Why Did Bush Go To War In Iraq?

| Educate!

Above Photo: Then President George W Bush is seen addressing the US Army soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas about the possibility of military action against Iraq in January 2003 [File: Jeff Mitchell/Reuters]

If this article is correct, and it makes its case well, then the Iraq War was because US leaders recognized they were losing standing in the world and US domination was in jeopardy. In other words, US empire was fading.

The Iraq War was needed to prop up the United States and show other nations that they still had to do as the US demanded. If the goal of the Iraq War was to prevent the decline of US Empire, it failed. In fact, it not only failed, it backfired. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have been US defeats. They have become quagmires for the US where trillions of dollars have been spent in never-ending wars. They have shown other nations that the US can be defeated by domestic insurgencies.

The Syrian War is another US failure. The US was defeated by Syria with the aid of Russia and Iran. Six years of war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a mass migration crisis that is roiling European nations and a nation that now needs to spend hundreds of billions to rebuild. The target of US Empire, President Assad, remains in power, stronger than before the US war.

The only successful US war was in Libya. The war where Secretary of State Clinton cackled at the death of President Qaddafi. That “victory” killed Qaddafi and destroyed the country but the US did not put in place a country that they could govern. They turned a functioning country that was one of the wealthiest in Africa, one that provided education, health, transportation, and other services to its population, into a dysfunctional disaster. That “victory” also had a boomerang effect because it showed the world the disaster of US Empire.

The Bush-Obama-Trump years are years of the decline and fall of US Empire. As we have said many times before, the task of activists is to end US Empire in ways that do the least damage possible to the world and to the people of the United States. The end of empire may come as soon as 2030.  KZ

No, it wasn’t because of WMDs, democracy or Iraqi oil. The real reason is much more sinister than that.

Sixteen years after the United States invaded Iraq and left a trail of destruction and chaos in the country and the region, one aspect of the war remains criminally underexamined: why was it fought in the first place? What did the Bush administration hope to get out of the war?

The official, and widely-accepted, story remains that Washington was motivated by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme. His nuclear capabilities, especially, were deemed sufficiently alarming to incite the war. As then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Despite Saddam not having an active WMD programme, this explanation has found support among some International Relations scholars, who say that while the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, it was sincerely wrong. Intelligence is a complicated, murky enterprise, the argument goes, and given the foreboding shadow of the 9/11 attacks, the US government reasonably, if tragically, misread the evidence on the dangers Saddam posed.

There is a major problem with this thesis: there is no evidence for it, beyond the words of the Bush officials themselves. And since we know the administration was engaged in a widespread campaign of deception and propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war, there is little reason to believe them.

My investigation into the causes of the war finds that it had little to do with fear of WMDs – or other purported goals, such as a desire to “spread democracy” or satisfy the oil or Israel lobbies. Rather, the Bush administration invaded Iraq for its demonstration effect.

A quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay. Put simply, the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world’s leading power.

Indeed, even before 9/11, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw Iraq through the prism of status and reputation, variously arguing in February and July 2001 that ousting Saddam would “enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region” and “demonstrate what US policy is all about”.

These hypotheticals were catalysed into reality by September 11, when symbols of American military and economic dominance were destroyed. Driven by humiliation, the Bush administration felt that the US needed to reassert its position as an unchallengeable hegemon.

The only way to send a message so menacing was a swashbuckling victory in war. Crucially, however, Afghanistan was not enough: it was simply too weak a state. As prison bullies know, a fearsome reputation is not acquired by beating up the weakest in the yard. Or as Rumsfeld put it on the evening of 9/11, “We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kinds of attacks.”

Moreover, Afghanistan was a “fair” war, a tit-for-tat response to the Taliban’s provision of sanctuary to al-Qaeda’s leadership. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith considered restricting retaliation to Afghanistan dangerously “limited”, “meager”, and “narrow”. Doing so, they alleged, “may be perceived as a sign of weakness rather than strength” and prove to “embolden rather than discourage regimes” opposed to the US. They knew that sending a message of unbridled hegemony entailed a disproportionate response to 9/11, one that had to extend beyond Afghanistan.

Iraq fit the bill both because it was more powerful than Afghanistan and because it had been in neoconservative crosshairs since George HW Bush declined to press on to Baghdad in 1991. A regime remaining defiant despite a military defeat was barely tolerable before 9/11. Afterwards, however, it became untenable.

