Dilbert on Iraq

[calmblueocean]

Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip "Dilbert", has been writing a series of interesting articles about Iraq lately, asking his readers why they think we actually invacded, and today, offering his own reasons:

One sure sign that rational decision-making is not at work is when you have 13 possible explanations for something after the fact. Another sure sign is that the people involved in the decision see what they expect to see, such as WMD where there are none.

With that framework in mind, here are my best guesses as to the emotional reasons, i.e. the real reasons, that America attacked Iraq.

1. President Bush wanted revenge because Saddam tried to kill his dad. On a conscious level, I doubt it was a factor. It probably never came up during a meeting. But on an emotional level it’s hard to ignore. I give it a 10% weight.

2. America, and especially its government, had a collective form of abused child syndrome after 9/11. We couldn’t hit the ones who hit us, but we had to hit SOMEONE just to feel better emotionally. I give it a 30% weight. And by the way, it worked on that level.

3. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The government didn’t have the tools to wipe out Al Qaeda any time soon, but it did have the tools to topple Saddam. I think many in the government (e.g. Powell) believed Iraq had WMD, and that became a convenient rationalization. I give it a 30% weight.

4. Our Vietnam-avoiding president needed to prove he wasn’t frickin’ wuss. That’s good for the ego and the legacy. I give it a 20% weight.

5. The President needed to do whatever was the opposite of just sitting there while the World Trade Centers were being attacked. I give it a 10% weight.

These are good. I also think a big emotional factor was peer pressure from the Cheney/Wolfowitz/PNAC club. And I disagree with his assertion #2, that going to war made us "feel better emotionally". It changed our emotional focus, sure -- instead of looking inward, at ourselves, we're now focused outward -- but does America really feel any better? Why is the right track / wrong track and Bush's popularity at record low numbers then?

Still, I think there's more insight in these few points than in all the policy books out there.

[unblock]

1. pretty facile take on things, imho.

no mention of the pnac plan; i thought the "saddam tried to kill my father" claim was debunked; and i frankly think his anger against saddam dates back to the first gulf war and poppy's decision to stop short of baghdad. THAT was when it all began for shrub, the "sobering up", the planning for the texas governorship, etc. THAT, imho, was when he decided to become president so that he could finally "finish the job".

[ixion]

2. IRAQ OIL + MIC = MONEY ::OPERATION .IRAQI_FREEDOM

I think the rest is fluff. Just my two cents. :-(

[xchrom]

3. i will never, ever believe that powell or anyone else

in bushco's admin thought iraq had wmds.

[Jacobin]

7. Me either. In fact, they KNEW they didn't have them

The inspectors were there for a fricking decade

[xchrom]

11. yup -- you see it as i do.

also -- i have no desire to redeem powell.

i want to see him ground into the same dust as the rest.

[wryter2000]

4. As far as emotional reasons go...

I'd add an Oedipal urge to do better than his powerful father. Dad didn't invade Iraq and lost his high approval rating and didn't get re-elected.

I think there are many reasons for the invasion, but becoming a "war president" so he could get "re-elected" was one of them.

[calmblueocean]

9. good point

I think that played a bigger role than the mere "revenge" for trying to kill Poppa Bush.

[SmokingJacket]

5. He gives them too much credit.

And doesn't seem to have read the PNAC papers.

My theories:

1. Get the oil out of the hands of Muslims.
2. War profiteering/ excuse to loot the treasury.

That's about it.

[norml]

6. I'd say #2 is one of his strongest points, the need to hit someone,

anyone, after being hit, no matter how unrelated to the initial hitting they might be.

I'm not saying the administration was guided by that impulse.

I'm saying they used that sentiment in the public, and they use it still.

I differ with Adams about the administration's views on Iraq having WMD.

I don't think any of them believed that.

When asked to give his UN presentation, Powell himself said, "This is bullshit!".

[calmblueocean]

8. I agree that the need to hit someone was definitely a part of it

Afghanistan just wasn't bloody enough to fulfill the need to lash out, it seems.

But I disagree with the part where Adams says that "it worked" -- that going to war in Iraq really did make us feel better. I don't think people really do feel any better. In many ways, I think people feel worse. Not only do they still not feel safe, but they know exactly how incompetent their government is, and they know they have blood on their hands. This leads to denial, cognitive dissonance, anger and depression heaped on top of the fear that was already there.

I just thought Adams was too glib about how going to war in Iraq made America feel better. But I definitely agree that the need to hit back was a big reason we're in Iraq today.

[rniel]

10. On #2

I felt that definately after 9/11 I was glad we went into afghanistan to stop those guys. I was pissed and wanted some payback. I didn't want any innocent people hurt, but I did want those responsible to pay. But when it was shifted to Iraq. I knew they were way out of line on that one and knew they had nothing to do with it.

But now I feel that 9/11 was an inside job all along so I fell for all the bullshit. At least part of the way.