Why are we in Iraq?

Neocon cabal wanted to establish permanent American empire in Middle East

all evidence says shit wouldn't have happened if not for them, everything else was bonus or smokescreen

Yup.

Which is, admittedly, very close to "No reason, we just did it because we could."

Haha sort of.

I mean except that the reason in a lot of these dudes minds is ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL.

Which really could be it's own reason on this list.

it is

To "finish the job" we started during Gulf War

which itself was a project of a Neocon cabal wanted to establish permanent American empire in Middle East

yah i agree with big hoos

The neocons were blinded by their desire to remake the middle east in their chosen image, as a compliant piece of the empire.

They then argued themselves into believing it was a reasonable goal and within our grasp, given a strong enough 'will to power' on our part. After all, the USA was a world-bestriding hegemon with a mighty and fearsome military machine -what could go wrong besides our own determination to succeed?

They had the ear of a naive president who was easy to flatter into thinking he was just the kind of strong figure needed to roll over the middle east and fix all our problems in one simple thrust: flatten Saddam and force the Iraqis to embrace democracy. All the rest of the middle east, seeing this act of force majeure, would fall into place as if by magic.

They were (and still are) a bunch of well-educated idiots who had no clue how much they didn't know about the world, because they were convinced it didn't matter. Even now they think they almost won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

you know they're tryna come back

we all know this already, this shouldn't be a question anymore

the real query is: what is the future of Iraq? American vassal with pseudo-democracy (somewhat like Pakistan) or Frankensteinian thorn-in-the-side hostile state (like Afghanistan, as our stooge Karzai isn't capable of governing the warlords there)... currently governed by a defiant Shiite (Maliki) that takes his orders from an emboldened Iran ?

the only result of the war thus war has been Iran's strategic victory. America lost, Iraq lost, Afghanistan lost, the Taliban prevailed, Iran won

and by extension, Dubai keeps winning

not to mention al-Sadr's eminence, for hey isn't the entire "peace" dependent on him...only when he gave his consent did the civil war abate in August '07 - when he decides to give the go to the Mahdi Army again and attack any perceived persecution on the part of the Sunnis - hard to do when it's a Shhite gov't - it's chaos again

oh yeah, sorry to not acknowledge the "surge"

thank you surge!!!

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/surge!.jpg

>thus war

far

Luckily, Iran's strategic victory has not added appreciably to their power, afaics. We are very lucky the Kurds are in the picture in Iraq. Iran has no traction with them.

You cannot reduce such a complex event/decision to a single, ultimate "why," tempting as it is to do so. After all, if you removed every reason except for "neocon cabal wants to establish a permanent empire in the middle east," you don't have a war. And you wouldn't have that desire for a permanent empire without a need to control the oil supply. And you need the support of corporations who want to make money in order to make it happen. And then there are reasons that go to "Why Iraq and not somewhere else," e.g. that it was easier, that we had already successfully established Hussein as a villain that the public would rally against.

Yes but the Kurds are not very lucky that they are in the picture in Iraq, as I'm sure you'd agree. They are just where Iraq and Turkey want them - nowhere

what is the status of Kurdish representation in the Iraqi Parliament?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Representatives_of_Iraq#2008_issues

Kurdistan Islamic Union 157,688 1.3% 5 +5

xpost to Hurting

Ultimately, a loose pile of interests (making money, controlling oil) don't coalesce into a war without an overarching vision of victory that tempts the players to accept the risk. The neocons pre-assembled that vision and sold it aggressively to the major players. When Bush bought into it (via Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz), the whole batshit plan got legs, stood up and walked.

But the purpose of the permanent empire IS the control of oil.

And again, you also have to answer "Why Iraq and not another middle-eastern country"

We've done pretty well at that controlling oil game without needing 300,000 troops invading countries to get it done and could have gone on in that strategy for another decade.

Iraq was chosen because it has the second largest proven reserves in the world, and it's nice sweet crude, too. It looked vulnerable, because it had been isolated and weakened by the sanctions (which also, incidentally, helped to keep most of those reserves safely unpumped and waiting for us to arrive).

All the reasons why the Iraq occupation would turn out badly were conveniently overlooked in focusing on the 'positives'.

How does the second thing you just said not contradict the first thing you just said?

> And again, you also have to answer "Why Iraq and not another middle-eastern country"

Well the PNAC wanted to "finish this job," back in 1992, if you believe their own written accounts. Bill Clinton becoming president kind of tabled their plans for 8 years

Why Iraq? Why not Iraq, when the figure of Saddam made grounds for an invasion so easy? Which other country could serve as a check on Iran, a weight against Russian expansion and a bridge to Central Asian oil reserves in ex-Soviet republics brimming with untapped resources?

