The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. In public, the US Administration and others expressed various reasons in support of the act. I do not think the government as a whole was persuaded by any of those public justifications. Nor do I think they impelled the Bush Administration. However, I do think there was a reason that did persuade the government as a whole, or rather two reasons, a short term and a long term reason.
The short term justification (for the US) was that the invasion and subsequent occupation would intimidate the other Arab dictatorships and intimidate Iran. (I also said this may not `be the prime reason', focusing on the Bush Administration. Here I am talking about the US government as a whole and its military. I think this argument did convince the US government and its military.)
The second, long term justification was that the US needed the time to create institutions in Iraq `to protect the losers in a war from the vengeance of the winners'. The implication, which I did not mention, was that when you create such institutions, you also create the conditions that increase a people's material wealth and their feeling of justice.
The argument has been put mostly by neo-conservatives, but uses opinions taken from old time US Democrats and Liberals.
The first part of the argument is that the US policy of the past 40 years in the Middle East has been wrong. The United States, for example, should never have supported the corrupt and backward dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The suggestion is that past US policy should change.
The second part is that the dictatorships of the Middle East are all `failed countries'. That is to say, those with oil sell it and some people in such countries have become rich. But all (or at least all the big dictatorships) have failed to create institutions and industries to increase their people's material wealth by doing anything else than selling resources and they have failed to increase their people's feeling of justice.
The suggestion that comes from this understanding is highly controversial; it is that the United States should, over the next 40 years, try to change the failed countries' cultures enough to make them as safe to the United States as Japan and Germany now are. Moreover, the suggestion is that the only way to do this successfully is to create societies in which people can escape poverty and gain some justice.
Clearly, local powers who fear losing will be against such action even if they are currently allied with the United States. Similarly, opposition will come from those who wish to gain power and who already oppose the United States, such as Al Qaeda.
In the United States, much opposition comes from a belief that the US cannot repeat its successes in Japan and Germany. US conservatives argue that the US government is incompetent. US liberals and Democrats also worry. After all, over the next 20 or 40 years, the US will not only enjoy competent administrations but also suffer incompetent ones — perhaps the incompetent administrations will be run by people against whom the worriers voted.
More US opposition comes from a judgement that a US occupation will have side effects, such as people killed, that more than outweigh any benefits that might accrue.
Other US opposition comes from a belief that every ruling class has a right to choose its own culture, and that if some choose repression, that is their right. These people often consider cultural death to be form of genocide, and are against genocide.
In spite of opposition, much of it from his own political party, US President Bush said on 18 March 2003,
The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace .... Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time.
Regardless whether you think President Bush was being honest or deceitful, he was setting US government policy. The word `liberty', especially among US conservatives means not only the right to speak, assemble, and to carry weapons that can kill a deer or a person, but also economic liberty. Moreover, since it is well known that President Bush is neither communist nor socialist, he must favor some kind of capitalism.
Many would argue that President Bush favors oligopoly capitalism (particularly that of firms owned by his supporters) rather than competitive, free market capitalism. But that is not relevant to this particular issue. To flourish, both require government regulations and the rule of law.
Consequently, it is clear that President Bush set official United States policy in this direction. (This is why it was so important for him to say recently that recent reports of torture by US troops and contractors in Iraq is against the law. He must at least appear consistent. Of course, there are many who say he speaks for appearance only. But regardless of that belief, he reflected officially stated policy. In so far as the US government is not totally corrupt, that is important, since some people in it will try to do what they are officially and publically told to do.)
Thus, regardless whether you think that US President Bush is honest, competent, and wise, or whether you think he is dishonest, incompetent, and foolish, he has specified current policy for the United States.Several questions arise:
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page