June 23, 2005

Talking point:

So what was the primary reason for the Iraq War?

We now know it wasn't really WMDs (PLAN A) or terrorism-related (PLAN B). It wasn't really all about spreading Democracy (PLAN C), or Bush would be putting more pressure (correction, any kind of pressure!) on Israel and reaching out to people in other dictatorships like Pakistan, Burma and Uzbequistan. If it was just about oil (Plan D), well... so far, it's been a hell of an expensive way to get it!

So was the real goal to establish new US military bases in the Middle East (PLAN E), given that the US was already being forced out of Saudi Arabia (a key post-9/11 demand from bin Laden)?

Or was it all just a good excuse for a war - any war - to boost Bush's standings at home, increase GOP power and ensure re-election (PLAN F)? This is a particularly insidious possibility, and suggests that more GOP-sponsored wars (albeit better planned, one hopes) will follow.

Or was it a cabal-like conglomeration of all the above, with various interested parties signing on to the illegal invasion for their own more-or-less-obscure motives? That last option is my own personal pick...

5 comments:

gandhi said...

Another motive, of course, was the dynamics of war economics and how they benefit the military-industrial complex, including Cheney's Halliburton and KBR (which has ties to the Bush family). So was it (PLAN G) all about greed and money?

Oliver McCarthy said...

If it was about oil then why didn't Bush attack Saudi Arabia? And why did all the major oil companies (Shell, etc.) oppose the war? Halliburton supported the war, but that was only because of pressure from Dick Cheney. I bet you didn't even think of it that way!

Exadios said...

"If it was about oil then why didn't Bush attack Saudi Arabia?":

Because there have been Water Cuts of over 50% just south of Abqaiq.

Halliburton may have supported the war but most oil company executives did not. They have a fair bit of experience in the ME and know the people (and maybe they know them too well :-). Most oil companies want stability even if it means maintaining a situation that is not to their immediate advantage.

It does not need the support of the oil companies for it to have been about oil. Its more about national interest. And oil companies care nothing for the interests of any particular nation.

Wadard said...

I think it was the realisation of the Neocon ideal - knock down a country, flog its assets to foreign investors at a firesale and build it up in their image using the restorative power of pure 'small-government' crony capitalism.

gandhi said...

Adding weight to the "war, any war will do" theory (for domestic political advantage) comes this latest Bushism:

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war."

— GWB, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

Pages

Blog Archive