Originally posted by OldCorp
reply to post by Frira
OK, now I'm dying to know. What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq?
What did I write? Did I not state that it dangerous to presume we know-- especially if that presumption is first and foremost the product of
political ideology which seeks to demonize our opponent?
I am to the left of most of my republican friends and to the right of most of my Democrat friends, but have a few ideals which enter into the extreme
in each direction.
My Republican friends either accept the official story (bad intelligence concerning WMDs) or that taking down Saddam was deemed necessary to avoid
another "Shah of Iran" debacle (popular uprising which could rightly claim that the US support of that man had allowed a tyrant to oppress his
My Democrat friends either accept to official story or that it was all about Halliburton. The Halliburton speculation is loosing support due to
Obama's failure to expose that as the cause-- as many had expected he would and the "so an Imperialist US can claim the oil" speculation in the
earliest days of that war was abandoned by most of them after the US did not claim the oil.
I think speculation which can survive the hindsight of actions and inactions of two Administrations (and their associated Secretaries of Defense, of
State, UN Ambassadors, and so on) suggest a preemptive motive. Among scenarios I find worth considering are:
* Iraq had plans to invade some Iranian territory.
* Iran had plans to invade some Iraqi territory.
* Another state had plans to invade part of Iran or Iraq (or a neighbor of those).
* Other scenarios which take much more to explain-- but still are only speculation since I am not anymore privileged to what intelligence the US had
at the time than others posting here.
In any of those, placing a formidable US military force in Iraq "upped the ante" and removing Saddam dealt the US a better hand-- or so it appears.
Good speculation may well take into account what did NOT happen that our intelligence and that of our allies expected would happen if we had not
deployed into Iraq. I imagine the UK knows, and I imagine Israel knows, and I imagine a few other allies know the real reason.
No matter what, I begin with a presumption
in my speculation that the strategic objective was long-term-- keeping Middle East oil flowing to US
allies who, not having oil reserves comparable to the US, would experience devastating economic consequences.
PS: I never worked formally in such analysis, but stumbled into a position in which I had to discern likely motives of corporations seemingly
breaking expectation or of making what appeared to be moves contrary to their own interests. I was batting pretty close to a thousand. I am not
claiming that my experiences make my speculation right-- but it is my experience that my speculation tends to fit real-life motives and methods of
large scale organizations. In the case of Iraq, I have far less to work with because I am not in the loop and those who are, aren't likely to share
I mention this as the counter-point to much of the speculation we hear which I find easy to dismiss as unrealistic-- not how nations behave and not
providing a realist impetus for the actions of the US and its allies which we have witnessed.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Frira because: PS