Turkey actually is a seriously unreported factor here - for any neocon to claim "we wanted to have a 'model for Muslim democracy for the Middle East' " what do they think Turkey is? Oh, so then you have to amend that and make "an Arab Muslim model..." - almost condescending in its hollow stupidity

the end result in all this, i say again, is more important now - what is the future? we only like "democracies" if they "vote/elect leaders" the way we want them to, to suit our defense/CIA interests (insert the overused word "hegemony" as you see fit).

we don't particularly care for a Shia-dominated Iraq with stronger ties to Iran than ever before, this was not part of the neocon plan. but when al-Sadr called the truce. for the sake of saving face and preventing further civil war we went along with the Shi'ite demands. Iran is getting what it wants out of the long-term here, which is to overshadow Saudi Arabia

and it is very very very interesting to note that the Shia / Sunni dichotomy of religious identification is trumpeting the traditional Persian vs. Arab ethnic identification...now how many neocons even knew the differences between these two?

i mean, for fuck's sake, for a country's (now dominant) political minority to align itself with its nationalistic nemesis for the sake of religious solidarity, furthermore crossing the racial and ethnic dividing lines after just so recently waging an extremely bloody war against them ('80 to '88) ...is really quite something

> trumpeting

TRUMPING not trumpeting

The now dominant religious group in Iraq is the majority group.

I'd argue it isn't so remarkable that a majority sect--recently repressed by a minority leader for the sake of the minority's nationalist aims--has now repositioned itself along lines of religious solidarity.

>The now dominant religious group in Iraq is the majority group. / I'd argue it isn't so remarkable that ...

True, shias are dominant by population but I still think it's notable that the religious difference is transcending the ethnic and nationalistic differences. This just goes to the heart of the question then: whatever kept Iraq together as a nation for all these years, and what can keep it united above religious/sectarian diving lines (that go back more than a millennium)?

Unless you're saying the Shia fought Iran with Saddamite Baathists against their own will, only because they were "oppressed" or "repressed" which I'd argue with

It IS remarkable further still when in the traditional Islamic world, Arabs have looked down at Persians as second-class Muslims

oh goodness i said repressed didn't i lol

? i'm sorry if i'm not getting your point if it's obvious but i think it's interesting if you'd elaborate, HOOS

this thread needs some Iraqi musical comedy:

various reasons

Vic I was embarassed that I'd said "repressed" when I meant "oppressed."

There's not much for me to say in the way of elaboration, but it came out more than a little mangled the first time so I'll give it another go:

You say it's surprising that the numerically superior Shia, after years of oppression at the hands of Saddam the secularist, are aligning themselves with the fellow Shia in Iran against whom they recently fought a war. My point is that (it seems to me) such a thing shouldn't be surprising at all.

Unless you're saying the Shia fought Iran with Saddamite Baathists against their own will, only because they were "oppressed" or "repressed" which I'd argue with

― Vichitravirya_XI, Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:25 AM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is what I was suggesting, yes, but I'm speaking from a position of relative ignorance on the Iran/Iraq War. Please correct me if I'm off here.

My larger point, thought, is that the lines have been redrawn and politically-minded Iraqi Shia have access to power that they lacked before. It seems sensible to me that they'd look to Iran as a model for how to wield that power.

It seems sensible to me that they'd look to Iran as a model for how to wield that power and align themselves accordingly.

Ah, okay Hoos, thx for the clarification. And I'd say it's the other way around - the Iranians are backing up the Iraqi Shia covertly, as it maintains Iranian interests to support the sect that is sympathetic to them. It it enormously advantageous for the Iranians to have their neighboring country also be a Shiite state

I'm no expert on the Iraq/Iran war myself, but the fact that they fought against Iran and retained their nationalistic loyalty - whether coerced or not - is important to note. As far as this switch after the Baathist state, it could not have been anticipated by the warmongering Americans, or else they'd rethink their post-war strategy (d'oh, what post-war startegy?) unless they wanted to strengthen Iran's hand.

I'd say this is "unprecedented" - if not "surprising," - for there is no other Arab Shia-dominated or run state in the entire world. This is the first time it's even happened! That's also why it's remarkable:

from a 5 year old article in the Indian newspaper:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/04/17/stories/2003041705221200.htm

The Arab Shia's date with history is one of the profound consequences of the American war in Iraq. Any representative Government in Baghdad will have to give the lion's share of the political pie to the Shia. Having been kept out of power ever since the formation of Iraq about eight decades ago, they will no longer accept a secondary role.

The emergence of the first Arab state dominated by the Shia would be an event of extraordinary significance in the Gulf. For far too long there has been an unstated notion in the region equating Arabism with Sunnism. That all rulers of the Arab world must be Sunni has been taken for granted until now.

The Arab Shia, who are spread out across the Gulf (and interestingly concentrated in many oil-bearing areas), have faced many historic dilemmas. They are often treated as non-Arabs, and despite being Muslims are at many places merely tolerated as non-Muslims. If they downplay their identity as a separate religious sect and seek assimilation they are confronted with social and political barriers. When the Shia assert their religious identity, they are accused of being divisive and their political loyalty to the state is questioned.

---

By no means are the Iraqi Shia a monolithic group. Nor do they identify themselves purely in terms of religion. Historically, they have adopted a variety of political paths, from Islamism to communism and Baathism. Nor are they mere instruments of Shia Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the Shia stayed loyal to the Iraqi state.

