Reply #22: Here's my take on it [View All]

[The Traveler]

Here's my thinking on the subject, condensed as much as possible.

1) The general consensus of the defense community was that Hussein probably had WMD (even Clinton thought this was the case), but this was not viewed with excessive alarm because Hussein was considered "deterable", especially after the crippling blows dealt to him in the first Gulf War. Further, Hussein's power was easily contained.

Bush under represents the success of that containment and emphasizes associations with terrorists. (Hussein, like all Middle Eastern leaders, had such connections ... but he never trusted terrorists much. Their ideology and methods were a threat to him.) Much has been made recently, for example, of Iraq giving refuge to Abu Nidal or the restrictions placed on him by the Iraqi government. Restrictions which he eventually exceeded.

Less has been said about the manner of his death. (Poor man committed suicide. Had to shoot himself multiple times. Pity.) Why did this happen? Because Sadaam wasn't about to risk his own ass for Anu Nidal, and Nidal had stepped out of line. That is the essence of "deterable".

As has been noted elsewhere, more fanatical or desperate (and hence less deterable) regimes are also developing or possess WMD, yet their countries of not yet been invaded.

2) Much of the intelligence re: WMD appears to have emerged from Israel, and because of its source was regarded as being highly reliable. Oh, well. As a nation, we need to carefully consider our relationships with an "ally" so willing to manipulate us, especially when we evaluate intelligence they provide to us. Israel has a right to exist, and we have a right to apply the principle of "caveat emptor".

3) 9/11 and the WMD canard provided a rationale suitable for public consumption for the invasion of Iraq. The real motivations for that invasion appear to have been to a) establish a long term military presence in the Middle East and b) establish control over major oil supplies. This is the first major step towards the establishment of a "benign hegemony", a world order structured to suit the purposes of certain interests.

I believe the urgency behind this imperial movement is a recognition that dwindling resources, exploding demand (especially from China), and the effects of global warming and pollution will create a "perfect storm" which threatens the structure of the high energy technology based civilization created by the West. The basic strategy is to get in the drivers seat before that happens, and to project to the rest of the world an idealistic vision justifying imperial action.

Iraq was chosen because of its high value (oil) and because it was perceived as being weak and ripe for the plucking. A good place to start. Resistance to imperialism would decline as American citizens experienced the economic benefits of receiving the spoils of war. (This relates to the vaguely expressed concept of an "ownership society" Bush has been touting over the past year or so.)

But in order for this strategy to work, Iraq has to be secured and transformed into a profitable enterprise. That is not happening. I think that has so shocked the PNAC'ers that they are not sure what to do next.