Home | About | Donate

Why Did Bush Go to War in Iraq? The Answer Is More Sinister Than You Think

#1

Why Did Bush Go to War in Iraq? The Answer Is More Sinister Than You Think

Ahsan I Butt

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?

3 Likes

#2

This is old news that the stated reasons (excuses) for the Iraqi War were different than the underlying (true) reasons. However, the author neglects one important intended recipient of the message. It was not just the other regimes in the Middle East theater who were supposed to take notice, it was the American people themselves. “Support Our Troops” is a narrative that was/is required for perpetual hegemony. Rome, er the Reich, er America must march on!

43 Likes

#3

The Devil made him do it.

And Cheney.

6 Likes

#4

While the author of this piece rightly points out that John Bolton is using the same deceptive practices to start a war with Iran, it should be noted that the exact same motivations and deception are at play in our criminal attacks on Venezuela.

45 Likes

#5

Another reason was Saddam’s plan to switch Iraq’s oil currency from dollars to Euros.
And this was also one of the prime reasons that Libya was invaded.

38 Likes

#6

The author needs to state “our” Media was an active participant in this “sinister” deception and war crime. (And continuous to play the war propagandist.) As well as many of our “allies” of the “Coalition of the Willing.” All are guilty of or accomplices to mass murder. If they were German high command after WWII, they would all hang for their crimes.

46 Likes

#7

Or, as Chomsky noted at the time, if Iraq’s main export were asparagus, they would not have been invaded either, it was the oil. Also the invasion would generate massive profits for the merchants of death, the MIC. Governments wage war multiple reasons - all sinister though.

30 Likes

#8

Yes, there were likely many motives at the top for a war with Iraq, but no analysis is complete without considering the huge support the war got from the public. Those of us us who opposed it were few and far between and viciously attacked as traitors or as being unpatriotic. The press had a field day with it, covering it like a football game, complete with “score” updates and footage replays. The public ate it up. Bush’s ratings soared. There’s no escaping the fact that public acceptance and popularity of the elder Bush’s Gulf war was a factor in emboldening the MIC to push for an invasion of Iraq.

To this day, most Americans could care less that there were no WMDs. In their eyes, regardless of the motives at the top, Saddam got what he deserved, anyway. American culture, as always, is inextricably linked to war.

24 Likes

#9

I have no link, but i thought the Iraq war was initiated mainly because Saddam stated that he was no longer going to use American $$$ as the currency to sell Iraqi oil. My memory tells me a CIA fixer, who went in to try to convince Saddam otherwise failed and war ensued.
This is clearly similar to the Venezuela situation where autocratic, imperial America will brook no competition in the world oil market.

14 Likes

#10

Wesley Clark indicated that Iraq was only one of a number of Countries the US was to invade.

This is fact. Wesley clark listed Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Yemen..

The US attacks every country listed and more importantly there was absolutely no change of these plans when Barack Obama got the Presidency. People need to understand the importance of this as some even here continue to persist in advancing the notion that the uprising in Syria and Libya which led to protests was spontaneous and that the US played no role in those protests or that somehow the US is just drawn into these conflicts.

They wanted Iraq and they created “reasons” on the ground to attack. They wanted Libya, Yemen , Syria and Somalia and created reasons on the ground for this to occur. They needed a “pearl harbor” for every such event and voila , one conveniently dropped into their laps.

Added to this the transition from Bush to Obama made absolutely no difference in these plans suggesting that neither Bush or Obama directed this policy. I find it inconceivable that two separate persons both carrying the power of the presidency of the United States of America would pursue the exact same Foreign Policies initiatives unless they were not in fact in power and directing this policy.

Through both Presidencies the Corporate media trumpeted the need to go to war in these Countries and into the Trump Presidency, when Trump suggested he would pull out of Syria that same Corporate media slapped him down all on queue all suggesting they were given their orders. Indeed of the 7 countries Wesley Clark listed Herr Trump has announced travel bans on persons from 6 of those 7.

If one goes back to 1963 there was a president who resisted the MIC when he decided he would pull out of Vietnam and try to restore friendly relations with the USSR. He was assassinated.