The Iraqi Shia are ethnically Arab and are proud of the fact that Shiaism was well established in Iraq long before it came to be associated with Iran. Until a few decades ago Najaf and Karbala were the centres of Shia learning. As Iraq looks ahead, the big open-ended question is about who will shape the political attitude of the Iraqi Shia. The future of Iraq certainly rests in the hands of its Shia. But it is not clear who can speak in its name.

>that Shiaism was well established in Iraq long before it came to be associated with Iran.

"long ago" here is relative - we're talking about the 7th century vs. the 8th-9th century, yes?

This also reminds me: is anyone else watching "House of Saddam" on HBO this week...it goes into the war with Iran more than we're used to hearing about

Distraction from corporate scandals (Enron, et al) at home
Distraction from recession of '02
Rove wanted an easy issue to win '02 congressional elections on

i've been reading a lot of '02 articles/editorials lately, and these were by far the most popular/widely suspected reasons. paul krugman harped on it a lot, and a couple of national review columnists half-facetiously endorsed it ("come on, mr. president, wag the dog!"). personally, i think it played a much bigger role than people tend to believe nowadays. i think it's a mistake to assume the neocon/PNAC crowd had so much more sway in 2002 than they did during the first bush administration that they were able to singlehandedly push the country into war. what really mattered was that the political climate was different. bush sr. pulled out of iraq in 1991 because it was politically expedient to do so, and bush jr. invaded iraq because it was politically expedient to do so.

>. i think it's a mistake to assume the neocon/PNAC crowd had so much more sway in 2002 than they did during the first bush administration that they were able to singlehandedly push the country into war.

But it's the same people - and they orchestrated the first war then, and this one now. Bush I revolted against their interests by not going to Baghdad, so they coronated his compliant son and resumed the mission

It would have happened regardless of Enron or not, and wasn't just planned to win a congressional election

It's no accident that none of these exciting (mis)adventures were happening before the Soviets finished crumbling themselves to death.

I wouldn't be surprised though if there were American designs on Iraq at least as far back as 1979 (when the Soviets entered Afghania and Tehran fell)

I mean, before the revolution, Iran was the American geostrategic base/client state in the Middle East, thx u Shah

It would have happened regardless of Enron or not, and wasn't just planned to win a congressional election

well, i'd never argue that cheney et al gave a damn what the electorate thought. but i'm not convinced that congress would have been so eager to give bush a green light if popular disgust/outrage on the home front hadn't been so high. these things don't happen in a vacuum. there's a reason the neocons got their way in 2002 where they didn't in 1991, and it's NOT because bush jr is a push-over compared to his dad — virtually everything i've read indicates that the reverse is true.

This also reminds me: is anyone else watching "House of Saddam" on HBO this week...it goes into the war with Iran more than we're used to hearing about

― Vichitravirya_XI, Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:59 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah my understanding of the war basically comes from wikipedia and this movie

And we all remember who we were supporting in that 8 year long war. When Saddam didn't win despite our weaponry, missiles and backing, it's not unreasonable to assume that the Americans wanted to knock him out and counter Iran themselves, making up for their lost presence post-haste

Iraq has been kind of a show within the greater strategy, remember Washington has been for all intents "at war" with Tehran for 3 decades now. Israel has never let us forget since Khomeini

In other words, to repeat myself again, this war in the neocons own definition, has been a loss even with its occupational objectives - Iran is stronger in its eastern AND western spheres of influence, Pakistan is no longer a reliable prostitute, and nu-Iraq's democracy is proving to be a counterproductive chore

> these things don't happen in a vacuum. there's a reason the neocons got their way in 2002 where they didn't in 1991, and it's NOT because bush jr is a push-over compared to his dad — virtually everything i've read indicates that the reverse is true.

well I didn't mean to imply Bush I was less docile than Bush II, but Bush II was apparently ready for Iraq since before his election - according to what I've read. of course the political climate matters, but then you could also bring up 9/11, which is the elephant in this room and much more obvious for a willing and/or distracted public than Enron

but the climate doesn't explain the "why," which is the question you asked when starting this thread. i'm just trying to go into that without, i hope, sounding too conspirational ;)

> it's not unreasonable to assume that the Americans wanted to knock him out and counter Iran themselves

just to clarify but of course, there was a BIG lol-miscalculation here, as we all remember with the word "cakewalk"

>yeah my understanding of the war basically comes from wikipedia and this movie

Ha. Do you remember the club music that is playing in that party scene right when the 1988 segment starts? Right before the guy started shooting at people? That was actually good!

'We do deserts, we don't do mountains.' - C Powell

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Neocon cabal wanted to establish permanent American empire in Middle East 10
To secure the oil supply 3

Wat is the difference?

Americans are naturally warlike and indifferent to global opinion — 6

jesus christ people

NEW NAME

http://washingtonindependent.com/77118/the-iraq-war-by-a-different-name

Hurrah! I wonder what this new name cost us?