Why did the United States invade Iraq?

[kpete]

AFP/Getty


..................

Neoconservatism, which had been around for decades, mixed humanitarian impulses with an almost messianic faith in the transformative virtue of American military force, as well as a deep fear of an outside world seen as threatening and morally compromised.

This ideology stated that authoritarian states were inherently destabilizing and dangerous; that it was both a moral good and a strategic necessity for America to replace those dictatorships with democracy — and to dominate the world as the unquestioned moral and military leader.

Neoconservatism's proponents, for strategic as well as political reasons, would develop an obsession with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That obsession would, by the end of the decade, congeal into a policy, explicitly stated: regime change.

Neocons' case was always grandly ideological, rooted in highly abstract and untested theories about the nature of the world and America's rightful place in it. Their beliefs were so deeply held that when 9/11 shook the foundations of American foreign policy, they were able to see only validation of their worldview, including their belief in the urgent need to bring democracy to Iraq.

It was this ideological conviction, more than any piece of intelligence or lie told about it, that primarily led America into Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction were the stated justification, but they were never the real reason, nor was bad intelligence.

The lesson of the Iraq mistake is not the dangers of lying or of anything as narrow as faulty intelligence, but rather of sweeping ideologies and ambitions that can take on a momentum all their own.

That particular ideology, neoconservatism, remains a major force in the Republican Party, and a number of its tenets are held by some Democrats as well. Its mandate for war, and its faith in the power of American military force, still animates that ideology, particularly toward the Middle East.

It is remarkable and alarming that more than a decade and thousands of lives later, neither Republicans nor Americans more broadly have fully confronted how that ideology developed to lead us into a catastrophic war — and the dangers that it, or any other blindly fervent ideology on the right or the left, could still pose.

MORE:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives

[kgnu_fan]

1. oil

[malthaussen]

2. Too simplistic an answer.

Man is more than a material creature. This is not to say that gorging on the spoils was not an expected result of the conquest... uh, liberation... but that such gorging was only one of several motivating factors, the biggest of which is the desire to push people around, and the breathtaking sense of supremacy and entitlement that is inherent in the neocon psyche.

-- Mal

[kgnu_fan]

4. without oil in Iraq, nobody would've gone there to push around ppl for fun

[malthaussen]

5. Well, that explains Grenada, then.

I suggest there are some things that cause motivation aside from material gain. Your mileage may vary.

-- Mal

[hobbit709]

7. The original name for the plan was Operation Iraqi Liberation

Until they realized what the acronym was.
The Bush government by inept thieves then couldn't even manage to steal they oil they wanted.

[Marr]

12. Not really. It was to control the oil.

More broadly, to 'transform the Middle East' into a big plunder pile for western corporate interests. I've no doubt the proponents of these plans say themselves as heroic, but then... greedy assholes always convince themselves they're the good guys.

The real, underlying reason they were so interested in the area was/is oil.

[malthaussen]

3. This is because the ideology is ingrained in our psyches.

Somehow, this excerpt to me seems to assert that the ideology is somehow foreign or external to who we are as a people, that the ideology precedes act, rather than is made up to excuse or explain it. I think that is the wrong way 'round. The ideology "led" us nowhere, those who embrace the ideology developed it to account for where they wanted to go. Thus it is perfectly explicable why this ideology has not been "confronted," as to do so would require self-awareness and self-judgement which is absolutely foreign to the current Zeitgeist.

-- Mal

[valerief]

6. PNAC wanted oil money. Also, war is a racket. Tapping the war chest is highly

profitable.

It's always the money.

[jwirr]

10. Plus add the idea that we are empire and ruling the world

makes it a plan.

[valerief]

11. That means nothing in and of itself. It's always about the money. Only the money.

Yes, that's how small-minded they are. Like money addicts.

[clarice]

8. It's difficult for me to forget the rape rooms. nt

[MineralMan]

9. Because Hussein embarrassed Daddy Bush.

That's why. All Junior Bush needed was an excuse.

"See, Daddy...we got them back! I did good, huh?"

[Downwinder]

13. Bush jobs program?

[pampango]

14. The US had not invaded anyone since Desert Storm in 90-91. In repub eyes, we were not macho.

Republicans pretended to (or actually did?) believe that the US was perceived as soft after 8 years of Clinton refusing to use ground troops; that we were afraid of the casualties of putting troops on the ground.

It was partially a macho thing to prove that we were not, as the Donald would have described it, 'p*****s'. As you can tell from the bombastic statements of the current crop of republican candidates, proving you are macho enough to invade and defeat small countries is still a big deal in republican circles.

[KamaAina]

15. To get to the other side?

[NobodyHere]

16. Because people like Hilary voted for it.