This is all linked. The United States of America IS a military/corporate dictatorship and the people have been indoctrinated into believing that its Military is to defend “freedom and liberty”. This is not just about Iraq. It is about every Country the Empire has decided must remain as puppets, from Syria to Venezuela and from Cuba (Bolton warning their time is short) to Iran.

In the 1930s there was an attempted Coup by fascists in the United States of America. None of its conspirators were charged. To me it looks like that Coup was successful. The reasons the US went into Iraq are far more sinister than his author thinks.

38 Likes

#11

Have any D prez-candidates declined to buttress the “Maduro is a dictator” pretext? I don’t think so.

10 Likes

#12

As Portuguese Sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos notes: Any system of knowledge is equally a system of ignorance, and he cites 3 modes of producing ignorance:

Mode 1 produces one type of ignorance: arrogant ignorance, the ignorance of those who do not know that there are other modes of knowledge with other criteria of rigor and has power to impose its ignorance as the only truth.
Mode 2 is the collective production of amnesia, of forgetting. This mode of production has been activated frequently in the last fifty years, especially in countries that have gone through long periods of violent social conflict.
Mode 3 produces false knowledge to block the emergence of true knowledge from which it would be possible to overcome ignorance. This is the domain of fake news .

7 Likes

#13

Pony Boy, how can you deprive Dick Cheney of the singularity of identity here?!

1 Like

#14

First thought that came to mind was Wesley Clarkś revelation. Not hearing much from him these days…

3 Likes

#15

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were even one Democrat presidential candidate sincerely opposed to war? I’ve heard that Gabbard wants to seem that way, but I’m not convinced she basically groks the Monroe-doctrine problem, here, with Venezuela (then Nicaragua, &c.). It looks to me like every last one of these candidates endorses eternal warfare.

In other threads I’ve been insisting the only serious way to stop ecocide is to prosecute the immediate perpetrators (those who extract fossil fuels). The second clear demand which should be in the GND is that there has to be an end to war. I’m not kidding. The carbon footprint of warfare is inexplicably, totally hidden from us, because it’s indefensible.

Every bomb we drop is aimed at our own children.

15 Likes

#16

It certainly was taken as a multi-purpose advertising overdrive ‘conditioner’ in wash, rinse, repeat propaganda. All stops were pulled out for this organ orgy. Lies, hiding the truth, reinforcement of the fear/arrogant aggression polarity…

Yet another rollout of evidence of the sheer transparency of the predation advocated by the “Chicago Boys”. Crash the system, but only after the castle keeps are reinforced. Too bad they “externalized” the ecological balances that they themselves depend on. Tsk, tsk…Silly boys.

3 Likes

#17

Yes, actually, Bernie Sanders came out in nuanced, walk-on-the-tightrope foreign policy segments of both his Brooklyn campaign launch and his speech in Iowa the following day, concluding, as has Tulsi Gabbard, vehemently, that we (the U S) have no place interfering whatsoever in the sovereign nation’s business, and that we should let Venezuela handle its own affairs.

11 Likes

#18

Yes, a demonstration war (not exclusively, but crucially). Bush and others in the administration started giving speeches in the Summer of 2002 announcing a U.S. right to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason U.S. power decides is a legitimate reason (international law be damned). The policy was clarified in the “National Security Strategy of the United States” document published in September 2002. The document was reported upon in newspapers. So, the new rule was in “official” print: attack anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. A demonstration attack was required to confirm the policy. Following “The Powell Doctrine,” i.e. only attack those who cannot fight back, the criminal attack on Iraq was perpetrated… Chomsky calls it “the godfather principle.”

4 Likes

#19

Yes, I will never forget the drumbeat on MSNBC: “Count down, Iraq! Count down Iraq!”. It was disgusting. Even more disgusting to me who spent about 10 years in the movement against this war which Amre Musa declared would: “Open the gates of Hell!”, is the fact that more Americans did not stand up with us. We were holding our fingers in the dyke of war hell and so many people just didn’t come to our side and stay on our side. Now they got away with it and there was nothing to stop their power to destroy the Middle East and …elsewhere.

14 Likes

#20

This is an excellent post. People do not want to see the truth because then they would have to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT and stand up. We are a nation of cowards.

9 Likes