An explanation for the Iraq war is perhaps itself now explained.

Overview

When I first heard David Brook's comments as described in the previous post, I did not notice something that really jumped out at me as I was transcribing those comments. Brooks noted that the event on May 12 in honor of The Bug Man was sponsored by what he termed "the old right," the real conservatives, who "are not the Bush administration." Brooks was asked how the "old right" differs ideologically from the Bush administration, and his answer began with the following:

They certainly do not believe in promoting democracy abroad. They do not believe in using armed services abroad. Tom DeLay was violently against using armed forces under Clinton in Bosnia and the Balkans.

Recall that according to Wolfowitless, the Bush administration decided to use WMD as the reason for the war because that was "the one issue that everyone could agree on[.]" That never made any sense to me, for reasons explained below. However, now it is starting to make sense. It seems to me that the explanation of WMD was not need as much to gain the support of the American public as to gain the support of Republicans in Congress.

Why Wolfowitless's explanation did not make sense

Before the war, I saw three possible reasons that could be given for it: 1) WMD; 2) the war on terrorism; and 3) free the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. I was somwhat dismayed to later find out that I was in agreement with Wolfowitless on something. He said in his Vanity Fair interview that "[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

Of these three reasons, I always thought the weakest was WMD. Before the war, there was plenty of evidence that Iraq did not have WMD. More such evidence was being found as the U.N. inspections went forward. As a result, the administration could never successfully sell WMD as a basis for the war to the entire country, much less the entire world. The same largely holds true for a war on Iraq being a necessary part of the war on terror ( this is definitely a long story, but suffice it to say that the "evidence" presented for this reason was mostly crap). Even so, the "war on terror" reason seemed more plausible and defensible. Moreover, with any argument, the objective is not so much to convince people of your position as to discredit your opponent and keep others from accepting his position. Of course, this was attempted through the perjorative use of "freedom hater, "terrorist lover," etc., but with so much evidence to the contrary, that attempt was not as effective as it would have been with a different reason.

Which brings us to the remaing reason given by Wolfowitless and me: free the Iraqi people from the tyranny and criminal treatment of Saddam. There was an abundance of irrefutable evidence of such action by Saddam. And how could anyone argue against such a reason for going to war? Why, to argue against freeing an oppressed people is not only inhumane, it's downright un-American. After all, this is "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." See how much easier it would have been to discredit the opposition? For these reasons, it always seemed to me that far and away the best argument to use to justify the war was freeing the Iraqi people. And yet, the Bush administration decided upon the weakest explanation of all. I could never come up with an understanding of why until now.

But first, let's look at the progression of public explanations for the war...

From WMD to the real reason for the war

As I have noted elsewhere in this blog (especially in Iraq and WMD: Quick, go back and check the spider hole!), the Bush administration stressed over and over that we just had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam and remove the threat to our nation. And then the Bushies tied WMD to terrorists. And when those reasons were not exactly panning out, Bush his own self started talking about another reason for the war. The first mention by Bush of the "liberation" reason that I have found took place on February 26, 2003, in a speech Bush gave to the American Enterprise Institute, where he said

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bush also spoke of liberation in his radio address of March 1, 2003:

The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us.

*******

It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war.

In a televised speech on March 17, 2003 (the "Saddam has 48 hours to leave" speech), Bush said the following:

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

(emphasis added). The night the war started (March 19, 2003), Bush's address to the nation contained more "liberation" language:

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military.

*******

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

*******

We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

(emphasis added). Beside the fact that this noble reason for the war was never discussed until three weeks before the war started, "liberation" still was not the real reason for the war. Bush hinted at the real reason in these same speeches.

And the real reason is...

I hate to disappoint some folks, but I do not think oil was the real reason for the war. I am not saying that oil was not a major consideration, but getting control of oil--and other objectives-- would flow naturally (pun intended) not only from Iraq but potentially from other sources if the real reason for the war worked out.

So what were the hints given by Bush? In his February 26, 2003, speech he said, "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. " (emphasis added). In his March 1, 2003, radio address, he said, "We also stand for the advance of freedom and opportunity and hope." And here's the final clue, from Bush's March 17, 2003, speech:

And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time.

And the real reason is...spread democracy in the Middle East.

Don't believe me? Well, check out "After Iraq," an article by Nicholas Lemann in the February 17, 2003, issue of The New Yorker. I remember hearing a news report about three weeks before the war in which someone said that the people calling the shots (that means the Department of Defense) truly believed that getting rid of Saddam via force would cause democracy to spread throughout the Middle East. My reaction was that these people were truly delusional. I mean around the bend, over the edge in-freaking-sane. I simply did not believe that that could possibly be the reason for going to war.

And now Wolfowitless's reason makes sense.

Look again at what Brooks said about the differences between the "old right" (including DeLay) and the Bush administration. Bush needed the support of the full conservative movement for the war, and the "old right" does not believe in using the military to spread democracy abroad. Also, Bush needed the support of Congress in order to get some sort of approval for war. As I mentioned in Bush and The Bug Man, DeLay controls the House. Without his support, Bush might not have received such overwhelming support from the House. And if the stated reason for the war had been spreading democracy, DeLay might not have been on board (given his vehement opposition to sending troops to Bosnia and the Balkans). So, the reason why WMD was the overwhelming reason given for the war was to make sure that Congress and all of the conservative movement would support the war. And yet we were all told something different. More to the point, we were never really told the true reason.

Gee, what a surprise.