman legally owns the gun, or what would happen to your head if the gunman fired. The only term you need to define is threat and the only things you need to know is whether there is one, where it may lead and what to do about it.

Anyway, I guess I owe you a bit of gratitude for raising these questions again. It's always good to check one's pulse.



Good to hear. We don't want to take ourselves too seriously.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Shek

Cuba,

You need to place Iraq within the context of the Middle East.

What countries border Iraq?
Are these countries friendly or unfriendly towards the US?
How does the US rhetoric of freedom vs. the policy of supporting Mubarrak and the Saudi royals play?
Would an Iraqi democracy create a domino effect put pressure on the autocrats to better align rhetoric with action?
What would this do to the AQ recruiting if the rhetoric vs. action mismatch went away?
Which country would be easiest for the US to promote a case against?
With an example of swift regime change, what kind of pressure does that put on other Middle Eastern regimes?

I'm not asking you to buy in to all of the answers to the above, but it provides a strategic line of reasoning that is an answer to: Why Iraq?

Lastly, about the oil. If you ask if the US wanted stability in a region that has the world's largest proven reserve of oil and the opportunity for recapitalization of delapidated oil fields (whether US, UK, or some other countries, the point was not necessarily who was doing the recapitalization, but whether it happens), then you'd probably here an enthusiastic chorus of "YES!" from all the members here.

However, if you ask whether it was about BushitlerCheney enriching themselves and their oil buddies, then that's where you're going to catch flak, as the evidence vis a vis oil simply doesn't provide anything to support such a viewpoint. If you wish to dispute this, then talk to me about the Development Fund for Iraq.

Also, if you want to talk oil prices, it doesn't matter whether that Saddam didn't sell Iraqi oil to the US. In a market where you have a homogeneous good (you should have covered this already as one of your assumptions of a perfectly competitive market), if a country buys "Iraqi" oil, then the barrels of oil produced by another country will then be available to the US. In other words, Saddam as an individual country placing an oil embargo on the US has no impact.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

JAD_333

Good post. Clarifies what many of us feel in our bones but can't express as well as an econ prof.

Herodotus

Jad thanks for the response. I'll only say this; my opposition to the war is a philosophical one. That is to say I am a conservative and realist (no peacenik here), and if this war is helping to eliminate a threat to US national security then fine and dandy, continue on. If however this war is more about nation-building and grand utopian ideas (democracy for all, etc.) then that's where my skepticism comes into play. If you cannot have one without the other (i.e. eliminate the threat via democracy promotion) then I am still skeptical.

However I am probably not going to change anyone's mind, and you seem confident that a threat is being subdued, so I am not going to press the issue, lest I be thought of as a troll. I am mostly hear to exchange ideas and different perspective , and no I do not take myself too seriously.

BTW--I had inferred earlier that you were a man, my own bias I guess since I assume all posters to these types of message boards are men, but here there are a few women, and you have such a lovely avatar, and Jad may not be a man's name...So if I was wrong in that I apologize.

Shek

He's had an operation recently

Parihaka

He used to look like Richard Chamberlain you know, I think his new look is much improved...

JAD_333

I'll come at responding to your post by addressing your last comment first.

Yes, I am a male, at least I was the last time I checked.

JAD is my initials in France where I was born. I used it because it sounds more like a name than the English method which would be JDA. Mind you I am thoroughly Americanized--came here at age 2--and an Anglophile to boot, a distant relative being made an English citizen by Act of Paliament in the late 1600's and my French-born father being a big fan of Churchill and a loather of DeGaulle. The 333 I added because on most sites JAD by itself was taken... The avatar is my 16 year old daughter who uses my computer more than I do...it was my way of showing her pleasure at her good school work. I'll take it down shortly and put up something boring like the state flag of Virginia or mabe not because it was designed in 1776 to show resistance to tyranny, namely kings, e.g. the British soverign and might offend the good Brits on the WAB. That said...


I respect your position. The war is definately threat driven. I think your concern about it being about nation building may result from confusion over US principles vs policy. From day one, the US has supported the spread of democracy and has made it part of the philosophy of what the US stands for. At times it has been used by more proactive elements in our country as justifcation for urging the US to take action against some dictatorship or another. At other times it has been used the other way around, as a primary condemnation against the US when it does take action. Whatever nation builiding we are doing in Iraq is not a first cause, but rather a necessary after action. The first cause in Iraq is to meet a threat to national security. You would be hard pressed to find a pure example of the US launching a military action for the sole purpose of nation building.


I doubt anyone regarded you as a troll. On the contrary, while you were rehashing issues covered here many times before, what is a "newer" WAB member to do? Avoid voicing his/her concerns because they've already been debated ad nausium? I suppose you could have researched the old threads, but that isn't as much fun. No worries.

JAD_333

Secret's out. A prostate biopsy.

Richard will be disappointed, but the young lady is delighted and sends you a kiss.

cdude

yeah, the seller sure knows what the buyer has

__________________
Tibet might be faraway, but it's ours

WorldCitizen

Just to add my $0.02, obviously there was and is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.

But as to what led to the war, well, the tale is simple and tragic. Bush planned on invading Iraq before becoming president. There is documentary evidence to that effect:

Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

Even post 9/11, it was generally accepted between London and Washington that the "War on Terror" was just a pretext, and that the intelligence was being retrofitted to the policy. There is more documentary evidence than you can shake a stick at:

The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?

A sad tale indeed. Sadder still is that neither Bush nor Blair will face prosecution.

Dreadnought

* No sir, What is sad is that we allowed him to kill untold thousands before we went and did what had to be done.

As far as your articles go I would not preach this as truth. Clinton already had plans in hand to act but did not. So it is only expected that the idea of removing Saddam transended to the next US president namely Bush.

You seem to do alot of finger pointing without a lot of credible evidence to support said claims. If you read the various threads then you will get an idea of just how much homework has been done based upon the subject.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

WorldCitizen

Thankyou for your sentiments. Too often the suffering of the Iraqis goes unnoticed.

Possibly. The fact Bush had plans before becoming president is telling. This combined with the Downing Street Memos suggests that WMD/War on Terror was just a pretext.

Like I said elsewhere; I'm here to learn, and look forward to doing so. The Downing Street Memos are genuine, as are Bush's plans. How else might I interpret them.

Dreadnought

What is most important is look at both sides of the coin. Not just one. What were the events leading up to this confrontation and the ramifications behind it.

Dreadnought

One last thought: If Oil had anything to do with the Iraqi war then somewhere out there there is somebody or some country sitting on an awful amount of oil. In theory as much oil as it has taken U.S. dollars and Allied moneys to liberate Iraq and help support its government to date.

If you know where it is (the oil that we were supposedly invading for and going to war for) then please do tell because we the American people have been experiencing much higher gas and oil prices then we have in the last 20 years. All at the expense of liberating a country from a tyrant. A thankless job for us and our Allies none the less. Pehaps history will judge us easier as time passes on and future generations of Iraqi's finally get a fair chance at a descent life with basic human rights. Ones that a tyrant would never dream of giving them and ones we sometimes unfortunately take for granted.