That Iraq was attacked for its demonstration effect is attested to by several sources, not least the principals themselves – in private. A senior administration official told a reporter, off the record, that “Iraq is not just about Iraq”, rather “it was of a type”, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

In a memo issued on September 30, 2001, Rumsfeld advised Bush that “the USG [US government] should envision a goal along these lines: New regimes in Afghanistan and another key State [or two] that supports terrorism [to strengthen political and military efforts to change policies elsewhere]”.

Feith wrote to Rumsfeld in October 2001 that action against Iraq would make it easier to “confront – politically, militarily, or otherwise” Libya and Syria. As for then-Vice President Dick Cheney, one close adviser revealed that his thinking behind the war was to show: “We are able and willing to strike at someone. That sends a very powerful message.”

In a 2002 column, Jonah Goldberg coined the “Ledeen Doctrine”, named after neoconservative historian Michael Ledeen. The “doctrine” states: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

It may be discomfiting to Americans to say nothing of millions of Iraqis that the Bush administration spent their blood and treasure for a war inspired by the Ledeen Doctrine. Did the US really start a war – one that cost trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destabilised the region, and helped create the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – just to prove a point?

More uncomfortable still is that the Bush administration used WMDs as a cover, with equal parts fearmongering and strategic misrepresentation – lying – to exact the desired political effect. Indeed, some US economists consider the notion that the Bush administration deliberately misled the country and the globe into war in Iraq to be a “conspiracy theory”, on par with beliefs that President Barack Obama was born outside the US or that the Holocaust did not occur.

But this, sadly, is no conspiracy theory. Even Bush officials have sometimes dropped their guard. Feith confessed in 2006 that “the rationale for the war didn’t hinge on the details of this intelligence even though the details of the intelligence at times became elements of the public presentation”.

That the administration used the fear of WMDs and terrorism to fight a war for hegemony should be acknowledged by an American political establishment eager to rehabilitate George W Bush amid the rule of Donald Trump, not least because John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, seems eager to employ similar methods to similar ends in Iran.

  • dopfa

    The Bush family history goes WAY back, as do their many “household name” cohorts. Fascism is Corporatism. They committed outright treason and should have been hanged back in the day, but instead took over the government completely in 2000 through the Project for a New American Century. Their abject evil knows no bounds. Boy Shrub was merely a congenial puppet in their scheme. A good ol’ boy the right wing-nuts wanted to have a beer with while the rest of them dismantled what was left of the republic. Like Trump – A weapon of mass distraction.

  • rgaura

    International policies have many motives, they rarely serve one purpose. These wars have opened up many ways to loot the public coffers, and rev up the weapons and surveillance industries. The immoral, insane reasoning of these people has horrified me all of my life. So many americans don’t care, and don’t see.

  • chetdude

    For more background on the decaying, suicidal USAmerican Empire, check out Alfred McCoy’s excellent book, “In the Shadows of the American(sic) Century”.

    For more background on the systemic disease that drives the USAmerican Empire and its global adversaries, check out the history and parameters of what we call Dominator Hierarchies described in Peter Joseph’s “The New Human Rights Movement”.

    We must overcome the latter to survive as a species.

  • Joe Manchik
  • AlanDownunder

    PNAC (which this piece should have mentioned) was all about power projection, but why not make Israel and the Oil companies and the Evangelicals happy with the choice of where to project the power?

  • George Lewis

    I knew the Iraq and afganistan wars were bs before we went into Iraq. Sadam was a monster but he was not responsible for 911. Sadam hated the Taliban and al quaeda types because everywhere they go they set up sharia law and that meant Sadam would not be in power in anyplace they were, so he killed them as much as possible. We could have bombed any site and taken air samples. We didnt need to go in on the ground. The reason the troops went in on the ground was to install a international oil company friendly govt in Iraq so these companies could have easy access to oil, not limited by Sadam. Most of the highjackers were from Saudi, and Saudi financed the highjackers. Why didnt we invade Saudi? As for afganistan. We went to afganistan because oil companies wanted a pipeline across the country of afganistan and the Taliban said no. They also knew there was mineral wealth in afganistan. The guy the oil companies chose for the pipeline was Mohamed Kharzi the first installed president of Iraq. Another reason was the military industrial complex made huge profits from both wars ! Bush jr started 2 wars and cut taxes ! I cant remember any wars where they cut taxes. They will use the tax cuts and wars to run our country into the ground and then use it for an excuse to cut taxes.