Why do you think the USA attacked Iraq?
Well I know why I supported the coalition's invasion of Iraq. I think forcibly removing a violent, oppressive dictator is a good thing, it sets a good precedent to his peers, and it has the potential to introduce representative government to a region where none exists and none seems about to appear without significant outside stimulus.
Why the US led the invasion is a bit more complicated than that!
Probably it has to do with some combination of the following
1) The US wanted to respond to the attacks of 9/11, and any country that even resembled Islamic terrorists was a target. Although Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, he was a violent Arab known to be willing to use WMDs if he got them, and that type of regime was deemed unacceptable in the post 9/11 world
2) The invasion of Afghanistan was a resounding success, so the US military was on a roll. Momentum counts for something. We haven't invaded anybody since the quagmire in Iraq, if you notice, even though George claims to be "on the offensive" in his campaign to make the US more secure.
3) Saddam was the international bogeyman, and thus an easy politically acceptable target. Although Saudi made more sense, their strategic position as the #1 oil supplier and supposedly pro-Western government would make an attack on Saudi much more objectionable than an attack on Saddam.
4) Once the US began massing troops on the Iraqi border, any decision other than invasion would have been seen as a sign of weakness and was thus unacceptable. Once the US got moving against Saddam, any result which left him in control of his oil rich country would have emboldened his kind (oppressive violent dictators), so the US committed itself to his removal once the troops buildup begain.
In my armchair quarterback role, I see this as George's biggest mistake. He should've not put a single soldier near Saddam, and gotten both resolution passed (since Saddam would have refused inspections if their were not imminent invasion threat) and then lead the entire UN into Iraq. But that's hindsight!
5) George Bush probably had the least experience with diplomacy, and lowest interest or concern of any US president of my lifetime. Thus when he got an opportunity to go to war with Saddam, especially on the tails of victory in Afghanistan, he was glad to take it rather than think it over really carefully (like a diplomat or internationalist would). The question is kind of like "Why do you think the big, dumb, strong guy got in a fight?" I'm tempted to throw in retarded, but that's probably an exaggeration :-)
6) The Middle East is one of the most screwed up regions on the planet, and is incredible strategically important to the planet because of their oil reserves. George probably convinced himself that he could do something to "fix" the Middle East.
7) American don't think in terms of Clash of Civilizations because of the fundamental American ideas of equality, freedom of religion and separation of church and state. None of these exist in the Arabian region, but I don't think that is very easy for Americans to understand (even now). So George underestimated the "quagmire" affect, and the organized resistance to what we consider a natural state of life (freedom of expression, religion, etc.).
Anyway, my conclusion is I don't really know the answer to your question, but it probably has something to do with those 7 points, with #4 being the biggie.
If you ask me, the UN screwed up because they entirely supported the concept at first, they caused/allowed #4 to happen, and then when it became time to act they pulled the rug out from under the coalitions feet. Some allies we got in France and Germany... |
